Life after the vote count

Denisa Superville of the Herald News called me last week while I was still in Dakar to talk about the hard yet fun times of being a challenger candidate up against a tough incumbent, which I certainly know plenty about! Today's paper featured some of my comments, alongside discussion of this year's race in District 36.

Here are some parts of the article in which I was featured:

"It's just the belief in the democratic process," said George Ajjan, who mounted an unsuccessful campaign in 2004 as the Republican candidate against Congressman Bill Pascrell Jr. "Just as economic monopolies are bad for consumers, political monopolies are bad for the voters. When there is no challenger out there giving a different perspective on the incumbent's record, then the incumbent is free to hide his shortcomings and overemphasize his successes."

Despite the apparent long odds, underdog candidates should never be taken lightly, Ajjan said. "You never know when lightning strikes, you never know when your opponent gets indicted. And if you're well-positioned, you can ride a tidal wave into office."

Ajjan is proof that there is life after the vote count. Although he lost to Pascrell by more than 89,000 votes, he now hosts a popular Web Site, georgeajjan.com, on which he propounds on state and international politics, and his writings have appeared in many publications.

All weekend in Dearborn, people were anxiously asking me when I would be running again. Denisa asked me as well during our interview if I planned on being a candidate again.

My reply:

"I'm sure you'll see my name on a ballot again one of these days..." ;)

continue reading "Life after the vote count..."

The sages of Dearborn

Greetings from Dearborn, Michigan - home of the largest Arab-American community in the United States. Once every four years, the Arab American Institute (AAI) assembles for its largest national conference, to which it invites Presidential candidates to speak to its members. So I am here listening, participating, and observing. Over the next 2 days, I will offer a few more posts on the conference - specifically one about Ron Paul's speech and the opportunity I had to meet him and talk with him at some length, and another about overall impressions and the other candidates, plus my appearance as a panelist discussing blogging and its impact on politics.

But for now, let me report on the highlight of yesterday's portion - a panel on the 2008 Presidential race featuring 3 very experienced and respected pros in the business:

1. John Zogby, brother of AAI founder Jim Zogby and a legendary pollster
2. Peter Fenn, Democratic strategist with hundreds of campaigns under his belt, including Gore and Kerry
3. Ed Rollins, a Republican who ran Reagan's re-election campaign and is responsible for Christie Whitman's win in NJ in 1993 (continued...)

Zogby began with an overview of the current mood of the country, which he identified as about 2/3 of people feeling that we were in a serious crisis, and about equivalent numbers saying the county is on the wrong track.

Unlike 2004's Presidential race, in which very few people were undecided even early on, this election will return to being decided at the political middle, Zogby said.

Then came something interesting: Hurricane Katrina, Zogby suggested, would be as defining a moment as September 11. It is the other side of the 911 coin; whereas, 911 strengthened Americans' faith in government institutions, the disastrous response to Katrina decimated the public's confidence in them. Thus, Zogby says, we could see a "1932 moment" in the 2008 election - a rejection of federalism and centralized government.

On a practical level, however, Zogby says that the Democrats have a slight advantage - namely that they are not Republicans. Bush is a political disaster. His approval rating is higher only than Nixon before he resigned and Truman when he fired Douglas MacArthur. On the other hand, Congress is doing even worse - they are at 11% approval. The Democrats took over and they did not deliver on Iraq, plain and simple, Zogby says. On that note, he postulates that Iraq may not be big issue a year from now, and Republicans could end up running as the "peace party".

But he outlined the staggering growth in the numbers of Hispanic voters, which will be 10.5 to 11% of 145 million voters in 2008, the largest ever. Bush gained in his share of the Hispanic vote between 2000 and 2004, yet in 2006, the Republicans got only 28%. Why? Zogby says, being anti-illegal immigration has been translated as being anti-Hispanic.

He closed with a staggering data point. Next year, a voter will have to be 46 years of age to have ever cast a presidential vote in which a Bush or a Clinton was not on the ballot!

Next came Peter Fenn, who began with a hilarious litany of his bad predictions over the years. He was quite entertaining. Thus, he said, you'd have to had your head examined if you believed you could predict what will happen in 2008.

