and it appears to be because Mir Hossein Mousavi has entered the presidential race, thus making Khatami's presence unnecessary. I am not all that surprised; again, it bears noting that Khatami never wanted to enter the race and basically made clear his lack of interest in returning to the presidency of Iran. The claim that he ran because he had to and that he is withdrawing because he is no longer needed to carry the reform banner makes sense to me. And given that Khatami never delivered in any real way when it came to the reform agenda, perhaps his withdrawal is for the best.

That's the rumor. I shall wait until it is confirmed--or not--but this may not be the disaster to the reform movement that the article makes a potential Khatami withdrawal out to be. To say the least, Khatami's bark was always worse than his bite when it came to fighting against fundamentalist creep in Iran. And there is little reason to think that things have gotten any better in terms of his ability to maneuver against the fundamentalists--including the Supreme Leader, who always held him in check and has the power to hold any Iranian president in check.

I can think of worse things than giving new blood a chance to make the reformist case in Iran, though, to be sure, the current batch of "new blood" leaves something to be desired on multiple fronts. Perhaps the remaining reformist candidates will not have Khatami's charm and electoral reach. But what good is charm and electoral reach in a candidate who is unwilling to use them and in a president who has shown no ability to use those qualities for the purpose of advancing the cause of freedom within Iran?

It is no secret that the Russians are seeking to project power in the Western Hemisphere and that they are working closely with Cuba and Venezuela to come up with ways in which Russia can display its military power on our side of the globe. As mentioned in this report, Russia is now considering whether it can use airbases in Cuba or Venezuela and that while the Bush Administration never really thought much of this attempt to impress--believing that Russia could not constitute much of a military threat to American interests--it appears recently that concerns have been ratcheted up a notch:

The previous US administration of George W. Bush officially shrugged off the Russian aviation and naval moves in Latin America, characterising them as more for show than anything representing a military worry for the United States.

Last July however, a top US air force officer warned that Russia would cross "a red line" if it were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba.

"If they did, I think we should stand strong and indicate that is something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line for the United States of America," said General Norton Schwartz said on July 23.

Thus far, there is no indication whatsoever that General Schwartz has been reprimanded by the Obama Administration for departing from policy and talking out of line. Absent such reprimands, it would therefore appear that the general is accurately reflecting Administration policy concerning this issue.

Isn't it therefore fair to ask whether the Obama Administration plans on doing anything about this Russian effort to project power into the Western Hemisphere? General Schwartz has spoken on the subject. But everyone else in the Administration remains curiously silent.

but I have a hard time thinking that this was an "accident":

Zimbabwe Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai was in stable condition and recovering from head injuries Friday night after a car wreck that killed his wife, Susan, medical sources told CNN.

 The crash, on a busy two-lane highway between Tsvangirai's hometown of Buhera and the capital city of Harare, comes just weeks after the start of a power-sharing agreement between Tsvangirai and his political rival, President Robert Mugabe.

Analysts say the crash is bound to raise suspicion of foul play, with one former U.S. diplomat calling for an outside investigation, saying it is not the first time that a political foe of Mugabe has been killed or injured in a car crash.

Before being assured that the Europeans like us, they really, really like us, we are informed that having gone over to Europe, Hillary Clinton has decided to do her best impression of what she believes George W. Bush to have been like:

Tiredness appeared to show Friday when [Clinton] answered questions in front of 500 young Europeans at the European Parliament, where she was the highest-ranking U.S. visitor since the late U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1985.

A veteran politician, Clinton compared the complex European political environment to that of the two-party U.S. system, before adding:

"I have never understood multiparty democracy.

"It is hard enough with two parties to come to any resolution, and I say this very respectfully, because I feel the same way about our own democracy, which has been around a lot longer than European democracy."

The remark provoked much headshaking in the parliament of a bloc that likes to trace back its democratic tradition thousands of years to the days of classical Greece.

One working lunch later with EU leaders, Clinton raised more eyebrows when she referred to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who stood beside her, as "High Representative Solano."

She also dubbed European Commission External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner as "Benito."

