Articles Cville 10-11

States Cutshall
Articles

1
I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about.
Articles Cville 10-11
States Cutshall
Articles
P1
The Sunday Times: June 12, 2010 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defenses to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s
nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal. In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran,
defense sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of
the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran. To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has
carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are
through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert. “The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over
and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their
own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State
Department.” Sources in Saudi Arabia say it is common knowledge within defence circles in the kingdom that an arrangement is in
place if Israel decides to launch the raid. Despite the tension between the two governments, they share a mutual loathing of the
regime in Tehran and a common fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “We all know this. We will let them [the Israelis] through and
see nothing,” said one. The four main targets for any raid on Iran would be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the
gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. Secondary targets include the lightwater reactor at Bushehr,
which could produce weapons-grade plutonium when complete. The targets lie as far as 1,400 miles (2,250km) from Israel; the outer
limits of their bombers’ range, even with aerial refuelling. An open corridor across northern Saudi Arabia would significantly
shorten the distance. An airstrike would involve multiple waves of bombers, possibly crossing Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and
Iraq. Aircraft attacking Bushehr, on the Gulf coast, could swing beneath Kuwait to strike from the southwest. Passing over Iraq
would require at least tacit agreement to the raid from Washington. So far, the Obama Administration has refused to give its
approval as it pursues a diplomatic solution to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Military analysts say Israel has held back
only because of this failure to secure consensus from America and Arab states. Military analysts doubt that an airstrike
alone would be sufficient to knock out the key nuclear facilities, which are heavily fortified and deep underground or within
mountains. However, if the latest sanctions prove ineffective the pressure from the Israelis on Washington to approve military
action will intensify. Iran vowed to continue enriching uranium after the UN Security Council imposed its toughest sanctions yet in
an effort to halt the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme, which Tehran claims is intended for civil energy purposes only.
President Ahmadinejad has described the UN resolution as “a used handkerchief, which should be thrown in the dustbin”. Israeli
officials refused to comment yesterday on details for a raid on Iran, which the Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has refused to
rule out. Questioned on the option of a Saudi flight path for Israeli bombers, Aharaon Zeevi Farkash, who headed military
intelligence until 2006 and has been involved in war games simulating a strike on Iran, said: “I know that Saudi Arabia is
even more afraid than Israel of an Iranian nuclear capacity.” In 2007 Israel was reported to have used Turkish air space to
attack a suspected nuclear reactor being built by Iran’s main regional ally, Syria. Although Turkey publicly protested against
the “violation” of its air space, it is thought to have turned a blind eye in what many saw as a dry run for a strike on Iran’s far more
substantial — and better-defended — nuclear sites. Israeli intelligence experts say that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are at least as
worried as themselves and the West about an Iranian nuclear arsenal. Israel has sent missile-class warships and at least one
submarine capable of launching a nuclear warhead through the Suez Canal for deployment in the Red Sea within the past
year, as both a warning to Iran and in anticipation of a possible strike. Israeli newspapers reported last year that high-ranking
officials, including the former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have met their Saudi Arabian counterparts to discuss the Iranian issue. It
was also reported that Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, met Saudi intelligence officials last year to gain assurances that Riyadh
would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets violating Saudi airspace during the bombing run. Both governments have denied the reports.

2
I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about.
Articles Cville 10-11
States Cutshall
Articles
P2
MSNBC: June 30, 2010; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37950730/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