With that, he launched his analysis by stating that more people believe in ghosts than believe in Iraq succeeding. Thus, 2008 will be won by the "2 Cs": change and confidence. He identified "frontrunneritis", and said that those looking strong right now could easily tumble - there is a domino effect in early states. Fenn spoke of the Democrat field as being comprised of "6 giants" (an exception made for the 135lb Dennis Kucinich) , not the "7 dwarfs" of 1988.

Edwards has got to win Iowa, Fenn bluntly stated. Ditto for Biden and Dodd, it's do or die in Iowa for them. Hillary, he interestingly pointed out, is hampered by her large entourage of secret service, etc. and can't do the 1-on-1 campaigning that Iowan Caucus participants have come to expect.

As for the Republicans, well, he was quite biased and partisan, but all in good fun I suppose. He identified the Republican base sentiment as "none of the above" and called the so-called frontrunners the "3 stooges".

Rudy Giuliani peaked the day he announced, while Mitt Romney is running a brilliant campaign - when he walks into a room, Fenn joked, women go "woah!!!" while men go "damn!!!". Romney will become the candidate of the middle, Fenn suggested - while he is going right now and his flops are "ridiculous", he will go left once he gets the nomination.

Fenn concluded by stating that in this election, the candidates cannot run AGAINST the other - that won't work. People want to vote FOR a candidate, and if that doesn't look likely than third parties could play a major role and we could see something unprecedented happen. "If you thought 1992 was weird..."

Finally, we heard from Ed Rollins. He started by identifying Bush's shortcomings and said that we can't have another failed presidency. There are no young "Bush Republicans" like the many that Ronald Reagan brought along.

As for 2008, he agreed with Fenn that this could be an election unlike any other. He identified a geographical divide in addition to an ideological one in that the GOP is now a "southern party". He too said that Romney was waging a "brilliant campaign" and that Giuliani's frontrunner status is based on his name ID, but that other things will come to light - his campaign may survive them and it may not survive. However, he said that all the Republicans know who Rudy is, but only 30% seem willing to support him.

Rollins then went to Fred Thompson, saying that he had low expectations going in, and he hasn't even met them yet. He identified himself as a Law & Order fan, and noted the similarity between Thompson's debate lines and the closing scenes of each episode, but then added, "No one is writing the script to get Fred Thompson to those end lines."

He also predicted that like the previous 2 elections this will be an extremely close race and that the early primaries might end up producing 2 candidates that the public is not thrilled about because the front-loaded season has not given people enough time to get to know them. In that case, Rollins suggested, someone like Mike Bloomberg could get in.

Two other points on Rollins: he identified Dick Cheney as a friend, but when pressed on that in the questioning, he qualified it by saying, "the man that is Vice President I don't really know anymore," echoing other Cheney old-time pals like Brent Scowcroft.

None of the 3 talked about Ron Paul. I pressed Rollins on this afterward, and he said that Ron Paul is adding tremendous value and he was pleased to see that as a Republican, but that the support he could ever get from the GOP base would top out. I conceded that point, but countered that the open primary states render it meaningless. He reiterated that anything can happen in this cycle.

All in all, an outstanding discussion from 3 experts that was one of the highlights of the conference.

continue reading "The sages of Dearborn..."

Taxi, Sister!

I returned to the US on Thursday night, having spent the previous 4 weeks in Dakar, Senegal filming the latest episode of "Adventures in Exporting". (That's a joke of course, although given some of the stuff I've endured over there, it might not make an uninteresting reality show!)

Actually at the moment I'm writing from Dearborn, Michigan where the Arab American Institute's National Leadership Conference is being held (I got to meet Ron Paul yesterday and I will be a speaker in a panel on blogging later today - and that's enough spoiler for now).

So, this was my first time back in Dakar since the Legislative elections held in the Summer, which, like the Presidential earlier in the year, went off without a hitch. Yes, it's business as usual in Senegal - peace prevails strongly, foreign aid dollars continue to flow in, and people remain poor but somehow optimistic.

