Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the declared winner of the Iranian election last week, has told Obama to stop interfering with Iran’s affairs. According to Ahmadinejad:

We don’t expect much from British government and other European governments whose records and background are known for everybody and have no dignity but I wonder why Mr. Obama who has come with the slogan of change has fallen into the trap and taken the same route that Bush took and experienced its consequences.

After the jump is a video of Ahmadinejad asking Obama to stop “interfering” and express “regret.”

This comes after President Obama “strongly condemned” the violence that Iranian authorities were using against demonstrators in the streets.

Obama’s response?

Many have been critical of Obama’s neutrality saying that he needs to be stronger with his rhetoric and speak up against the injustice in Iran. Paul Wolfowitz’s Washington Post article, “‘No Comment’ Is Not an Option,” argued that Obama should not “dig in to a neutral posture” and that it was time to “change course.” His argument draws upon a case when Ronald Reagan chose a neutral position but later switched to take a stronger stance.

Wolfowitz argues that it was Reagan’s rhetoric that, in condemning Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos for rigging the election, caused Marcos to step down out of power and leave the country. The problem with comparing the Philippines to Iran, however, is that the U.S. does not have the same relationship with Iran as it did with the Philippines in 1986 and there for cannot assume the same influential role with Iran.

He also argues that George H. W. Bush’s rhetorical support for Yeltsin was the determining factor that dissolved the 1991 Soviet coup, (the actual reason was that the White House was sharing NSA information with Yeltsin that informed him which military officials were a liability).

Wolfowitz is not the only one who believes in the power of words. Many believe now that the rhetorical expression of virtue by the American President is enough to halt armies, tear down walls, and strike fear in our enemies. However, this is an incomplete and completely unrealistic revision of history. The world is too complex to reduce history to mere presidential rhetoric.

Furthermore, its a complete misunderstanding of human behavior, and state behavior for that matter. Tough talk does not bend our opponents to our will but only further exacerbates hostilities. Flexing your muscles doesn’t cause other to cower, rather they flex back. Were we expecting Ahmadinejad to bend simply because Obama said so? Instead, Ahmadinejad has fired back with a demand for an apology.  This is not the way to normalizing relations.

I am not suggesting that America should retain a permanently neutral posture, but we do have to show care for how we posture ourselves.  Our words and actions do have an impact on others, and its not always the impact that we anticipate.

Experts and analysts were prepared for a close election between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi. That didn’t happen; Ahmadinejad won by a landslide, 2 to 1.

Civil unrest has ensued. On Saturday, disappointed and suspicious demonstrators took to the streets. Those protests, supporters of Mousavi, were countered the next day with pro-Ahmadinejad rallies. Divide is growing and Khamenei is now calling for an investigation hoping to quell the unrest.

Here’s the video from that violence:

Again, the count says that Ahmadinejad received more votes, but many are suspicious; not only is the count itself not credible but neither is the speed at which the results came in. Beyond that, even if the results were valid the only thing Ahmadinejad has won is a destabilizing situation.

Mousavi didn’t win the election, but he was able to mobilize a large about of voters who had hopes of reform when it came to Iran’s economy and foreign relations. What his supporters have been able to do is pressure Khamenei to call for an investigation. However, if Mousavi supporters are questioning the transparency of the election, what are they to think of the validity of an investigation into the matter.

Many are now talking about the possibility of a revolution in Iran, though revolutions are incredibly hard to predict. If anything, such civil unrest undermines Iran’s elite. Mousavi was able to mobilize women and young voters, voters who don’s share much in common with Iran’s clerics. Such unrest from Iran’s progressives, televised all over the world, may pressure the regime to normalize foreign relations.

It’s unclear as to what happens next but one thing is for sure, the world is eager to watch how this plays out.

By Ben Luongo
PoHo contributor

Iran’s missile launch on Wednesday is not making President Barack Obama’s diplomatic efforts in the Middle East any easier. This demonstration, however, could be seen as more of a reason for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to embrace the two-state solution.

Netanyahu has made it clear that he sees Iran as a threat.  On Tuesday, after meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, he said:

“[Iran] is a great danger to all of us, to Israel specifically and to the moderate Arab regime, and to America.  Especially if this regime were to arm itself or arm terrorists with nuclear weapons, the consequences could be unimaginable.”

Here’s video of the Israeli leader in Washington, after the jump.

Netanyahu’s anxiety over Iran is understandable especially with President Ahmadinejad’s language towards Israel.  However, Netanyahu has made it clear that he is open to a military response against Iran if he sees it fit.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was right when she warned that Iran’s nuclear ambitions could spark an arms race in the region, but Israel responding with force could turn a cold war hot.

First, it doesn’t look like this launch was an act of aggression.  Ahmadinejad is facing reelection and the success of his campaign depends on him demonstrating his ability to protect Iran from national security threats.  This launch is likely such a demonstration.

Second, of course two nations are going to be increasingly hostile as long as they are constantly threatening each other.  Netanyahu’s talk of resorting to military action against Iran doesn’t deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions; rather such threats are an incentive for hurrying its program.

Obama and Netanyahu’s discussions concerning the need for a two-state solution, however, should have more weight after Iran’s missile launch.  Iran exploits the hostility between Israel and the Palestinians for its own political agenda.  Ending the conflict between the Israel and the Palestinians could cripple Iran’s influence and make it easier to undermine Iran’s nuclear programs.

Reaching a two-state solution is tricky though.  Israel shouldn’t expect a two-state solution on solely its terms; It would most likely have to stop developing on the West Bank and Gaza.  Nonetheless, a two-state solution is necessary for security of both Israel and Palestine, as well as crippling the influence of Iran in the region.