An Iranian allegation that Saudi Arabia is allowing Israel to use its territory in preparation for attacking Iran nuclear sites has stirred
a flurry of reports in the Israeli media. The allegation could not be independently confirmed, and the Saudis deny cooperating with
the Israeli military. The Jerusalem Post website on Sunday said reports that the Israeli military had established a base in
Saudi Arabia originated with Iranian and Israeli news outlets. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency and Ha'aretz were among Israeli
media carrying the reports credited to Fars, the semi-official Iranian news agency. The Fars report was also picked up buy
international outlets such as UPI . The reports said the Israeli base is about five miles from Tabuk in northwest Saudi Arabia.
The Islam Times said Israeli airplanes landed at an international airport and Israeli soldiers unloaded military equipment
on June 18 and 19. Saudi officials canceled commercial air traffic and, one traveler told the Islam Times, paid to put up passengers
in nearby four-star hotels to prevent them from expressing anger. Tabuk, the closest Saudi city to Israel, is just south of Jordan, the
Post said. Earlier deal reported The claim follows a report two weeks ago in the London Times Magazine that Saudi Arabia had
given Israel permission to fly through a narrow corridor of airspace in northern Saudi Arabia to shorten the flight time Israeli jets
need to reach Iran. The London Times said that Saudi Arabia had adjusted its missile defense systems to ensure that Israeli
jets are not shot down while passing through Saudi airspace on the way to an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
But Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf  told the London-based Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat that it would be “illogical to allow
the Israeli occupying force, with whom Saudi Arabia has no relations whatsoever, to use its land and airspace,” the Post said.
The report that Israeli forces are being allowed on Saudi territory follows Arab media stories last week that Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan canceled military cooperation agreements with Israel after Israel’s assault on a flotilla of Gaza-bound ships.
The intervention ended in the death of nine Turkish activists. The military agreements would have allowed Israeli jets to fly through
Turkish airspace to Georgia and on to Iran, the Post said. Analysts skeptical  “Obviously there is much fear in the Arab world,
and a clear understanding in Saudi Arabia as well as in Israel that a nuclear Iran is a great threat,” Dr. Ephraim Inbar,
director of the Begin- Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in Ramat Gan, told the Post. However, he told the paper, he doubted
the Saudis would want to get mixed up with an Israeli operation. “They are afraid of Iran and if the Israeli action is not
successful they would be vulnerable to Iranian retaliation,” Inbar told the Post, noting the news first came from Iran. Maybe Iran
is warning the Saudis it knows what's going, he suggested. "It’s also possible that Saudi Arabia let the news out as a warning to
America that if you don’t do something, we will,” he told the Post. But several analysts were skeptical of a Saudi-Israeli alliance on
Iran. “It would be impossible for the Saudis to allow an Israeli attack on Iran,” Shafeeq Ghabra, a Gulf geopolitics expert at
Kuwait University, told the Post. “For Saudi[s] to cooperate with a regime that is occupying Jerusalem, laying siege to Gaza
and building settlements in the West Bank would undermine justice in the way the Saudis see it."