Senegal's position presents somewhat of a paradox: endowed with practically no natural resources (unless you count peanuts and mangoes), the country is poor relative to its regional peers like Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc. Yet at the same time, there's little to fight over so the country has managed to cultivate an haven of political stability and free elections amidst a sea of civil wars and brutal conflicts. This has resulted in making Senegal a magnet for expatriate dollars (if you're an NGO or a multinational corporation, wouldn't it make sense to set up your regional HQ in a place where peace and stability reign, and your employees of foreign nationality can easily adapt given the capital's cosmopolitan nature?) On top of that, the elites of Senegal's war-torn neighbors and regional peers have often fled to Dakar, bringing lots of wealth with them. In this sense, Dakar is like a mini-London - prices are obnoxiously high for no good reason. (continued...)

Since the elections were successful, President Abdoulaye Wade (who, as I've said before, is quite the crafty diplomat - how many people can be close politically to both George W. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?) seems to have scored a major win in gaining a grant of nearly $5 billion dollars to help reduce poverty in Senegal over the next 10 years. Now, those familiar with foreign aid (which sounds so lovely) know that the money gets sifted, funneled, channeled, and eventually pocketed by those in the elite, and very little goes to help reduce poverty, as intended. Nonetheless, a massive series of roadworks and capital projects have been undertaken - practically every major thoroughfare in Dakar is being widened and repaved, complete with overpasses and other congestion-reducing features. Now, those of us who regularly drive around the city are quite annoyed that the Corniche, for example, was started over a year ago and is STILL not complete (I've never been a fan of l'Avenue Blaise Diagne - especially after once getting stopped one Sunday afternoon by 3 different cops 3 different times in about half a mile). And the highway connecting Dakar downtown with Pikine and Yoff has been finished in a half-assed manner (how hard is it to spend one more week smoothing out the road and paving it one last time???)

Also, the Islamic summit of 2008 is going to attract a lot of attention to Dakar. Already there are major investments from Saudi, Kuwaiti, and other Arab companies. Not to mention the Chinese, who seem to be following the policy advocated by Thomas Jefferson when it comes to Africa: "Commerce with all. Alliance with none." They are cultivating deep commercial ties in just about all industries, and their low cost, low quality goods are obvious winners with the majority of the Senegalese population, which lives hand-to-mouth. Example: I have a pair of brown loafers that I bought in a department store for about $120. That was in 2001, and I still wear the shoes regularly, especially in my rigorous errands in Dakar where they would easily get scuffed up, dirty, and dull if they weren't already. At one point I decided to buy a pair of new shoes from a street vendor, they were obviously a Chinese-made copy of the latest European model. I bargained the street vendor down to about $16. After one month, I had to toss them in the bin. Completely unusable. So $16 for one month of use, or $120 for six years of use. Do the math. The average poor family in Senegal does the math, and concludes that they need something TODAY, and even if it's of no use tomorrow, they can't invest in something better because their budget simply doesn't allow it.

Chinese cars are the latest example. I'm sure in a few years they will be of reasonable quality, but for now??? You've got to see these clunkers. But like my one-month shoes, they look good when brand new! It has caused difficulty in the car market for me to price a 4 or 5-year-old used American SUV with quite a few miles on it, expecting cash payment in full, for the same price as a brand new Chinese SUV that can be financed through the dealer. But then again, there's a certain class of clients that wouldn't be caught dead driving a Chinese car (much like Japanese cars in the 70s and Korean cars in the 80s, I suppose).

On that topic, the photo shown is a brand new Chinese small car called a "Chery", and it was purchased through a government program spearheaded by Senegal's first lady, under the auspices of the Women's Ministry and the Family Ministry. It's called Taxi Sister, and it is a series of taxis with female chauffeuses, who have been fully trained in self-defense. I did not have the opportunity to ride in one of these taxis, but I will relish the opportunity to do so. It pleases me to see women employed in such a manner in a country like Senegal, because I think it's healthy for the growth of the economy and the work force (government subsidy aside).

More from Senegal in December when I return.

continue reading "Taxi, Sister!..."

Grow some gonads, dude

Shame on me for taking nearly a month to write this up, but the John Randolph Club held its annual meeting in Washington, DC on September 21 and 22, sponsored by the Rockford Institute of Chronicles Magazine fame (the publication of true and traditional American conservatism for which I have had the honor of writing 3 times thus far).

I will cover the event in reverse order, since the highlight was the Iraq War debate during the final banquet that was worth the price of admission for the whole weekend by itself. I spent a bit of time compressing the 80 minute mp3 file of the debate into a 10 minute segment which can be viewed below, with headshots of the speakers. Next time, we simply must have video!

