Iranians protest the election results

Iranians took to the streets again today to protest Friday's contested election results, while defeated reformist candidate Mirhossein Mousavi continued to level accusations of electoral fraud. Critics of the regime, however, continue to stress that presidential elections are of little consequence since real power in the Islamic Republic is held by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"On the nuclear question, it's very clear that the ultimate decision maker is Ayatollah Khamenei," said Mahsen Milani, an Iranian expert at the University of South Florida, in an interview with Fox News. "The central question of security or war and peace is not in [Ahmadinejad's] domain. It's unambiguously in the domain of the supreme leader."

This is because Iran has a unique quasi-democratic system of government. While the country does hold presidential and parliamentary elections, all of the candidates have to be specifically approved by the Guardian Council. The council is composed of 12 members, six of whom are appointed by the supreme leader, while the other six are nominated by the head of the judicial system of Iran, who is appointed by the supreme leader as well. The supreme leader has many other powers:

The Canadian government has tabled its quarterly report on the war in Afghanistan. The report notes some signs of progress, but also highlights a deteriorating security situation.

Canada's mission in Afghanistan includes military operations, as well as diplomatic, development, and humanitarian efforts. The government was quick to highlight the areas where Canadians have made progress:

U.S. President Barack Obama attempted to "seek a new beginning" in the relationship between America and the Islamic world with a speech in Cairo on Thursday. To his credit, the president addressed many of the issues that have divided Muslims and the west, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, America's use of torture tactics, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Obama is a great orator and there was little doubt in my mind that he would deliver a good speech full of high-minded rhetoric. But as the old saying goes, actions speak loader than words. The true test of Obama's plan to reach out to the Muslims will be shown by his Middle East policies and not his words.

Unfortunately, more often than not, Middle East policy is a zero sum game. Iran's nuclear weapons program comes into direct conflict with Obama's naive vision of "a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons." Israel's desire for peace and security conflicts with the desire of Hamas to drive all the Jews into the sea. Likewise, Obama's goal of ending Islamic extremism does not mesh well with bin Laden's desire to wage jihad on America.

North Korea is continuing its effort to provoke the international community by showing outward signs of aggression. Monday's nuclear test was followed up with multiple short-range missile tests and new reports indicate that Pyongyang is preparing to test another long-range missile. North Korea's recent provocations have been widely condemned by the international community, including Russia and China, the countries historic allies.

While it would seem as though China holds enough leverage over North Korea to be a vital player in the effort to stop these weapons tests, China has historically blocked the security council from taking a strong stance against Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program and there is little reason to believe things will be different this time around.

China has numerous economic and political considerations that prevent it from taking the tough stance many other countries would like to see. China's trade with North Korea has grown considerably in the past decade, quadrupling between 1999 and 2006 to $1.6 billion annually. Aside from this trade being important to China's economy, it is even more important to the North Korean economy, which imports 90 per cent of its daily oil supply and approximately half of its food imports from China. If China were to cut off its trade with North Korea, the regime would likely collapse, which could potentially send millions of impoverished refugees into China, creating a major headache for Beijing.

It looks like Lil' Kim and his crazy band of commies are up to their old tricks. North Korea tested two short-range missiles on Tuesday, following the test of a nuclear weapon on Monday. The reclusive communist state has also increased its war-mongering rhetoric directed toward South Korea and reports indicate it has restarted the Yongbyon nuclear reactor, which it agreed to shut down in 2007 in exchange for aid.

None of this should come as much of a surprise, as North Korea has been playing the same game for years. I suppose the international response should not come as a surprise either. Let's see, American officials give the North a stern talking to, Russia and China pretend to be onside with the rest of the international community, the security council drafts a resolution imposing some token sanctions, etc. etc. I think I've seen this episode before.

What should be surprising is if anyone believes the same old response will yield new results. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said there will be consequences for North Korea's actions and urged them to return to the six-party talks. The problem is that the U.S. has very few options left in terms of punishing North Korea. More sanctions could be imposed on the impoverished country, but they already engage in very little international trade and further sanctions would likely hurt their already starving citizens. Moreover, the six-party talks have consistently failed and are unlikely to yield better results in the future.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was in Washington Monday to meet with U.S. President Barack Obama. The key issues on the leader's agenda were how to deal with Iran and its suspected nuclear weapons program and whether or not Netanyahu will endorse Obama's two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

As always, middle east politics is extremely complex, so it's a good idea to look at some of the different perspectives on the viability of a two-state solution, as well as the other potential solutions that could take its place.

Daniel Doron lays out the case against a two-state solution in Forbes:

Mark Steyn has an interesting new piece, which examines Hollywood's reluctance to pit superheros against our real enemies:

This issue would appear to be the giant elephant in the closet since 2001. As Steyn points out, Captain America was fighting the Nazi's even before the United States entered World War II. This is because even before the U.S. got involved, it was abundantly clear that the fascists were out to slaughter all the Jews and take over the world. Yet do the Islamofascists, many of whom have strikingly similar goals, receive the same treatment? Of course not.

The Pakistani army is pushing deeper into the Swat Valley, in its offensive against Taliban militants, who now hold territory a mere 100 kilometres outside the nuclear-armed state's capital Islamabad. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has replaced the top American general in Afghanistan and committed tens of thousands of additional troops to the region. These events highlight just how much the geopolitical situation in the region has changed since the Canadian parliament voted the extend the mission in Afghanistan in early 2008.

The Canadian mission was extended beyond the existing 2009 deadline after the Manley Report endorsed the extension provided that other countries sent additional troops and the Canadian military acquired new equipment. The initial motion to extend the mission was watered-down in order to appease the federal Liberals, whose leader—Stéphane Dion—had voted against the initial extension in 2006.

Canadians should be used to Prime Minister Stephen Harper caving into Liberal demands and making their issues his own. First he abandoned his tough stance on the Afghan mission, initially expressing full support for it and then arguing that it should end by 2011. Then he flip-flopped on the economic file, first supporting sound economic policies and then running up one of the largest deficits in history. However, there is no reason to believe that this charade needs to continue any longer. A few months ago, I wrote about the possibility of a historic alignment between the Liberals and Conservatives on foreign policy issues, as it related to the war in Gaza:

Being a bit of a political junkie, I'm often asked for my take on what's happening in the news. While I generally pride myself on my ability to come up with some sort of potential solution to most problems, I have completely given up on trying to find solutions to the Israel-Palestine situation.

A lot of people, many of whom are much smarter than I, have tried to come up with solutions for this problem for many years and all of them have failed. I am not so naive as to believe that I can come up with a workable solution to such a complex problem.

As the fighting continues in Gaza, the situation in the Middle East is becoming analogous to the Kobayashi Maru, the no-win scenario that Lieutenant Saavik is faced with at the beginning of The Wrath of Khan.