Is this the end for Iran's Ayatollah?

This week's unprecedented events in Iran's streets represent a worst case scenario for the clerics and their puppets. The violence unleashed against the peaceful protesters and real martyrs of this green revolution is being amplified and twittered to all corners of the world. It's not an exaggeration to imply that Ahmadinejad is done with and the Ayatollah has clearly suffered a shattering setback.

In other news, Cuban and Venezuelan governments have jointly come out in favor of Ahmadinejad and have upheld the "ultra-democratic and fair" election results. Pathetic? Ultra.

But after watching a two-hour long, deep Iranian analysis on CNN's Fareed Zakaria where Brzezinski and other foreign policy analysts pondered the real consequences of Iran's post election struggle and Obama's position, it seems that this is beginning of the end for the Iranian regime.

The White House has been correct in their reluctance to meddle in this internal crisis in Iran. They don't want to add fuel to the hard-liners and neo-cons' fiery criticism of the West's evil involvement, a tool that has been used repeatedly to licentiously crack down the opposition.

Not only is this green revolution completely self-made, it is creating tectonic effects across the Middle East political landscape and could be a real catalyst for other clouded governments in the Arab world.

But the real question here is: Will all of this really shake up Iranian politics? The experts are hoping this will be the first and most critical blow before the beast collapses.

More on this topic

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.