3
I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about.
Articles Cville 10-11
States Cutshall
Articles
P3
Guardian.co.uk; 28 November 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear programme,
according to leaked US diplomatic cables that describe how other Arab allies have secretly agitated for military action
against Tehran. The revelations, in secret memos from US embassies across the Middle East, expose behind-the-scenes pressures in
the scramble to contain the Islamic Republic, which the US, Arab states and Israel suspect is close to acquiring nuclear weapons.
Bombing Iranian nuclear facilities has hitherto been viewed as a desperate last resort that could ignite a far wider war. The Saudi
king was recorded as having "frequently exhorted the US to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons programme", one cable
stated. "He told you [Americans] to cut off the head of the snake," the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir said,
according to a report on Abdullah's meeting with the US general David Petraeus in April 2008. The cables also highlight Israel's
anxiety to preserve its regional nuclear monopoly, its readiness to go it alone against Iran – and its unstinting attempts to influence
American policy. The defence minister, Ehud Barak, estimated in June 2009 that there was a window of "between six and 18 months
from now in which stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons might still be viable". After that, Barak said, "any military
solution would result in unacceptable collateral damage." The leaked US cables also reveal that: Officials
in Jordan and Bahrain have openly called for Iran's nuclear programme to be stopped by any means, including military.
Leaders in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt referred to Iran as "evil", an "existential threat" and a
power that "is going to take us to war". Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, warned in February that if diplomatic
efforts failed, "we risk nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, war prompted by an Israeli strike, or both". Major General
Amos Yadlin, Israeli's military intelligence chief, warned last year: "Israel is not in a position to underestimate Iran and be
surprised like the US was on 11 September 2001." Asked for a response to the statements, state department spokesman PJ
Crowley said today it was US policy not to comment on materials, including classified documents, which may have been leaked.
Iran maintains that its atomic programme is designed to supply power stations, not nuclear warheads. After more than a year of
deadlock and stalling, a fresh round of talks with the five permanent members of the UN security council plus Germany is due to
begin on 5 December. But in a meeting with Italy's foreign minister earlier this year, Gates said time was running out. If Iran were
allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, the US and its allies would face a different world in four to five years, with a nuclear arms
race in the Middle East. King Abdullah had warned the Americans that if Iran developed nuclear weapons "everyone in the
region would do the same, including Saudi Arabia". America is not short of allies in its quest to thwart Iran, though some are
clearly more enthusiastic than the Obama administration for a definitive solution to Iran's nuclear designs. In one cable, a US
diplomat noted how Saudi foreign affairs bureaucrats were moderate in their views on Iran, "but diverge significantly from the more
bellicose advice we have gotten from senior Saudi royals". In a conversation with a US diplomat, King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa
of Bahrain "argued forcefully for taking action to terminate their [Iran's] nuclear programme , by whatever means
necessary. That programme must be stopped. The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it." Zeid
Rifai, then president of the Jordanian senate, told a senior US official: "Bomb Iran, or live with an Iranian bomb. Sanctions,
carrots, incentives won't matter." In talks with US officials, Abu Dhabi crown prince Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed favoured
action against Iran, sooner rather than later. "I believe this guy is going to take us to war ... It's a matter of time. Personally, I
cannot risk it with a guy like [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. He is young and aggressive." In another exchange , a senior
Saudi official warned that Gulf states may develop nuclear weapons of their own, or permit them to be based in their
countries to deter the perceived Iranian threat. No US ally is keener on military action than Israel, and officials there have
repeatedly warned that time is running out. "If the Iranians continue to protect and harden their nuclear sites, it will be more difficult
to target and damage them," the US embassy reported Israeli defence officials as saying in November 2009. There are differing
views within Israel. But the US embassy reported: "The IDF [Israeli Defence Force], however, strikes us as more inclined than ever
to look toward a military strike, whether launched by Israel or by us, as the only way to destroy or even delay Iran's plans."
Preparations for a strike would likely go undetected by Israel's allies or its enemies. The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin
Netanyahu, told US officials in May last yearthat he and the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, agreed that a nuclear Iran
would lead others in the region to develop nuclear weapons, resulting in "the biggest threat to non-proliferation efforts  since
the Cuban missile crisis". The cables also expose frank, even rude, remarks about Iranian leaders, their trustworthiness and tactics
at international meetings. Abdullah told another US diplomat: "The bottom line is that they cannot be trusted." Mubarak told a US
congressman: "Iran is always stirring trouble." Others are learning from what they describe as Iranian deception. "They lie to us, and
we lie to them," said Qatar's prime minister, Hamad bin Jassim Jaber al-Thani.

