Why the Protests in Iran

The New York Times: An article praising the Obama policy on Iran and rebuking Bush 43, the usual Liberal nonsense from the NYT but while doing this does get to the heart of the protests in Iran, the NYT writes the following based on the views of Iranians talking to pollsters, " it was about Iran and its own problems, notably a highly disputable vote count and the performance of its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. " Thus it can be argued that this powder keg was set to explode if either Obama or McCain had won in 2008. The point the Liberal NYT misses is the simple fact that if the religious elite keep power after a bloodbath in Tehran the Obama policy is history. There are Congressional Elections in 2010, you can see adverts of Obama if he still tries to talk to Iran being compared to Jimmy Carter or worse Neville Chamberlain, it will argue that Obama will sell out Israel, that his own arrogance could be a problem, Obama sometimes gives the impression that he still thinks he is back at Harvard in a Law Seminar, International Politics is not about finer aspects of the Law, his mistake over Gitmo shows that, its about power and winning for your side, on the word stage and at home. Thus Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire, the Liberals in the USA went bonkers, they could see beyond their own narrow political ideology, Obama is stuck in that, if he thinks he can talk to Iran after the Government has killed its own people he will lose Congress in 2010 and the Presidency in 2012.