Arguing for immediate withdrawal were "anarcho-communalist" Kirkpatrick Sale (who is trying to get Vermont to secede from the US), immigration activist Peter Brimelow of VDARE fame, and Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com fame.

Arguing for something else (it's unclear what since there wasn't consensus, as you'll discover later) were Chronicles contributing editor R. Cort Kirkwood, Foreign Affairs editor Srdja Trifkovic (whom I had the pleasure to engage in conversation at length during dinner), and author William Hawkins.

Here are the transcriptions of the excerpted parts. (continued...)

Sale: "[the military's establishment]'s affect domestically has been to create an imperial rule, an imperial presidency, protected by military might, informed by secret agencies, coddling to by Congress, and permitted by the Judiciary that is destroying the basic instruments of our Democracy, an institution that the military does not care much for. Just as surely as the Roman Empire destroyed the Roman Republic – that is the primary reasons why the war in Iraq must be ended – that it would be a blow to the empire from which it might not recover, thus starting the process of withdrawing power from the Pentagon and starting the re-righting of the Ship of State that is now badly lopsided."

Kirkwood: "I'm going to argue against this on a moral level. I think there is a moral case to be made for staying. We made a mistake when we went into Iraq. I concede the point that…there was an illegal and unnecessary war that we never should have gone into. That's obvious, everyone understands this…We attacked a sovereign country that posed no threat to us…We've broken a lot of things in Iraq, and we have an obligation to fix those things, because we did it. It doesn't matter whether our leaders were wrong, it matters that they are held to account for what they did, and that they repair they damage that they've done before they leave the country in chaos, and that cannot be accomplished if we leave the country tomorrow.

There's a consequence for our country. If we depart [Iraq] and we leave it a mess, if this country is inhabitable because of what we have done there, where are these people going to go? They're going to come here. And I don't think anybody wants thousands and thousands of Iraqis coming into this country to change it any more than it's already been changed by the immigration that we have been given no choice over…I am living this every day in Harrisonburg, Virginia – we have Iraqis and Kurds and Russians – I wasn't asked if I wanted these people in my community – the Mennonites just put them there!"

Raimondo: "Every minute we stay in Iraq, the threat of war with Iran increases. Look, it's too late to be against the war in Iraq. It is NOT too late to be against the war with Iran. Wars do not respect national boundaries, and neither do the neocons. If we stay in Iraq, by the end of this year we will be at war with Iran.

'We have to stop al-Qaeda' – Well, I have a good way to stop al-Qaeda. Let's get the heck out of Iraq and let the Shia take care of al-Qaeda – they'll do it in very short order. It won't be pretty, but hey, they'll do a lot better job then we're doing right there, right now.

And let's look at the so-called 'moral case', oh the mass slaughter of the Sunnis. Suddenly, these alleged 'dead-enders', the villains of yesteryear, have to be saved by the brave Americans. Well, you know what, we were always at war with East Asia, and now we're at war with Eurasia. I'm getting sick of this, it's making me dizzy. I'm tired of saving the world. Let the Sunnis save themselves…How many Shia did they kill? How many Shia did they repress?…As they sow, so shall they reap. And that is called Justice.

Are we going to colonize Iraq? And are we going to go into Iran? – and Syria, which they're getting ready to do, you may have seen the mysterious Israeli bombing of some alleged nuclear facility. And of course, probably, 2 years after that war is over, we'll hear, 'Oh, it was only a toy factory.' These people have no credibility."

Then there was an electric tit-for-tat that was among the highlights of the weekend:

Srjda Trifkovic (in rebuttal): "'It's not going to be pretty' is the neocon euphemism for genocide."

Raimondo: "Well, I ain't committing that genocide, so I don't feel very guilty about it."

Srjda Trifkovic: "But you don't mind al-Sistani's boys running into Anbar and sorting things out their own way."

Raimondo: "Just like I don't mind Darfur...If millions of people went into the streets of this Imperial City and said 'you know what? We are going to storm the White House, and you are going to get our troops OUT!'"