4
I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about.
Articles Cville 10-11
States Cutshall
Articles
P4
The Christian Science Monitor; September 21, 2010; http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0921/Blockbuster-US-arms-sale-to-
Saudi-Arabia-Will-it-deter-Iran

It is the largest sale of arms that the United States has ever negotiated, and it is aimed squarely at Iran: More than $60 billion
worth of American F-15 fighter jets, Apache helicopters, and missile defense systems will soon be on their way to bolster the
arsenal of Saudi Arabia, the oil-rich country which serves as a major bulwark against Iranian influence in the Middle East.
There is little doubt that the arms sale will win approval in Congress once it is notified by the Obama administration. But whether
this shipment, to be delivered over the course of the next several years, will deter Iranian nuclear ambitions – or merely ratchet up
tensions in the region – remains an open question. Pentagon officials are quick to point out the sale is not simply about Iran: The
deal will also give Saudi Arabia the capability to confront wider threats posed by terrorists, including the ability to move more
quickly to potentially tamp down threats across the border with Yemen, which is sliding ever more deeply into instability. But
though the national security pitfalls facing the Saudis are not one-dimensional, “A motivating factor is clearly the threat posed by
Iran’s missile programs and its nuclear programs,” says Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell. “Saudi Arabia is not going to spend
this kind of money if it feels secure,” adds Anthony Cordesman, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. “These are very serious amounts of money.” This money will have the additional effect of making Saudi
Arabia more dependent on the United States, with systems that the country won’t be able to sustain “for any length of time unless
the US provides supplies and support,” Mr. Cordesman says. As a result, he adds, there is little chance that Saudi Arabia could take
the technology and arms and “suddenly become a rogue state.” As for the question of whether the arms sale move will ratchet up
tensions with Iran, some analysts dismiss the notion that it will have any additional impact in an already fraught relationship with a
country that is already seeking nuclear technology. “Iran has already issued a wide range of threats that aren’t tied to the arms
sale,” Cordesman says. “They keep talking about their capabilities to attack the US, to destroy the US fleet, about creating
graveyards in Iran for US forces.” The arms sale may even give Iran pause, Cordesman says. “It’s obvious when Saudi
Arabia acquires a modern aircraft that Iran can’t cope with … that could have powerful deterrent capabilities.” But those
effects, if they come at all, will take time. “This is not some instant shift in the balance. Americans and Saudis know this,”
Cordesman adds. “And, incidentally, Iranians know this as well.”

5
I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about.
Articles Cville 10-11
States Cutshall
Articles

P5
CBS News; June 14, 2009; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/14/opinion/main5087865.shtml

