The election is over in Iran ,, but the result is disputed by the Moussavi and his distraught supporters. This was an election that pitted the younger middle and upper class voters in the capital Teheran against the rural poorer class who strongly identify with Ahmadinejad, who had done much to improve their conditions in his first term. Mir Hussein Moussavi, a prime minister in the 80's and the chisf challenger, had been out of the political spotlight for the past twenty years, and it was only after the Guardian Council approved the four candidates for the presidency, that the focus and the campaign for his election began. In the meantime, Ahmadinejad, not only was president for the past four years, but he had built a reputation as the defender of the Islamic Republic. His criticism of the United States (under Bush) and of Israel had won him a great following, and the pursuit of Iran's nuclear programme amidst the condemnation of the Western world had struck a nationalistic chord amongst the people. Ahmadinejad, also travelled all over the country, promising further economic support for the poor and vowing not to give up on Iran's nuclear programme, a source of great pride for Iranians. A poll conducted by the non-profit organisation, Terror Free Tomorrow:The Centre for Public Opinion and the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, from May11 to 20, showed Ahmadinejad with a 2 to 1 lead. This is more than the announced result. In this poll Ahmadinejad was well ahead all of Iran's 30 provinces.

        Pre-election coverage by western media, especially CNN and the BBC, focused on the capital Teheran and the large crowd of Moussavi's supporters. They neglected to cover the provinces where Ahmadinejad was very popular. This gave a skewed view of the election and created the expectation of an upset. When this did not materialise, it was easy to shout "fraud', and because Ahmadinejad had been demonised in the western media coverage, it was easy to accept, too easy. It is true that the young and educated want more freedoms...to go on the inter-net, twitter, you-tube etc.They want to be free to dress and party etc. without the restrictions of the religious police. They are fooling themselves in thinking that a victory by Moussavi will get them these things. Who-ever is president is a puppet of the Guardian Council. He dares not go against the wishes or tyhe dictates of the Ayotallah Ali Khamenei, whose powers is unquestionable. 

      There is no doubt that Ahmadinejad won the election, and the result has been deemed as a "divine assessment", by the Ayotallah. That is it!

      The response from the American administration is muted. This is good. You do not want to further alienate the Ayotallah. You have to talk with his mouth-piece,Ahmadinejad. So let the talks proceed, on the nuclear programme and also on matters of Afghanistan and the drug trade pouring across the Iranian border with which the Iranians want American help; on the Palestinian issue and on Hizbollah and Hamas and on so many other issues that are important to both countries.  

          

 

  

      The Ref-Cons (notably Raitt and Baird) are running true to form and are joined by the Pequistes ( "call me Pauline"), and their Ottawa echo, the Blocquistes, the desperately benighted Mulcair of the N.D.P. and the disappearing Republicans and their "poseurs", Newt and Rush and Dick and more recently Jon " I am the father of Anjolie" Voigt.

      Lisa Raitt response to her aide, Jasmine MacDonnell's concern, that the isotope issue is hard to control was "But it is sexy.Radioactive leaks. Cancer" and when MacDonnell says " nuclear contamination", she said " but it's all about money". Raitt was more concerned with getting credit and questioning the competence of her colleague, the Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq. This is the same Raitt who left important and secret documents at an Ottawa TV studio, which led to MacDonnell being removed from her position. Now these new tapes were left in a Parliament Hill washroom and got into the hands of a reporter, Stephen Maher of the Halifax Chronicle Herald. Callousness, incompetence and base ambition at work. John Baird, the Transport minister was caught on tape telling Toronto, Canada's largest city to "F... OFF". The Ref-Cons are PANICKING.       

     The desperate and fading Pequistes and their leader Pauline Marois have come up with the half-baked idea of " piece by piece sovereignty". The plan is to get Ottawa to relinquish some of its powers voluntarily. Instead of waiting for a victory in a referendum, which will take place after the P.Q. wins an election, the party has decided on this,  " we are convinced we must leave behind this all-or-nothing approach in favour of one that is always seeking more for Quebeckers" said Marois breathlessly. They are stale and have nothing to offer but this jaded dream. First it was "sovereignty association" under Rene Levesque; then it was "sovereignty" under Jacques Parizeau; then it was "partenaire" under Lucien Bouchard; then back to "sovereignty"under Bernard Landry and now, its "trickle down sovereignty" under Pauline Marois. Rene, Jacques, Lucien and Bernard failed and so wiil this gambit by Pauline. In the meantime the Bloc Quebecois can do nothing but mouth the same thing. They are irrelevant but continue to delude themselves. Now the NDP and its Quebec voice, Mulcair have sided with the Bloc by voting to get the federal government to abondon what control it has over language of work in Quebec. Quebec's Charter of the French Language controls most aspect of workplace language but not those of the federal public service or crown corporations or industries regulated by federal labour law eg. banking and broadcasting. The NDP thinks it can make a break through amongst the French-speaking voters if they are seen as not just an Anglo mouthpiece. Votes before principles. Tommy Douglas and David Lewis must be having fits.

      On the American front, the "out of touch" and leaderless and "desperate to be seen as still a player" are resorting to their failed tactic of fear-mongering and name-calling. It has not work and will not work but will certainly quicken the demise of "this last bastion of aged and clueless white males". How desperate do you have to be to make "the Midnight Cowboy" your "poster-boy".    