Srjda Trifkovic: "You know Justin, you belong to a generation that remembers 1968 more vividly than I, so the notion of letting emotions and gonads guide your political action is less intrinsically urgent in my mental mindset, so I would say NO, I will not run to the Mall and demonstrate."

Raimondo: "Well unless you grow some gonads, dude, we are going to have perpetual war, forever!"

Brimelow: "What does it really matter to the Americans if the Iranians rule Iraq? If the Iranians rule Afghanistan? If they eat each other, what does it matter to the Americans, because we're over here, they're over there. Unless we let them come over here, and by the way, Cort we can stop that immediately, there is no reason to have Iraqi immigrants and refugees over here. They can't get at us.

[The British] have massive experience…They had situations like in India, and India is a really interesting case because the relationship between Britain and India was much more profound and far deeper and intimate than anything the Americans have in Iraq, they were there 200 years when they left. They withdrew their troops to the barracks and they just sat there while the Hindus and the Muslims massacred each other. And it was a black day for the British Empire and for Britain's morale, but guess what? We got over it. They lost between a million and 5 million people when the subcontinent was partitioned, but everybody's forgotten about it. And if America leaves Iraq tomorrow, we'll forget about it in 4 or 5 years.

Foreign policy is not a question of emotion, and not a question of morality, it is a question of national interest. So the only question you have to ask yourself in a situation such as Iraq is 'what is the national interest?' and 'what national interest do the Americans have in holding what is essentially a colonial possession?' There is no doubt about – this is the Algerian War rewrote.

Were the Iraqis crossing the border in vast numbers illegally? Was the Iraqi President trying to influence American politics? Were Iraqi immigrants in the US trying to take over the Southwest and kick Americans around and make them speak Arabic? None of this was true of course – we invaded the wrong country!

William Hawkins then gave his pitch, which was rather akin to neoconservative arguments and all about protecting oil. He seemed to view Iran as a direct threat.

When the time for Q&A came around, I asked (and I'm pleased to say the audience applauded):

"Iran does not have missiles capable of reaching the United States, so how are they a threat to the United States? And even if they had a stockpile of nuclear weapons, they idea that they're going to 'hook up' with terrorists is simply then an issue of border security, whether it's airports or…why are we borrowing money from China so that American soldiers are building schools in Iraq rather than inspecting containers coming into the United States and policing our borders from people coming in to do us harm?"

Hawkins replied, with a less-than-confident look on his face:

"America's interests don't extend just to our own borders…the Middle East has a lot of our oil. And it's not just America's problem, every major country is involved in the Middle East or Central Asia – Russia, China, India, France, Germany – they've all had oil color their policies and approach to this region."

That's true, and that's why Japan paid for Gulf War I. Who is paying for this boondoggle? My kids and grandkids, that's who! For all the reasons that Ron Paul enumerated in the most recent debate in Michigan.

Well, this whole thing didn't end there. Hawkins was unhappy and decided to go to FrontPage Magazine to call his fellow debaters traitorous. You can read his entire bizarre rant if you'd so like. Scott Richert, Executive Editor of Chronicles started a thread about this which attracted more than 100 comments. And my fellow paleoconservative Farm Team infielder and enviably prolific blogger Daniel Larison also dissects Hawkins' arguments. You can also hear from Raimondo himself who gets in a few classic zingers.

Now, a couple of quick notes on some of the rest of the program. Taki Theodoracopulos, the co-founder of The American Conservative and more recently the excellent Taki's Top Drawer site, began with a Friday night address that touched on the familiar themes of bashing the neocons foreign policy delusions. In the course of his address, which was about "The Dishonesty of Public Discourse", he referred to Senator Robert Taft as "the last honest man", and also mentioned Hitler's claim to the Sudetenland.

On Saturday morning, the first panel featured Trifkovic and Leon Hadar of the CATO Institute, an Israeli foreign policy analyst who is excellent. John Hackney as a moderator did a great job of shutting down the rant of an angry Copt from Canada named Dmitri (the previous evening he tried to convince me that Arabic was not my ancestors' true language, blah, blah, blah - insert historically irrelevant argument here). Hadar advocated Israel and even Lebanon and Syria joining the European Union, while Trifkovic only wants Turkey to join so that the EU will crumble to pieces. Hadar took issue with Trifkovic praise of secular Turks, but condemnation of "post-modern post-national" secular Israelis, while Trifkovic rebutted that it was simply a matter of pragmatism.