There is only one conflict in Iran today, to paraphrase Viktor Yushchenko -- and it is between the regime and the people. You
wouldn't know that from watching the news channels on TV in America today, or from reading sites like CNN World, featuring
lonely wire service stories on what's going on in Tehran. But news and images streamed in all day from Facebook and Twitter with
reports from individuals on the ground -- reports of students standing up to the onrushing military and police forces, of rocks and fire
and tear gas, and even of clerics protesting the election's result. Taken together, the scene appears to be the most violent protests
in Iran in decades. Many of these reports are unverified, as everything from within the fog of war tends to be. But
the images and videos coming through are not. And Agence France Press has reported that at least ten leaders of two Iranian
reformist political groups have been arrested. And throughout the day, access to means of communication were restricted. Of course,
the ludicrousness of this situation is that anyone with more than a passing knowledge of Iran knew in advance what the result of this
election had to be: the mullahs determine who wins and who loses, a fact that has nothing to do with the actual votes cast at the
ballot box. So even though the majority of Iran's 84% turnout may have intended a very different outcome, the result isnot so much a
coup as politics as usual. As one Iranian voter told Time magazine through tears of frustration: "They tricked us into this
whole thing. They got us out in droves, only to fool us and credit themselves...I even got five of my family members who had
not voted since the revolution to come out and vote. Shame on me!" Yet this result comes at a moment when the younger
generation in Iran, now grown old enough to rebel with more organization and effect than when they were just upset college
students, is at a turning point. John Podhoretz provides a summation: For more than a decade, we’ve been hearing about the real
Iran-the one whose youth is Westernized, desirous of connection with the United States, and tired of living in a theocracy. It’s
too soon to know whether the protests today in Iran represent the fruition of the ideas about popular sentiment and the possibility of
an uprising. But it is clear that this is a time of testing for the idea that the mullahcracy can be shaken to its foundations by an
aggrieved populace. If it can’t, then the regime will prove itself stronger than some of its most heated critics say it is, and the world
will have to adjust accordingly. If this is Tienanmen II, and the regime crushes it, there will be no easy approach to regime change.
And there will be no pretending any longer that Iran’s regime isn’t a unified, hardline, irridentist, and enormously dangerous one.
Unfortunately, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is not exactly the paradigm-shifting reformist
the Western press has made him out to be. The reason neoconservatives like Daniel Pipes have professed support for the current
president is that Ahmadinejad's extremist statements exposed the blatant radicalism of the Iranian regime, ruled by Spiritual Leader
Ali Hoseini Khameini (the president is merely his flunky in Iran's system of rule). Even if given the presidency, the reform-minded
Mousavi will not have any real impact on nuclear policy or other areas that threaten America's interests in the Middle East. Yet this
does not make him any less important. At the moment, Mousavi has become a symbolic expression of the disenfranchisement of the
populace, his victimhood the fuel for a social uprising that resembles in so many ways the Tiananmen student movement whose
anniversary the world marked just days ago. Supreme Leader Khameini has officially endorsed the Ahmedinejad victory, meaning
that the revolt going on in Iran at this moment is not a revolt within the system, but against it. Mousavi is no longer just another
politician, but he has by his actions become an enemy of the Islamic Republic -- a republic in name only -- and the protesters today
have joined with him in this action. This is not the sort of thing that the ruling authorities will forget or forgive. There will be
consequences, and they will almost assuredly be bloody. Secretary of State Clinton has voiced her concerns about the election result,
while the White House reiterated its offers of dialogue with the Iranian regime. It is a strikingly disturbing thought that President
Obama would do such a thing, in the wake of the events of the past few days -- granting legitimacy to the Mad Hatter of Tehran --
but this is obviously his decision. Let us hope someone will call the president's mind to a higher purpose, to catch hold of a moment
when his support for freedom has the potential to have a very real impact. "Any system is inherently unstable that has no peaceful
means to legitimize its leaders. In such cases, the very repressiveness of the state ultimately drives people to resist it, if necessary, by
force. While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to
take concrete actions to move toward them. We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky
few but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings." Ronald Reagan said it nearly 27 years ago. The world needs to say
it today.

6
I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about.
Articles Cville 10-11
States Cutshall
Articles

P6
The Telegraph; June 13, 2009; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5526721/Iran-elections-revolt-as-crowds-protest-at-Mahmoud-
Ahmadinejads-rigged-victory.html

