Iran: The Paper Tiger

In a recent post on his CNN blog, television commentator Fareed Zakaria suggests that the recent hysteria drummed up by Republicans such as Mitt Romney about Iran, along with concerns over its intentions in the Strait of Hormuz, may be exaggerated. Far from a strong enemy, the Iranian regime may be facing internal strife and economic weakness.

My Gut Reaction: It's about time someone had the guts to confront the panic-mongers.

Analysis: There are signs of conflict within the Iranian government. The recent threats to blockade the Strait of Hormuz are a good example. Although the Vice President of Iran made the threat, a major figure in Iran's Republican Guards denied that there were any plans to do so. This contradiction suggests a rift between different government factions.

Furthermore, Zakaria argues that the current instability in Syria leaves Iran without its closes ally. Zakaria may be overstating this issue, particularly with an increasingly Shia-dominated Iraq next door. However, the weakening of the Syrian regime had definite negative repercussions for Iran, leaving it with less of a capability to threaten Israel, our main ally in the region.

Perhaps the best part of Zakaria's piece is when he debunks the idea that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to the United States. This claim has always struck me as genuinely silly. If a nuclear terrorist bombed the United States, Iran would probably be destroyed nearly instantly, in all likelihood with little chance to really examine whether the country or its government had been involved. Indeed, a nuclear Iran might even stabilize the region in a way, creating a balance of power with the United States and Israel.

Hitchens on Romney

Christopher Hitchens is his usual cutting self in a Slate commentary on Mitt Romney's Mormonism speech.

A must read!

Romney Gives His Spiel

Andrew Sullivan has an interesting commentary about Mitt Romney's new speech regarding his Mormonism. He has some interesting points.

First, although Romney wants to make his Mormonism a non-issue, he still uses a religious rhetoric, which will naturally bring religion into the race as an issue. For instance, in today's speech, he claims, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Uh Mitt, if you want to keep your religion out of it, you shouldn't constantly bring up religion.

Also, as Sullivan correctly points out, Romney does not acknowledge the right not to have a religion, to be an aetheist or a secularist. If people are allowed not to vote for aetheists, then they can not vote for Mormons, either.

I do think that Sullivan goes too easy on Romney. For instance, while Sullivan claims that Mormonism should not be a factor at all, I do think it should be a matter of concern to voters if a candidate is a devout Mormon. Let's face it, Mormonism is Christianity's answer to Scientology (i.e. an outright, easily seen through scam.) If a candidate is willing to swallow that, who knows what else he might swallow. (For more on this, see this Slate article by Jacob Weisburg.)

Furthermore, the religious rhetoric itself disturbs me. Previous candidates who have had to deal with religious intolerance, such as JFK, maintained a steadfastly secular approach to their campaigns. They did not sell themselves as God or the Pope's candidate. NPR had a great segment about this on Morning Edition.