A lack of sleep is blamed for these astonishing mental stumbles. Will someone give the Secretary of State some melatonin before further embarrassment ensues? Better yet, can we have a Secretary of State who does not embarrass us so palpably with such an utter and complete misreading of world history?

To wit. And see this as well. I thought we were told that this Administration was supposed to get diplomacy right.

And yes, the Brits are infuriated about this state of affairs. Why shouldn't they be? Barack Obama, President of the United States, has decided to treat our oldest and dearest ally like dirt. Eventually, as is noted in the NPR link, he will recall just why it is that Britain is so important to the United States, but until then, evidently, the President will give vent to his bizarre need to insult and offend the nation with which we have the closest and most historically significant relationship.

People made a fuss over "Old Europe" and "New Europe" and how that discussion supposedly insulted our allies. What then are we supposed to make of Barack Obama's display of contempt for the Brits?

Yes, please shut up.

Goldberg schools Cohen. Probably didn't even break a sweat doing it.

This:

Even before a gang of heavily armed men burst into his house and forcibly evicted him from his land, farming had become a hazardous business for Malcolm Clark, a 66-year old Zimbabwean who has made his living as a farmer since 1962.

During the last two years electricity shortages have made it virtually impossible to irrigate, reducing output at the 92-hectare holding north of Harare where Mr Clark cultivated a range of vegetables and seeds.

"I didn't think I would survive," said Mr Clark describing last month's attack, which farmers' organisations say forms part of a "final push" by supporters of President Robert Mugabe to drive the country's remaining 700 commercial white farmers from their land.

Attacks and legal actions - Mr Clark was accused in September of illegally occupying the land and must appear in court to hear the eviction order against him - are on the increase.

It bears asking anew: In this context, how can any governing coalition that leaves Robert Mugabe in power be countenanced by Zimbabweans and by the international community at large? If Morgan Tsvangirai thinks that sanctions against Zimbabwe will or should go away merely because he is prime minister, he will likely have another think coming. Having the Movement for Democratic Change in power is useless so long as these land grabs--and the brutality that accompanies them--continue.

Nothing that people who have been following this issue haven't seen before. But it's important to reiterate the facts surrounding the issue nonetheless.

Get used to having Hugo Chavez plunder Venezuela for decades to come. If anyone thinks that he will waste time holding other popular ballot elections concerning his regime's policy initiatives, they have another think coming. The Chavez regime will interpret this do-over election as a mandate for rule by decree. It never really mattered all that much what the people of Venezuela thought of Chavez's policy platform, but after these most recent elections, what little power the Venezuelan people had to determine the course of their country has largely evaporated.

A great pity. Venezuela is going through a lot of turmoil right now, especially with the fall in the price of oil. It could have used a change. Too bad it won't get one.

In Iraq:

Romance is in the air in Baghdad as war-weary Iraqis celebrate Valentine's Day after a sharp drop in violence, allowing lovers to cautiously hold hands in parks and to buy gifts for their sweethearts.

Public courtship and more daring clothing for women are increasing after years of growing intolerance, perhaps signaling the Islamic dogma and conservatism that accompanied Iraq's slide into sectarian slaughter may be losing their grip.

"You cannot imagine how happy I am today," said Usama Abdul-Wahab Khatab, a recent university graduate nestled beside his girlfriend at a riverside Baghdad park.

Hmmm . . . a "sharp drop in violence" helped bring this about. Perhaps--just perhaps--a "sharp drop in violence" has also helped to bring about a whole host of other beneficial and positive societal changes in the country as well. Naturally, of course, this leads one to speculate on what might have caused the "sharp drop in violence" that has helped bring about all of these beneficial and societal changes, including the increased ability of Iraqis to celebrate Valentine's Day in a state of relative peace and tranquility.

Curiously enough, the article makes no mention whatsoever of the likely causes of the "sharp drop in violence" that Iraq is experiencing. So I will make mention of them: (1) The surge; and (2) the counterinsurgency strategy. Recall that both were opposed by the President and Vice President of the United States, who have yet to admit that their stances in opposition were in error.

Back in 2007, the voters of Venezuela said "thanks, but no thanks" to a ballot proposition that would have removed term limits for Hugo Chavez, thus effectively allowing him at least a decent shot at becoming President-for life.

