Ahmadinejad and Bush

I know, I know, it does not sound very respectful but consider the facts:

Ahmadinejad's approval ratings in Iran: possibly 40%
Bush's approval rating at home: 31%

Admadinejad ran for President on a campain focused on corruption and oil wealth for the poor.
Bush ran for President on a platform for restoring traditional values and compassionate politics. Both ran like reformists and ended up as neo-conservatists and hypermoralists.

Ahmadinejad is the first nonmullah to be Iran's President since 1981.
Bush is the first conservative republican to be President since 1984 (last one was Reagan).

Did I mention the fact that the legislature in both countries has continously rejected appointees by these two leaders? For example, the Majlis or Parliament has rejected several Ahmadinejad's Cabinet appointments, just like Congress has oppossed several of Bush's appointees.

Both leaders use military, political and religious rethoric to lure supporters into their webs. They are both hated by elites and moderates in their respective countries, and poor domestic policies haunt them while international policies have yet to yield positive results.

Ahmadinejad has frequently made allusions of his connection to a divine order, just like Bush has made comments of speaking to God and being in constant communication with Him.

Just like the Bush administration was forced to implement policies of the Iraq Study Group, so is Ahmadinejad being pressured to adopt some of the resolutions set forth by the UN Security Council in order to avoid further sanctions that will undermine Iran's economic growth.

So there you have it. Sometimes simililarities can be a siginifact divider in a already strained relationship such as this one. The US is waiting for Iranian moderate forces to prevail in this showdown of power, while Iran's Ahmadinejad is banking on the same exact thing.

Good luck.

Latin America: US involvement a decade too late....

So, Bush wraps up a 5-day tour in Latin America, but brings back nothing with him.

This tour has come too late at a moment when US diplomacy is at its weakest in decades, even in recent weeks of renewed diplomatic talks with countries in the Middle East and China, and only thanks to Rice, who has been eargely making the rounds, in a move to clear up and wash out the Bush Administration's lack of foreign diplomatic overtures.

Latin America, with all its complexities and problems, seems to be hanging tough, as they have waited years to see trade agreements finalized, economic aid disembursed, and political commitments materialized. South America has for now found their guy in Venezuela's Chavez, who is more than willing to fill in the vacuum and which has plenty of cash and free advice to give.

This is exactly the danger and the frivolity of territorial politics, and the Bush Administration never seemed to capitalize on it. As Lebanon fell to Hizballah when Syria pulled out, everyone seemed too busy with the 'terrorists' and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the US.

Now, it is too late for US deals and cheap talk; China has moved in to provide trade and aid and Chavez has continued to engulf South America and Central America with his populist rethoric. Today, Venuezuela's political and economic influence in the region is proportioned to Russia's oil supply to China's economy. China is always shopping for oil suppliers and has found a loyal one in Venezuela, which only helps to fuel Chavez's regional agenda.

I say this to Bush: go back to your drawing board and come up with a new set of economic and political policies that can efficiently compete with Chavez's own.