Good article Omar. Christopher Hitchens a month or so ago suggested that Bush meet with unspecified Iranian leaders and that was kicked about here on Lit-Ideas to a considerable degree. But a pretext was needed and there also needed to be some sign that Iran was willing to deal. Just going to talk, a popular approach during the Clinton/Albright administration, wasn't going to do any good; that is, that approach had already been derided by Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and a host of others as a sign of American weakness. But if Mahmud Ahmadinejad were replaced by someone less pugnacious toward the U.S., we could view that as a sign that they seriously wanted a compromise of some sort. The idea that Bush wants war regardless of consequences is of course silly. If there were some way to get Iran to stop building their bomb without warring against them, that would be everyone's first choice I am quite sure. But you can see from the article that Ahmadinejad doesn't take the American threat seriously. And if he doesn't take America seriously, why should he want to deal? As long as we have only Ahmadinejad to deal with, the military option must remain on the table. Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Omar Kusturica Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:05 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Gee whiz,another one of those ignorant people <irony intended> Very good article, John. I would also recommend this one which is quite informative about the intricacies of Iran's internal politics. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD26Ak02.html Of course, none of this is in Lawrence's league. Omar