Obviously most of the world sees these countries differently than we do. Does anyone ever care to ask why?

Before you call the pot black take a look at how the US has advanced the causes of dictators across the world, not to mention assassinating democratically elected leaders. In fact, rumor is the US is considering deposing the democractically election president of Iraq.

So, you're a big fan of Putin, Raul Castro et al, eh?  Why am I not surprised...

America (and Israel):  Evil, evil, evil!!!! (did I mention EVIL?!? Oh yeah, and to blame for everything...evil too, if I forgot to mention that!)

Third World Despots and Dictators, no matter how heinous:  Love 'em, can't get enough of 'em, why don't we let 'em all get nuclear weapons.  Hey, why don't I move there?  (hmmm...now THERE'S an idea!)

Hey, Lowell, are you having a bad day?  You are not sounding like yourself.  Seriously.

I did not see Rebecca embracing these guys.  None of us here would.  Just because a person tries to step back and try to see us as others do (something we should all do, both personally and nationally) doesn't mean people should pile on her.

And being frustrated with the horrendous policies and actions of our government doesn't mean she's saying what you say she's saying.  Truthfully, you are sounding a bit right-wing (Hannity, Bill "O'Lielly," et all) as you say these things. And that's a scary thought! :-) I don't neeed to tell you that criticizing US Policy or that of any other nation doesn't render one anti-American or anti- another nation either. 

A discussion and even disagreements within the community can be healthy, though. It's how we do it that matters. 

One more thing: Even John Negraponte argued to the Bush administration that there is no evidence Iran will have nuclear weapons for about 10 years.  But you seem to have joined the "he 'wants' them, so he's guilty" crowd.  Have you been reading too many Condi or Bush-speak press releases? Maybe we should post a photo so we know it's really you. 

Note: For the record I think this Iranian leader is scary and I certainly have nothing good to say about him.  But we can't attack every country with a leader who's scary or doesn't behave the way we want.  A Bush war expanded to Iran will create a gazillion unintended consequences, most of which we can only imagine or have nightmares about--and none of which Bush will have thought about.  And US actions and also neglect of the peace process elsewhere in the middle East have made things very volatile.  Indeed Israel is less, not more, secure because of US actions in Iraq.

I am being sincere that it's great to see you back writing so many excellent articles here again.  I got back from a long break and couldn't believe my eyes when I began seeing your articles again.  A great new year, I thought!  (I am serious.)

And your fact-checking is the best anywhere...so I am a bit mystified why you are perpetuating administration myth on Iran here.  The admin provides flimsy-to-no credible  evidence and the various news agencies seem to be taking it as an assumption.  We've been down that road before, and frankly, Americans should be skeptical.  We're stuck with a jug-headed so-called leader.  And saying that doesn't make me anti-anything except anti-stupid unilateral leaders, wherever and whoever they are.

Finally, people who spend as much time as we do working on constructive change are obviously the opposite of those who care nothing about their country.  People who don't care don't volunteer to work within the system, don't waste the time to blog, don't waste the time having dreams of what we can accomplish together.

I hope that the mess re the re-addition to Iran to the currrent agenda doesn't divide us all.  No matter how we disagree, ultimately we want generally the same things. 

Please forgive the "preaching."

Peace.

to talk to you about this offline.  But for now, see Rebecca's constant Israel bashing at here and here and here and...

but in this case, it sounds like these folks are just looking at potential "business" opportunities. 

I think the business opportunities list is actually a pretty smart mix with the exception of Iran, which is a pretty volatile choice for #2.  A number of these countries are just beginning to enter the global market place, and have some very real potential for investors.  Although I'm a little surprised that Eastern European leaders are completely absent from the list.

In the case of Iran, it is true that Iran could, and definitely should cash in on its current bargaining position.  However, I see a number of risks on the horizon for Iran.  Even in the absence of a military strike on the country, it's likely to have a full blown civil war taking place next door in the very near future.  Not good. 

"...this list is designed to focus on powerful individuals who will be facing particular challenges in the coming year that really make them worth watching...Eurasia Group hopes to draw attention to not only important leaders, but also to the key decisions and inflection points that the firm expects to define global politics in the year 2007."

