The right thing to do is a double edged sword. Obviously, from the Mullahs point of view the right thing would be to stay the heck out of their business. And obviously from the protestors point of view it's HELP! It's a no win situation.

If the UN weren't the hypocritical, self-serving, cronyist institution it is, it would be their job to do something about it. But, alas, pigs don't fly.

First of all, if I were an Iranian dissident, I wouldn't be putting much stock in anything Colin Powell says to me.

I have been ruminating over this for days. I just don't see a good solution to this problem. Like you said, either way we lose in the court of public opinion. Right about now, my tired and crappy response is, screw 'em, screw all of 'em, pull our troops and our money out of everywhere but England and Spain and Australia and Poland.

I know that's silly, really. But sometimes I wish it could be, just to stun the world into silence for a minute.

BTW - I would *kill* to be able to attend the Wretched Hive of Scum and Birthday party. Unfortunately, my bank account won't stand for it. But we'll be wishing you a good one from lovely Georgia all the same! :D

Kelley,

Not a bad idea at all. Pull the hell outta there and let them duke it out. The Iranians, the Palestinians, the Israelis, etal.

The Mullah's have not gotten anywhere near rough enough to justify our sending troups in. Even if we had the troops to send at the moment.

Neither the protestors nor the reformers in the government are strong enough to stand against the Iranian army even if we armed them. so our best bet is to express support for their cause, but officially maintain our distance. Covert assistance should probably be limited to facilitating world exposure and helping spread propaganda within Iran.

It's not flashy, and it won't work quickly, but it will probably serve them better long term. (where them is both the protesters, and the generic 'Iranian people')

I don't think the UN should do anything about this other than provide a stage. I think the UN best serves its purpose by providing a stage, not by trying to do anything. And I really don't like the UN deciding to overthrow a member government.

Michael,

The world exposure and spreading of propaganda from within was tried in Cuba and the results were a tightening of repression as 75 imprisoned dissidents can attest to. That having happened, there is now a precedent for other repressive states to follow.

My comment on the UN was not for it to topple the government, but to, in the least, impose some kind of sanctions, etc... The UN has to something for their money other than posturing and pointing fingers...

So, if we encourage them and they fail, and they receive terrible reprisals, their blood would be on our hands? If we know that we will be damned and accused of "murder by encouragement" no matter what we do, why not we just do it? If we don't encourage them we'll be accused of "murder by apathy" anyway. In the end I think we'd rather be accused of "murder by doing the right thing."

I understand that at least one element of the Iranian resistance has warned the west in general and the US in particular to butt the hell out of their fight against the mullah gang. Lest we discredit them in the eyes of the Iranian nation as a whole, and cause the government to tighten its grip. Sound advice.

Powell reminds me more than a little of John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower's secretary of state in the 1950s. A pontificating blowhard. More sound than substance. If the US government had common sense, they named Dulles International Airport after his brother, Allen Dulles, who was longtime head of the CIA and had a craftier intellect than his brother, the international lawyer.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Doing nothing seems to be the most logical. You're already committed to rebuilding Iraq, another war will take troops away and Iraq will probably just be left high and dry. Also, how much more can your fragile little economy take?

All Middle Eastern countries have had trouble keeping other nations out of their internal affairs since the Treaty of Carlowitz in 1698. This marks the first time that any Arab nation formally recognized through a treaty that they lost a war to a western (European) nation. This had to be a most humiliating experience for a people who experienced only triumph and expansion for 500 consecutive years.

Currently, the entire Middle East is a big power vacuum unable to solve any of its own internal problems where every single nation, except Israel, requires constant conflict deflecting the attention of its citizenry outward away from its own domestic issues. Without this, every Middle Eastern nation will soon face its own Iranian equivalent.

Perhaps this is good since it may force Arab nations and Iran to finally address the concerns of its citizens. But along with that comes more instability that terrorists require to survive. If the Iran regime finally collapses, will terrorists have a stronger hand in the end? Or, will they enjoy only a temporarily advantage?

A new Iranian government cannot ignore its citizens' demands without itself being overthrown. This will probably lead to long-term stability in Iran. But what about the Arabs? Arabs' historical tendency is to blame foreigners for anything. Today it is the American imperialists. One-half century ago, it was the British and French imperialists. They also have a serious problem with the Jews in Israel these days, too. I repeatedly see on the tele one or another Arab saying the remedy for Middle East peace is solving the Palestinian problem or removing Israel from the Levant. To which I say buncombe.

This anti-western attitude resulted from repeated brainwashing by corrupt, Arab governments who redirected their citizens' internal dissatisfaction outwardly blaming America and Israel for all their inconveniences. Arabs simply blame others for everything. They do not see their own Middle East as a power vacuum created internally by repeated terrible, vacuous, corrupt governments who are incapable of keeping invaders out.

The discovery of oil only accelerated this trend. The fabulous wealth created by the drilling for oil created many problems for Middle Eastern Arab governments. Western intervention accelerated after the discovery of oil in 1917. Arabs’ political corruption increased with the granting of oil concessions in the 1920’s. The League of Nations mandate system prevented any one single Arab nation from being the hegemonic power in the Middle East illustrating how little Europeans trusted Arabs to govern themselves. Current events justify their original concerns. This creative mapping may have prevented Saddam Hussein from being the hegemonic monster he wished to become.

Now Arab nations want us out of the Middle East immediately thereby allowing Arab governments free rein to sponsor terrorism. Iran, not even an Arab nation, meddles internally with an Arab nation, Iraq, undermining America’s establishing a post-war Iraqi government. Iran wants a regime in Iraq to its liking while demanding that America stay out of its own internal affairs. This is just too rich.

However, Arab governments and Iran forget one very important historical detail. Middle Eastern nations have always failed at keeping anybody out of the Middle East for the past 300 years. American occupation of Iraq is no different. This present situation they dislike so much is their own Frankenstein monster. Not only can they not handle their own internal affairs, they also cannot handle the problems they attempted to create for the United States. Now that Arab incompetence has come full circle, they appropriately have only the same option that put them in their current straits: terrorism. Terrorism is why we are in the Middle East and why we will not leave until the terrorism issue is finally resolved to the liking or the disliking of all parties in the Middle East. You see the Arabs simply cannot kick us out. It’s that power vacuum thing, you know.