Eli, could you comment on this tweet I noticed the other day?

LilyMazahery @EliLake State Dept knew Iranians would interfere with SMS and cell phone technology way ahead of time, yet nothing to prevent it. Thoughts?

Did anything come of that tip?

i think we're overreacting cuz i called iran yesterday and he said all is well.

Thanks to both. That was helpful for me in gaining more perspective.

I haven't watched this yet, but Reza, your hair looks good.
One of the first things I ever watched here was a Lake/Aslan dialogue, I think the one where they shouted at each other about the Israel lobby, and I was hoping they would bring these two on again to discuss the Iranian elections. I hope there will be shouting, too. Please let there be shouting.

Hilarious Eli reaction to Reza assertion that Irans elections are the fairest and the middle east
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/205...6:37&out=36:47 Which may well be true And Elis reaction to how little that says, priceless

When Eli and Reza are arguing over which political system provides greater choices, Reza is saying that at the final level, where you have 2 American candidates and 6 Iranian candidates, the range of policies offered by the candidates in Iran is broader than the range of policies offered in America. Eli's point is that voters' choices are limited by the Guardian Council, while in America, anybody, including porn stars and communists, can run for president, and thus the American system provides more choices. Both points are true. In America, all options are theoretically available, but the real debate comes down to two parties which offer platforms which are closer together than those in other countries because they compete for the middle of the electorate. In Iran, the candidates are vetted, so not all options are available, but the variety of policies offered by potentially winning candidates in the presidential election may be greater than in the American case. Think of it as deviation from the mean. Reza is saying there is more deviation from the mean in policy options in Iran than in the US, at least amongst major presidential contenders. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theory

How do you not like Reza Aslan? Knowing few of the facts about Iran, I could only judge by the body language.

Very interesting Diavlog. Reza provides some very good analysis and is clearly emotionally involved in the process (as is undersandable). Eli is a good match in that he is a bit more subdued. Reza's whole rant about the Iranian people having so much more choice in candiates than the American people ,however, is absurd. It amazes me that Reza doesn't remember the fact that the reason the US doesn't have as much a "diversity" in the final election is because the american people have already vetted them by voting in the primary process. Dennis Kucinich, and Pat Buchannan types are weeded out by the primary process in the major parties by the voters. Not to mention that there are always lots of small parties who run and get on the ballots if the people support them enough ie Raph Nader had quite an effect in 2000.

JonIrenicus - just to debunk your hissy fit the other day, compare Lake's comments on Obama's response to the Iran events with Continetti's. I have profound disagreements with Lake, but he doesn't descend into the depths of partisan assholery here - rather he maintains a good dialogue and makes assertions that have some basis in fact and/or reason.

the candidates are not really vetted by the american people, they are vetted by the Parties and the special interests that run them, which provide access to the media. added to this, is that even if a third party candidate manages to gain support they are systematically excluded from debates to further strengthen the hold of the two major parties. not that i would trade them in for iranian elections (ok, maybe that 2000 travesty which was worse than an election in iran since it was decided by 5 unelected people)

Both from Reza and Eli's discussion, and elsewhere, I've gathered that the protests in Iran are largely an extension of a political struggle between Rafsanjani (through Mousavi and his supporters) and Ahmadinejad (through the Revolutionary Guard and their Basij militiamen, with Khamenei's backing). So while Ahmadinejad actually threatens the Islamic Republic's clerical leadership by populating the government with Revolutionary Guard allies, the Supreme Leader Khamenei has thusfar been entirely supportive of Ahmadinejad in his struggle against Rafsanjani and the reformers. Reza, you seem encouraged by the signs that Rafsanjani is confronting Khamenei by conveneing the Assembly of Experts in Qom, but doesn't this just suggest that the reformers are facing the wrong enemy? We've heard news this afternoon that Rafsanjani's son and daughter have recently been arrested by the Revolutionary Guard. While Mousavi and his supporters have continued to protest, it looks like Ahmadinejad is consolidating power. In other words, as the cycle of protests you describe grows, and as Khamenei is weakened, Iran moves closer and closer to dictatorship. At their peril, Rafsanjani, Mousavi, and the reformers look to be tearing down the one remaining obstacle between Ahmadinejad and

not that i would trade them in for iranian elections (ok, maybe that 2000 travesty which was worse than an election in iran since it was decided by 5 unelected people)

There are still people in this world who believe Paul Krugman?

Quoting gwlaw99: ...Pat Buchannan types are weeded out by the primary process in the major parties by the voters...

Pat Buchanan for grand Ayatollah '09.

no i believe my own eyes and ears. i have no idea what krugman has to say on the matter. what, exactly, do you think happened?

Quoting kidneystones: Dan Froomkin is fired for failing to curb his criticism of the White House. Froomkin is young, clearly intelligent, and not easily cowed. Glenn Greenwald tries to make the case that the neo-cons at the Wapo had Froomkin fired. For what? Making Obama look bad?

