At the governmental level, no serious person doubts that both the mullahs and Ahmadinejad are militantly anti-American, anti-democracy, and anti-Israel/anti-Semitic. “Kissing up” too much to such a regime is fraught with peril and the potential for the old problem of unintended consequences. We don’t have to poke them in the eye every week, but we shouldn’t be blowing them kisses, either. I definitely agree that, if properly managed on the diplomatic front, the Ahmadinejad piece of this puzzle will most likely not be a factor after June. He is not, however, the “last kook standing” within Iran’s political infrastructure and he has the absolute and unquestioned support of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as would any similarly “conservative” successor. If a reform candidate pulls out a victory (which is possible), things would get interesting, but would not change as dramatically as most think.

Face it, despite all the hysteria of “Shiite death cults,” the facts don’t suggest the Iranians are going “wipe Israel from the map.” No, they didn’t have to exercise military power; they were the primary beneficiaries of the Iraq war, expanding their power and influence beyond what anyone dreamed eight years ago. Aside from Israel, they are the strongest power in the Near/Middle East. It’s time to start dealing with it.

Ahmadinejad was elected not on religious motives but because he promised to fix the economy. His economic plans have been an abysmal failure. He’s going to lose his election unless either the reformists split their vote or America somehow gets in the way.

The worst thing we can do right now is rattle sabers at him; it makes him appear more powerful, and it makes even Iranians who don’t like him rally around the flag (like American Democrats right after 9/11).

The second worst thing we can do is appear to be giving in to them, which will make Ahmadinejad take credit for making America back up. That is the potential danger of Obama’s tape; Ahmadinejad will use it to show his strategy is working. Hopefully, a lot of Iranians won’t buy it.

It may be best to simply ignore Ahmadinejad until the June election, than deal with whomever wins (it’s unlikely to be him). But Obama apparently doesn’t want to do that. He seems to feel it’s not enough to simply ignore Ahmadinejad. I think Obama is taking the opportunity of the Iranian New Year to dial down tensions with the Iranian people, so they don’t go into the voting booth in June voting on national security issues (in which case they might vote for Ahmadinejad). If we dial down tensions for a little while, they’ll go into the voting booth concerned more about the economy. And if they vote based on the economy, Ahmadinejad is finished.

I’m no Obama fan, not by a longshot. He may not be doing exactly what I’d do, and there’s some risk in it. But I don’t think it’s crazy.

I’ve traveled extensively throughout the Mideast and Muslim SW Asia including Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Israel, Gaza, and Egypt (not in the military). I can assure you the sentiments expressed by that phrase are accurate for reasons way too complex for this format, but including the social aspects of Islamic religion in the region and the nuances of the social psychology of collective violence. I would suggest anyone interested in genuinely understanding what the worldwide Salafi jihad is all about (including why they “hate our guts”) read Marc Sageman’s “Understanding Terror Networks.” He’s a University of Pennsylvania professor of psychiatry and ethnopolitical conflict, and the book is a great, non-ideological treatment of the phenomenon.

Trust me on this; they hate our guts.

Do you form all your perspectives on foreign relations from travel TV shows? It’s probably a good idea to ignore the fact that the people who run the country and control the media think that Israel and anyone who defends it should be wiped from the map.

“hates our guts?” The last time I heard that was like, third grade.