Iran Special: Did Parliament "Push to Oust Ahmadinejad"?

There are therefore two explanations to the Khamenei intervention on behalf of the President.

1. He wanted to avoid major embarassment for Ahmadinejad, who could have become the first president since the 1980s to be called into question by Parliament for his conduct, and left standing, but smarting and humiliated in front of the nation, which could have ostensibly followed the procedure live.

2. He was wary of the fact that Parliament could have voted a no-confidence motion which would have forced him to either confirm or throw out the impeachment.

It has to be reiterated that the "istizah" procedure of Parliament, to which Ahmadinejad was summoned, does not necessarily lead to impeachment.

Click to read more ...

Iraq: US Challenging Deal for New Government? (Dagher)

Last Friday, news emerged of a possible agreement amongst most Iraqi Shi'a parties, including that of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, for a national government in Baghdad, seven months after Iraq's elections. Under the arrangement, Nuri al-Maliki would continue as Prime Minister.

Not so fast, at least for the US Ambassador to Baghdad. Six years ago, Washington entered into a war with Sadr and his forces, even seeking the cleric's assassination. Looks like those animosities may not have eased enough for American acceptance of a confirmed government for Iraq, especially when the "Iran" spectre is invoked.

Click to read more ...

Afghanistan Special: Bob Woodward, The US Military, and the White House's Crocodile Tears (Lucas)

I'm sorry but this is getting ridiculous. 

The Washington Post, in its continuing push of its reporter Bob Woodward's Obama Wars, publishes the first of three extracts this morning, "Military Thwarted President Seeking Choice in Afghanistan".

At some point someone has to expose the exposure and reveal the costly game that is going on here. Bob Woodward is not going to do it, because to do so would cut off his access and his books. President Obama's advisors are not going to do it because it would reveal weakness beyond the "wise compromise" they wave so furiously in Woodward's account. And the US military certainly are not going to do it because it would pull back the curtain on their triumph over the White House and the person who is supposedly their Commander-in-Chief.

I am against the US military intervention in Afghanistan. But, if it is going to happen, I would at least appreciate that it be done honestly and without these crocodile tears. I would like a President who says forthrightly, "This is what we are doing," rather than one whose advisors, over the following weeks and months, whisper to their favoured correspondent, "We didn't really like this but the military was so mean. What could we do?" 

You want sympathy, boys? Go find Oprah.

And Mr President: come out from behind your whispering staff. Face your military. Command or admit that you no longer command.

Click to read more ...