As usual, anyone who accepts the kid's spin on matters might as well enter a hall of mirrors when looking to comb his or her hair. Better to read Greenwald's piece and the Politico piece he links to and judge for yourself. Especially if you know anything about the WaPo's editorial slant in recent years, it's more likely that their hidebound love for not rocking the establishment boat lies behind their firing of Froomkin. It's also plausible that Krauthammer was able to pull some strings on this. It cannot be the case that the WaPo does not want opinionators who try to "make Obama look bad," as a review of their roster makes plain.

I prefer the older, less friendly Eli. Any suggestion that there are fair elections in Iran is simply laughable. Only 42 female candidates bothered to try to stand for president. All, predictably, were deemed

Haha... what a goober. I know where Reza is coming from though, Eli too.

The Baha'is are the second largest religious minority in Iran, yet they are terrorized and denied basic human rights. Lets hope that current events pushes Iran in a more tolerant direction.

Quoting emmanuel9: The Baha'is are the second largest religious minority in Iran, yet they are terrorized and denied basic human rights. Lets hope that current events pushes Iran in a more tolerant direction.

That would be a pleasant surprise. Iranian Baha'is are treated even worse than Iranian Jews.

Reza may be an expert on Iran, but he sure could brush up on the American political system. The fact of the matter is we do have a wide range of policy diversity in our Presidential elections. The notion that their is little difference between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, or John Edwards and Rudy Guiliani is simply blind to the facts. We do have a vetting system, but it's a democratic one. It's called the primaries. Because we have a presidential election system that requires 270 electoral votes and no run-off system, parties are forced to create as wide of coalition as possible to win the White House. If America adopted a system like France, with a run-off, the fact is people like Kucinich or Paul would win meaningful votes, but they still wouldn't be the first pick of the American people. As to Reza's assertion that a communist would never be allowed to debate, here's a member to the CPUSA on CNN this very week. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCqGQBxXUrQ Frankly, it seems to me Reza is viewing his home country through as rose-colored lens as possible. He is aware that it is cultured

Except for Kucinich and Paul they were all running hard to be at the center of their respective parties. In the end we really only where ever going to get two platforms to choose from. On the whole I think that's because things in America are going pretty well and we have consensus on the big issues. You go back to 1860 and you've got plenty of choices but things aren't so hot. Iran today is that same boat. You want to live in a country where elections have consequences, but you don't want the consequences to be so great.

Quoting harkin: There are still people in this world who believe Paul Krugman?

Several more than believe harkin (or AemJeff.) Doesn't it bother you even a little bit that the only things you seem to find interesting are those that confirm what you already believe? The right-wing meme machine probably isn't a good source for ideas about the world that are also true.

Quoting AemJeff: Several more than believe harkin (or AemJeff.) Doesn't it bother you even a little bit that the only things you seem to find interesting are those that confirm what you already believe? The right-wing meme machine probably isn't a good source for ideas about the world that are also true.

Even if one stipulates that American Thinker piece is correct (too tedious for me to read, but let's say he's right for the sake of argument), it's interesting to observe how eager the ideological enemies of Krugman are to seize upon a single error* to conclude "he should never be listened to." By that standard, I wonder what credibility harkin assigns to, say, Hugh Hewitt and Bill Kristol. Or for that matter, anybody. ==========
* Standing by for a furiously typed link to some post somewhere quote-mining Krugman to "prove" that he advocated creating the housing bubble, in 5..., 4..., 3...

yeah right reza, iranians have more options in their choice of presidential candidates than the US.
and i wonder how reza feels about obama's lack of interest in "democracy promotion" in the region (in his cairo speech and his "see no evil, speak no evil" approach to iran?)

Quoting johnmarzan: yeah right reza, iranians have more options in their choice of presidential candidates than the US.

and i wonder how reza feels about obama's lack of interest in "democracy promotion" in the region (in his cairo speech and his "see no evil, speak no evil" approach to iran?)

I'm pretty sure you'll stop wondering about how Reza, or other Iranians, feel once you realize it's very inconvenient for your partisan ranting.

Quoting pampl: I'm pretty sure you'll stop wondering about how Reza, or other Iranians, feel once you realize it's very inconvenient for your partisan ranting.

he did mention in his previous bhtv podcast that his one beef with the obama admin was their lack of interest in promoting democracy in the mideast because bush and the neocons were greatly associated with the policy. in fact, IIRC, it was the only thing reza praised the bush admin for.

Eli Lake, please stop with your orientalist one-upman-shippery (?) and let the Iranaian speak! This turned into 49 minutes of Eli Lake trying to prove that HE is the expert on Iran. What a waste of a good discussion!

Incredible. Reza Aslan has some interesting points, but Eli Lake seems intent on interrupting him all the time just to prove how clever he is. Why not let Reza speak so we can hear from someone who really seems to know what he's talking about? It's not a debating competition, you fool! And if it were, you'd lose!