Recaps and Iran rears it's head

In Israel there is continued discussion about their elections by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post. Peres has selected Binyamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister and he now has to compose a government. This article stresses Cohen’s disapproval with Avigdor Lieberman being a part of that government. Cohen calls him an anti-Arab demoguage and makes the case that Lieberman’s views are dangerous and bad for Israel. He makes the point that despite Israel’s ability to consistently win, winning is not everything but rather losing gracefully is important. He also makes the point that Israel had overall, decided not to let ethnic cleaning be a part of their policy, despite their issues with the Arabs around them because they had suffered that fate themselves. He sites the Israeli statesman Weizmann who said the world will judge Israel by what it does to it’s Arab members. This article looks at the elections in a very liberal perspective. Rather than looking at issues of security, it seems to be more focused on human rights and on values. It is also dealing with the domestic politics of the country and stating that they will have an effect on the international politics of Israel which is also a liberal idea. Frankly, that seems somewhat unlikely because of Israel’s military force but that is a question for another time.

In Zimbabwe, the AP reports that Mugabe is looking forward to new elections soon. He has made the point that they are in an interim government and as such, are not permanently in a unity government. He has stated that this solution is only until new polls are done and a new constitution is made. There is already a dispute between Mugabe and Tsvangirai about many officials that Mugabe has appointed including the central bank governor. Mugabe also spoke against using the South African rand to replace the Zimbabwean dollar since many countries are not willing to accept Zimbabwe’s currency. Tsvangirai wants to get loans from the West to try and get the country on the right track again but many western donors are wary to give until they see that Mugabe is willing to share power with his former rival. Mugabe has also be pressured to release political prisoners as a sign of commitment to the government by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Frankly, it seems like Mugabe is very unlikely to actually give in to these demands. As mentioned before, he has the military power still in his hands and so there is no way that Tsvangirai can actually make Mugabe do anything. Plus, now that Tsvangirai is part of the government, it would be harder for other countries to intervene because they have given legitimacy to the government by having it formed with someone they support. It is now even less likely the international community will take strong steps because now that means hurting one of their allies.

Another issue that is coming up is talking to Iran. The US News and World Report reports that this issue has gotten more complicated because there is an election coming up in Iran between the conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the more moderate former president, Mohammed Khatami. The Obama administration is concerned that speaking to Ahmadinejad will just help him in winning reelection. They are also concerned that speaking right now to Ahmadinejad may create the impression that his way of dealing with the US is the right way. Because of these two issues, the Obama Administration is thinking of waiting until after the June election. Still, the support of nuclear weapons for Iran will likely be supported by Khatami as well. There is also the issue of the response of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei since he fears that speaking with the West may hurt his regime. It seems that this article is mixing both liberal and realist ideas. While it is concerned about the effects of talking to Ahmadinejad because it feels like they might support his ideas and they think they might be a better deal from Khatami, they also acknowledge that he might support the program as well. The argument is essentially that it is seems in the security interest of Iran to have nuclear weapons. This is a more realist argument. That no matter who is in power, there are security issues and they trump all and also that the leader does not matter much because of these concerns force their hand.