I don't like these guys any more than I like George Bush, but I do think we need to see the world as a complex place where five years from now you may be posting that one of these villians is a great guy or that one of the great guys is a villian. That's what happened in the case of Saddam. One of the things I hate about the Neocons (not implying you are one, of course) is that they see the world as black or white and we are always white. That's not the way the world is.

Also, I never mentioned Israel here so any inference you made is created totally in your imagination. I'm tired of being accused of liking mass murderers because I see the world as a complex place and don't march in lockstep to today's prescribed version of who is a bad guy and who is a good guy. That's almost like being accused of being a traitor for exercising free speech.

Resume anti-America and anti-Israel bashing now!

PS  Nice try at changing the subject to some sort of "free speech" issue.  You haven't been banned from RK yet, and you won't be just based on your extreme, International ANSWER coalition views.  Oh yeah, and congratulations on not marching in "lockstep."  I, on the other hand, am simply a brainwashed zombie, incapable of coming to my own conclusions on the Putins and Raul Castros of the world.  Must be all those years of studying international relations that have warped my mind. Ha.

and her "R"adical, ir"R"ational, uninfo"R"med views of the world.

Here's the thing about Ahmadinejad: Iran has an unemployment level close to 18% inflation in the 15% range, and life ain't likely to get any easier if U.N. sanctions are put in place.

I think there are real pressures against Ahmadinejad.  Hopefully he is jettisoned in '09 (if not earlier), so that we have a partner that we can actually dance with. (By "jettisoned" I do not mean--"overthrown"--I mean elected through the existing political system, or deposed through the existing political system inside Iran.  I'm not a big fan of the U.S. "regime change" policy, which is boneheaded, too idealistic, and counterproductive.  Case in point: Iraq).

slate of candidates just got their collective butts kicked in Iranian elections.  This guy is not just a menace to the world, he's a menace the Iranian people.  No wonder why, according to Wikpedia:

On December 11, 2006, students disrupted a speech by Ahmadinejad at the Amirkabir University of Technology in Tehran. According to the Iranian Student News Agency, students set fire to photographs of Ahmadinejad and threw firecrackers. The protesters also chanted "death to the dictator".

By the way, Ahmedinejad was only elected President after reformers - supported by 80% or so of the Iranian people - were systematically forbidden from being able to run.

I'm not as sold on Ahmadinejad being a global threat, but he is definitely a threat to the region.

I actually have a grudging respect of his aggressive style of leadership.  He obviously has a much better understanding of the Middle East and the U.S., than the U.S. does of Iran and the Middle East.  If he wanted to cash in right now, I think he could get Iran a pretty good deal without it having to go nuclear (Sadaam is gone, they'll have influence inside Iraq, he could get a light water reactor from the EU).

Unfortunately, for Iran and Ahmadinejad, I think he's probably got a river boat gamblers mentality.  He's made a few gains, so he's going to keep pushing, and pushing until he losses not only his winnings, but the gains of previous generationss. 

The Guardian had a story about this yesterday.

http://www.guardian....

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has suffered a potentially fatal blow to his authority after the country's supreme leader gave an apparent green light for MPs to attack his economic policies.

In an unprecedented rebuke, 150 parliamentarians signed a letter blaming Mr Ahmadinejad for raging inflation and high unemployment and criticising his government's failure to deliver the budget on time. They also condemned him for embarking on a tour of Latin America - from which he returns tomorrow - at a time of mounting crisis.

through his irrational, throwback-to-the-bad-ol'-days state socialist economic policies.  As far as being a threat more broadly, I'd agree with you that Ahmedinejad is major threat to the region - just ask any of the Sunni-led countries! - but also more broadly, if for no other reason than the threat of major instability in the most important oil producing region in the world.

What GWB actually said was that he 'saw Putin's soul'--and given that GWB's powers of observation aren't particularly keen in my book--he did not see through the facade (called vranyoh (lying) in Russian) that all Russian leaders are known to employ on all foreigners--pretty much with success every single time...