The next panel was about immigration, and it featured Peter Brimelow and David Hartman, who is chairman of the board of directors of The Rockford Institute, chairman of the Lonestar Foundation, and an authority on pro-business taxation. I listened to the arguments, and Hartman clearly knows his stuff when it comes to tax policy - he had some gripes with the fair tax. Now, I agree with critics of the hyper-glib Republican elite who love to remind us that "illegal immigrants will do the jobs Americans don't want", and there is no doubt that if factories were forced to hire legal workers, they would find plenty of Americans do to the work. Brimelow made an interesting observation though - that some companies, scared about the legal pressure, are actually investing in more automation so that they can decrease the need for illegal manpower.

What I am not clear on, and even subsequent to a chat with Hartman after his presentation, is whether the "jobs Americans don't want" applies to manual labor of minimal skill. For example, a roofer or landscaper who hires almost exclusively illegal immigrants to do the manual work for dirt cheap - let's say he charges $1,000 for a given engagement. If the illegal immigrant pool was no longer available, what would happen? Will Americans do the work for $5/hour? Or will the wages have to be increased to $10/hour? In that case, what happens? Does the owner continue to price the job at $1,000 and just make less money for himself? Or do prices go up to match the increased wages?

The other highlight was the talk by Thomas Fleming, Executive Editor of Chronicles and a true scholar whose knowledge of everything from Classics, to European History, to Church History, to American History and much more in between is formidable. He presented the argument he made in Chronicles June issue, about the origin of the term "separation of Church and State". "Were there any orthodox Christians among the Founders?" he asked.

Although, I did find some irony in Fleming's call to "restore Constantinople", when I read this bit about Congressman John Randolph, for whom the conference was named:

"Very early in life I imbibed an absurd prejudice in favor of Mahomedanism and its votaries. The crescent had a tailsmanic effect on my imagination, and I rejoiced in all its triumphs over the cross (which I despised) as I mourned over its defeats; and Mahomet II himself did not more exult than I did, when the crescent was planted on the dome of St. Sophia, and the cathedral of the Constantines was converted into a Turkish mosque."

Now, some have taken the ridiculous position that Randolph, and not Keith Ellison, was the first Muslim Congressman. Wrong. Randolph was a Christian who questioned his beliefs in his younger years (note he says he had an "absurd prejudice" early in life) - but his personal "Road to Damascus" does add a little ironic spice to the paleoconservative palette.

All in all, an outstanding event - I thank Christopher Check for his hard work and Thomas Fleming, Scott Richert, and many more for making me feel so welcome. I look forward to next year!

continue reading "Grow some gonads, dude..."

David Rebovich

I was as shocked as anyone to learn that Rider University Political Science Professor and NJ political guru par excellence, David Rebovich, died suddenly yesterday of a heart attack.

I had the good fortune of meeting Rebovich in person at the studio of News12, as I taped a segment with him and Steve Kornacki for "Power and Politics" in February of 2004, just after I had launched my congressional campaign.

I got there early and sate in the lobby, Rebovich showed up a few minutes later and we sort of recognized one another from our internet photos, but he sat in another room and we didn't get to chatting until a bit later.

I was delighted to learn that he had also attended Johns Hopkins, and in fact had stayed in the Adams-Baker House of AMRII during his freshman year, just like I did! He also told me that he was starting back-court for the JHU Basketball team with none other than former Philadelphia Mayoral candidate Sam Katz!

He encouraged me and seemed genuinely happy to see a young person take the political plunge. The few times I wrote him emails in response to his columns, he always responded in the same positive manner and I regret not having engaged this terrific person with more frequency.

Condolences to the Rebovich family and all of his loved ones. May God rest his soul with the just.
continue reading "David Rebovich..."

The Iranian public is very happy about...

As a follow-up to the last commentary of our S.I.S. (Savvy Iranian Source), which discussed the victory of Akbar Rafsanjani to head the Assembly of Experts, I posed the following questions:

1. What indications has Supreme Leader Khamanei shown that he is interested in war with Israel?
2. Since I suspect the answer to #1 is naught, what is the level of dissatisfaction with the Iranian public about the lack of bellicose actions?
3. What are the chances for the AOE to challenge the Supreme Leader's authority on foreign policy if there is some kind of dramatic development, like an American targeted attack? Could Rafsanjani be drawn by circumstances into a less pragmatic and more confrontational posture resembling that of Ahmadinejad?