Now, Chavez has invited the people he ostensibly loves so dearly to see the error of their ways and reconsider:

Venezuelans are due to vote on a proposal that would allow President Hugo Chavez and other elected officials to seek as many terms as they wish.

A "yes" vote in Sunday's referendum would allow Mr Chavez to stay in office after his current term ends in 2012.

Mr Chavez has said the constitutional amendment is needed for the future of Venezuela's socialist revolution.

But critics say it is designed to concentrate power in the president's hands for decades to come.

A proposal to end presidential term limits was one of a package of 69 constitutional changes narrowly rejected in a 2007 referendum.

[. . .]

Mr Chavez celebrated 10 years in power earlier this month. His current term is due to end in 2012.

"Ten years is nothing," Mr Chavez said at a news conference on Saturday. "I don't know what they're complaining about."

"On Monday I'll wake up looking beyond 2013, and that will give me more confidence in what we're doing."

Confidence in . . . what precisely?

. . . The price of Venezuela's heavy oil has dropped below $35 per barrel, which is 40 percent below what the government says it planned for in next year's budget and less than half of what independent analysts say Mr. Chávez needs to sustain his heavy spending on projects such as the nationalization of domestic industries, purchases of Russian weapons and subsidies to clients including Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega. Already, Venezuelans are experiencing inflation of more than 30 percent, shortages of basic goods and the world's second-highest murder rate.

Just imagine how bleak prospects could be for Venezuela if Chavez gets unlimited term limits. I am normally in favor of allowing voters the ability to re-elect public officials as often as they want but in this case, we are dealing with a dictatorial, authoritarian government with no appreciation whatsoever for the will of its people or the fact that it is leading them to ruin.

Here is hoping for a free and fair election in Venezuela, one that will allow the voters there to--again--reject the Chavez regime's naked grab for absolute power of an indeterminate length. And here is hoping that the international will watch the elections closely and carefully--and will call the Chavez regime on any electoral shenanigans it seeks to pull.

Because his beliefs notwithstanding, ten years is quite long enough for Hugo Chavez to have been allowed to wreak havoc on Venezuela.

The story is here and it is quite the interesting one. If we are going to talk to Iran, we should--as I have argued--talk about a whole range of topics, including human rights. It will be especially important to raise the issue of human rights given the fact that Iran is heading for a presidential election and that any effort to show the degree to which human rights are not respected in the country will rebound to the benefit of those who want to reverse the kind of hardliner policies followed and supported by Khamenei, Ahmadinejad and their rivals, and liberalize the country. The positive publicity reformers receive thanks to an increased focus on the state of human rights will be invaluable--as will efforts to cast the government in a negative (and accurate) light concerning its violations of even the most basic human liberties.

I am just going to let this story speak for itself. But ask yourself, as you read the story whether you can really buy the arguments of the Chavez government with a straight face.

To be fair to Hugo Chavez, if I were in his shoes, I'd be worried about legendary freedom fighters coming to my country and speaking out about my corrupt, decrepit, dictatorial regime as well.

Is a State Department as competent as the "Hillary for President" campaign.

The beatdown goes on in Iran.

This is how reformers are treated in Iran:

Iran's former president was set upon by an angry stick-wielding mob today amid celebrations of the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution on the streets of Tehran.

The attack on Mohammed Khatami came just two days after the reformist cleric announced he would be running against the hardline incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June's presidential elections.

Mr Khatami, then a little known cleric, came to global attention when he was elected to the presidency in 1997, capturing almost 70 per cent of the vote. Succeeded in 2005 by Mr Ahmadinejad, he blamed hardline elements in the clerical establishment for obstructing his reformist agenda.

During the revolutionary celebrations, attackers waving sticks approached the cleric, shouting "Death to Khatami. We do not want American government."

I might be able to accept this kind of nonsense a little easier if it were representative of the Iranian people. But it is not. It so emphatically is not. And that is the tragedy of the past 30 years; the Iranian people have been regularly and consistently saddled with a government and with a leadership class that is utterly unworthy of the nation it seeks to lead.

NPR is on the case. The picture--as might be expected--is an ugly one.