Keller's "analysis" is pretty much the same as you'd get from an average American on the street who has no real idea what is going on over in Iran. The idea that "winning" the election would strengthen his hand is the most overly simplistic analysis you could imagine because it is assumed that "winning" = "strength." However, anyone who actually has an understanding regarding what is going on over there can tell you that even if the results hold his position will be weakened. When you are dealing with extremely repressive regimes like exist in Iran, any significant show of defiance that cannot be quickly and efficiently squashed undermines the leadership. We take protests for granted in America because we have a relatively large amount of freedom to protest whatever we wish whenever we wish. In country's like Iran, the mere act of protesting is a significant act that evidences such a large level of unrest that people are willing to risk the violent reprisals of the military to get their message out. That is a phenomenal thing, and the longer it goes on the more the President will be weakened and his political enemies who hold positions in the government will be emboldened to resist his policies.
I find your post more insightful than most things I've read in the "New York Times." It's scary to think that much of our news over the years has been delivered to us by no-talent, not very intelligent hacks. I can't wait for the time when the mainstream media devolves from obsolescence to obsolete.
06/15/09
06/15/09
they were wrong then
they are wrong now
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
agree 100%.
06/15/09
I find your post more insightful than most things I've read in the "New York Times." It's scary to think that much of our news over the years has been delivered to us by no-talent, not very intelligent hacks. I can't wait for the time when the mainstream media devolves from obsolescence to obsolete.
06/15/09
06/15/09