Here are his main takeaways:

• There has been no indication whatsoever that Supreme Leader Khamenei wants to go to war with Israel
• When Khamenei saw that Ahmadinejad (through his remarks about Israel) had "delivered the streets" of the developing countries through his actions, he allowed him more leeway to continue
• Today, with the economy not performing according to his promises, Iran's nuclear program dragged before the UN Security Council and a plethora of domestic criticism against him on various fronts, Ahmadinejad's manoeuvrability is severely limited
• Iran does not want an open war with Israel, partly since it knows the limitation of its capabilities, but also since this does not really serve any purpose for Iran
• The Iranian public is very happy about the lack of bellicose action - they don't want another war
• a great many of Iranian decision-makers, who even fill the boards of many state companies, sit in ministries, etc. are veterans of a war that only ended 19 years ago - these individuals know the real impact a conflict has on a country's economy and they've also seen first-hand the horrors of war
• If there is a direct American attack on Iranian soil, then all bets will be off and pragmatism, etc. will no longer be a major component of Iranian policy
• (In the event of a US strike on Iran,) there are likely to be targeted attacks carried out by proxy groups, both against Israel and against US allies in Europe, in addition to US cities themselves - a sizable portion of Iranians living abroad, who have a lot of money and are internationally mobile, would not have qualms in assisting this "defensive" effort

The full S.I.S. response:

(background) The President in Iran does not have the authority to declare war nor does he control the regular Army or the Revolutionary Guards. There may be individuals or groups in both that support him but that does not mean that he commands a major allegiance which would allow him to use the military for his own purposes. Also, the Supreme Leader has used reshuffles in the IRGC and the Army to ensure that people do not remain long enough to establish power bases or to establish alliances with other political actors.

One interesting thing that most people don't know is that the President in Iran doesn't even control the police forces, since the national chief of police is appointed by the Supreme Leader and the law enforcement forces broadly answer to him. This was one of the things that [former President Mohamed] Khatami was trying to change, i.e. to get the police to be accountable to the Interior Ministry rather than to the General Staff of the Armed Forces.

To Question 1:
There has been no indication whatsoever that Supreme Leader Khamenei wants to go to war with Israel. In fact, just a few days after Ahmadinejad first made his remarks about Israel in 2005, Khamenei gathered the main actors of the regime and made a very public speech in which he stated that:

1. Iran's policy vis-à-vis Israel has not changed (i.e. Iran continues to oppose the "oppression of the Palestinian people" and support their demands for their own rights)
2. Iran would "never carry out aggressive acts against any country". Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Leader's comments, which carry much more weight in policy matters in Iran, where not widely reported by the international media.

At the same time, however, Ahmadinejad's remarks do serve some purposes for the system (and for Khamenei himself). The Arab/Muslim street appears to have very much rallied behind these statements and his remarks have thus resulted in considerable pressure against other regimes in the region. Just as an anecdote, in trips to both Libya and Egypt, when speaking to people and telling them that I was from Iran, I was greeted with great enthusiasm and there was always supportive remarks about Ahmadinejad's bravery and his willingness to stand up to the West. On more than one occasion, people told me that "if every leader in the Middle East was like him, we would have no problems" and how they respected the fact that he's a simple man who is not corrupt.

Needless to say, these are simplistic reactions by average Joes (or average Hassans, when talking about the Middle East), but they nonetheless highlight that Iran has through its recent actions managed to get the support of a large portion of the world's "down-trodden" to support its cause. Ahmadinejad's remarks about Israel, which he later adjusted to more of a moral issue regarding occupation, rights, etc., as well as his comments about the Holocaust all served to change the paradigms of the debate. This was not necessarily in Iran's favour when dealing with Western powers or Western audiences, but these were not the main target-groups of Ahmadinejad. When Khamenei saw that Ahmadinejad had "delivered the streets" of the developing countries through his actions, he allowed him more leeway to continue.