The capital, Tehran, has seen its most violent street disturbances for a decade as demonstrators protested over Mr
Ahmadinejad's surprise defeat of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the reformist challenger. Mr Mousavi claimed he had been the
victim of "fraud" and "manipulation" after he gained just 33.7 per cent of the vote, compared to Mr Ahmadinejad's 62.6
per cent. In the run-up to the campaign, polls had put both men neck-and-neck, with some suggesting that Mr Ahmadinejad
was in for a shock defeat because of his poor economic performance and aggression to the West. While there has been no proof
of rigging, many Iranians voiced open disbelief that he could have achieved victory by such a wide margin. The prospect of Mr
Ahmadinejad having another four-year term in office is potentially disastrous for US President Barack Obama's efforts to bring Iran
in from its 30-year diplomatic isolation from the West. Washington had hoped that a Mousavi presidency would have led to Iran
coming to the negotiating table over its disputed nuclear programme, currently seen as a major threat to regional peace in the Middle
East. In Tehran, what had been a carnival-like pre-election campaign turned abruptly violent, with thousands of angry and
disappointed Mousavi supporters congregating in the city centre. Defying official orders to stay off the streets, they shouted
"Death to the dictator" and hurled rocks at riot squads. Police dispersed the crowds, beating up both male and female
protesters. But by nightfall there were still sporadic disturbances across the capital, with palls of smoke rising across the skyline
from burning tyres. As darkness fell, victorious Ahmadinejad supporters cruised the streets on motorbikes, shouting victory. On
lookers said they had not seen such disturbances since Iran's student-led uprisings in 1999, and their scale showed the potential for
the showdown to spill over into further challenges to the Islamic establishment. In an attempt to quell the rising political tensions,
Iran's supreme spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, urged the nation to unite behind the president and accept the result, calling
it a "divine assessment". At the same time, the nationwide text messaging system stopped functioning, the mobile telephone network
seemed blocked, and several pro-Mousavi websites were blocked or difficult to access. Text messaging is frequently used by
Iranians – especially young opposition supporters – to spread political news. The interior minister, Sadeq Mahsouli, who supervised
the elections and heads the nation's police forces, warned people not to join any "unauthorised gatherings." But Mr Mousavi, a
former prime minister who came out of retirement to challenge Mr Ahmadinejad's "disgraceful" presidency, had claimed victory the
night before, declaring himself "definitely the winner", and branded the official result an outright fraud. "I'm warning that I won't
surrender to this manipulation," read a statement on his website. "The outcome of what we've seen from the performance of
officials... is nothing but shaking the pillars of the Islamic Republic of Iran's sacred system and governance of lies and dictatorship."
He added that "people won't respect those who take power through fraud." Mr Mousavi's comments will be taken as implicit
criticism of the Mr Khamenei himself, who wields ultimate political authority in Iran and has generally been seen as giving tacit
support to Mr Ahmadinejad, a fellow hardliner. The claims of vote-rigging follow a presidential campaign that was unusually open
by Iranian standards, but also highly acrimonious. During televised presidential debates, Mr Ahmadinejad traded frequent political
punches with his rivals, accusing both them and other senior Iranian politicians of taking bribes. They in turn accused him of lying.
In an unprecedented move last week, Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president whom Mr Ahmadinejad accused of corruption, wrote
to Mr Khamenei complaining that the mudslinging was bringing Iran's political class into disrepute. The turnout was a record 85
percent of Iran's 46.2 million eligible voters. Two other candidates, reformist cleric Mehdi Karoubi, and hardliner Mohsen Rezai,
received fewer than a million votes each. The re-election of Mr Ahmadinejad, a blacksmith's son who has cultivated a populist
approach and espoused strict Islamic codes of dress and behaviour, was welcomed by his political allies abroad. Among the first to
telephone to congratulate him was the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, a fellow scourge of the US. The victory "represents the
feeling and commitment of the Iranian people to building a new world," Mr Chavez said in a statement. But an Israeli official
described the result as very worrying, adding that it could only lead Iran into confrontation with the West - paerticularly over its
nucelar weapons programme. Israel's deputy foreign ministry spokesman, Danny Ayalon, said: "With the results of the election in
Iran, the international community must stop a nuclear Iran and Iranian terror immediately. If there was a shadow of a hope for
change in Iran, the renewed choice of Ahmadinejad expresses more than anything the growing Iranian threat." America's Secretary
of State, Hillary Clinton, said the United States was monitoring the outcome of Iran's election and hoped the results reflected the will
of the Iranian people. Former US president Jimmy Carter said he expected no major change in Iran's policies with Mr Ahmadinejad's
reelection. "I think this election has bought out a lot of opposition to his policies in Iran, and I'm sure he'll listen to those opinions
and hopefully moderate his position," he said. Commentators on the Right share the view that the US may be better off with Mr
Ahmadinejad still in office. "It's not a surprise and I don't think a Mousavi win would have made as big a difference as some people
think," said Richard Perle, the conservative hawk and veteran of several administrations. But on the Left there was a growing
concern that his victory would make it much more difficult for Mr Obama to persuade Congressional sceptics that dialogue with Iran
was worthwhile.

7
I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about.