       

      He is cool and confident, polite and pointed, telegenic and temperate and America has lucked in when they elected him as president. At home and abroad, he continues to follow policies that build hopes. In The United States his economic policies are taking hold and slowly but surely, the tide is beginning to turn; in Lebanon the pro-American coalition has won the election, even though the "experts" had pojected that the Iranian/ Syrian backed Hezbollah coalition would win easily.....Obama's speech in Cairo, reaching out to Muslims has had a positive effect; in Israel the right-wing, settler- influenced Netanyahu's government have been denied the bogeyman of a Lebanon governed by Hezbollah......Netanyahu will not be able to shift the discussion away from the peace process with the Palestinians, and in Iran, the voters may be tiring of the anti-Americanism (it certainly has been blunted by Obama's reaching out), of Akmadinejad and turning to the moderation of his challenger, Mir Hussain Moussavi.

      The extremists fed off of Bush's belligerent and seemingly anti-Muslim rhetotric. That is in the past. This is a new beginning with Obama ,and the anti-American card is not as easy to play. The reaching out to the Muslim world will continue with talks with Syria and Iran....engagement rather than confrontation, and with the withdrawal from Iraq. The war in Pakistan and Afghanistan still pose a problem, but even Osama bin Ladin is losing his influence....he tried to hijack the stage from Obama but it was a failure and there was barely a ripple from his latest diatribe. You can expect bin Ladin and al Qaeda to lash out and try and regain the lost influence but like a dying animal thrashing about in its last throes, it will be short-lived.

          The Obama effect is taking hold and the world is a better place.

      Barak Hussain Obama, came to Cairo and engaged the Muslim world. Less than six months ago, he was distancing himself from his Muslim forebears. He did so because an election had to be won. The Republicans were accusing him of being a Muslim and even Hillary was referring to him as BHO. His campaign, realised that if voters were convinced by these scurrilous attacks, the election would be lost. They decided to avoid any situation/ appearances that would give any credence to these accusations. Therefore he stayed away from Muslim-American functions and audiences, refusing even to send surrogates to events sponsored on his behalf by Muslim organisations. He accused the Republicans of "smear' and trying to discredit him by saying "maybe he's got Muslim connections.....Just making stuff up".

      Here is President Obama in Cairo, trying to convince his Muslim audiences that America is not an enemy of Islam. On this historic occasion, in the lion's den, he sought common ground between United States and the Islamic world, by using his personal history. He spoke of his Muslim family ties through his Kenyan, Muslim father and " generations of Muslims", of living in Indonesia and hearing the " call of the azaan" and of his pride when a Muslim was elected to Congress and using a Koran belonging to Thomas Jefferson to take the oath of office. '' I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed ", he said at Cairo University. " That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't'. This open embrace is already being hailed in the Muslim world, and has the potential to be a catalyst for change in relations. His message was that the United States and Islam "share common principles, principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings". It was a powerful message, and it must have been a surprise for Americans, especially Muslim Americans, as well as his audience in Egypt and eleswhere in the Muslim world.

      The speech was pointed and groundbreaking. He spoke to the fact that what is said in private must be said in public about Israel, the Palestinians, human rights, the conditrion of women, Iran and nuclear weapons, Iraq, Afghanistan and terrorism. Israel must stop its expansion into Palestinian territories and it must accept the two-state solution. The Palestinians must stop their violence against Israel and accept its right to exist. Human rights, women's rights and democracy must be instituted ( but America will not impose its principles). Iran must stop its nuclear weapons program. America will withdraw from Iraq and will not build bases their. Terrorism must be fought tirelessly and resolutely, until it is defeated. The war in Pakistan and Afdghanistan against al Qaeda and the Taliban will be pursued with full vigour and relentlessly

      Why did President Obama chose Cairo to deliver his message, this undemocratic, Muslim state with an aging autocratic ruler and little human rights? Less than 18% of the 1.5 billion Muslims live in the Middle East, where hatred of America is palpable, and where an entrenched elite rule with little real participation by the people. For just those reasons. Obama had to use this fulcrum, where, whatever happens influence the Muslim world. He had to deliver his message of reconcilation and cooperation, of respect and tolerance here or it would have been perceived as just another speech by an American president, more rhetoric than substance. He could have given the speech in his one-time home of Indonesia, with the largest Muslim population in the world and a burgeoning democracy, but that would have defeated the message and its purpose. He had to face this potentially hostile audience. He had to look them in the eyes and convince them that he was serious and that his message was real. 

      The message was succinct....clear and precise. The medium was engaging and accessible. The messenger was articulate, and his delivery resonated from Raleigh to Rabat to Riyadh to Rawalpindi. This was not Bush threatening fire and brimstone. This was an engaging and credible leader, who had given an interview to Arab television, who had visited Turkey, a majority Muslim nation in April and held a town-hall meeting there, who had visited the birthplace of Islam, Saudi Arabia and now he has delivered this historic speech in Cairo. This is a leader who came to this potential cauldron of hatred and was unafraid to tell it like it is. The out- of touch autocrats of the region may yet rue the day they allowed him in their midst.