In addition, when Ahmadinejad was making these comments (you may have noticed that their frequency has gone down significantly), he was riding high on a hugely important election victory and was in a period where Iran's more aggressive foreign policy (which, again, he does not control but can influence through his actions and bargaining in the consensus process) in fact seemed to be paying dividends. Today, with the economy not performing according to his promises, Iran's nuclear program dragged before the UN Security Council and a plethora of domestic criticism against him on various fronts, his manoeuvrability is severely limited.

On a general level, Iran does not want an open war with Israel, partly since it knows the limitation of its capabilities, but also since this does not really serve any purpose for Iran. The Iran-Israel struggle is a wider strategic one and not one concerned with territory or things of that nature. Also, both sides need the prospect of an external "existential threat" for their respective identity formations and going to an open war would not be valuable to either. I am firmly of the opinion that the Israelis don't want a war either and that the media (as well as a lot of analysts) are blowing this threat out of proportion. Israeli decision-makers are neither stupid nor ignorant of political/military realities. However, they will use the threat of a "nuclear holocaust" to serve their specific needs and purposes and to push for an internationalisation of what is in essence a manufactured crisis.

The proxy wars being fought through the various Palestinian groups and Hezbollah is a much better option for Tehran, since the battleground remains far from Iran and the costs remain very low (the financial support given to these groups is minuscule compared to what a war would cost).

To Question 2:

I would say that the Iranian public is very happy about the lack of bellicose action. They don't want another war.

One of the interesting things that are often missed in the analysis of Iranian behaviour is that a great many of Iranian decision-makers, who even fill the boards of many state companies, sit in ministries, etc. are veterans of a war that only ended 19 years ago. These individuals know the real impact a conflict has on a country's economy and they've also seen first-hand the horrors of war. This does not mean that they will not defend their country in case of an attack – and I am willing to bet that even a lot of the older veterans who now live comfortable lives would join the fight – but that they are not going to pick a fight unnecessarily with anyone. If you read the statements of military commanders in Iran, they never talk about attacking any country, but simply that they will "strike blows to any aggressors" or how they changed their defensive doctrines to deal with modern threats (for example, saying that they would widen the theatre of action to Western capitals through "asymmetric actions", if necessary). But it's all defensive and never offensive.

To Question 3:
If there is a direct American attack on Iranian soil, then all bets will be off and pragmatism, etc. will no longer be a major component of Iranian policy. There will of course be those who will call for restraint or to handle things in a more diplomatic manner, but the greater majority of decision-makers, and the public at large will no longer care for politicking but will want "revenge" and retaliation. Even Rafsanjani could not under those circumstances argue for diplomacy, but would have to fully back retaliatory actions.

Since there is a clear understanding that the Iranian military cannot conventionally match that of the US (especially if they only do surgical strikes and don’t actually invade, which would be a different story altogether), the focus would turn to asymmetric responses. My guess is that the main focus would be in Iraq but also against US-related targets in the city-states around the Persian Gulf, as well as possibly against Saudi Arabia (although I'm a bit sceptical about this one). In addition, there are likely to be targeted attacks carried out by proxy groups, both against Israel and against US allies in Europe, in addition to US cities themselves. I'm pretty sure a sizable portion of Iranians living abroad, who have a lot of money and are internationally mobile, would not have qualms in assisting this "defensive" effort.
continue reading "The Iranian public is very happy about......"

A Tale of 2 NJ Conventions

On September 15, the Passaic County Republicans held their long-awaited convention to determine who the County GOP would officially endorse for the 2008 Presidential primaries. In principle, this was an excellent initiative aimed to increase transparency and decrease bossism. In practice, it was not optimally publicized and thus missed the mark of attempting to attract more outsiders, but devoted Republicans, to get involved with their local towns' GOP campaigns. Turnout was respectable, but consisted of the same reliable faces that attend all the events and fundraisers. So, all in all, the outreach component of the event fell short, and the local media totally bypassed the event, unfortunately.

Nevertheless, I spoke on behalf of Ron Paul (see below). Also speaking were Pat Kramer for Mitt Romney, Jim Marotta for Fred Thompson, and Rich Goldberg for Rudy Giuliani (whose supporters were out in full force - he won a crushing victory).




Also check out speeches by Joe Pennacchio, Jay Webber, Alex DeCroce, County Ch