Is Iran about to break open?

Roger Cohen, a sympathetic observer, and an American journalist with a fair degree of familiarity with the country, says it’s a potential yes.

From what I’ve read about other revolutions, such as 1917 Russia, when national police get antsy about doing their dirty work on crowds, yes, you are approaching a turning point. (In the March revolution, after a day or so, the Cossacks started getting reluctant to enforce too much discipline.)

But, with that national analogy, remember there was a half-successful at best 1905 revolution, too.

Anyway, with the police, what can happen, from the way I see it, is that, whether consciously or not, officers individually start making calculations of the likelihood of a full-blown revolt, followed by the likelihood the revolters will take revenge on them personally. When those thoughts get enough of a foothold, police unit/squad cohesion starts breaking down as it becomes "every man for himself."

Sully insists Islam religion of peace – wrong

Well, Andrew Sullivan got that one wrong in his Iran live-blogging round-up. He gets something else half-right, noting Tweets are provisional, but without saying Tweets can be rumor-mongering, ether unwittingly or wittingly spreading urban legends, etc.

Point is, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, all three are neither “religions of war” or “religions of peace.”

Beyond finding admonitions to both war and peace in the Quran, we can do the same in the other two world religions.

The Tanakh has Isaiah talking about “bending swords into plowshares,” but another prophet later talks about “bending plowshares into swords.” Per a quote by Jesus, the temple is allegedly a “house for all nations,” but, earlier, King Saul is told to till all the Amalekites — men, women, children and even livestock.

In the Christian New Testament, Jesus, in one Gospel, tells Peter to put his sword away at the Garden of Gethsemane, after he cut off the ear of a servant of the high priest. But, earlier in that same account, he asked his disciples how many swords they had.

Elsewhere, he tells his listeners, “I came not to bring peace but division.”

And, as Islam had its jihad, Christianity had its Crusades. And Israel has religious Jews pushing settlements with new vigor, like Avigdor Lieberman.

Bottom line?

The three simply are religions, the youngest of them 1,500 years old, all coming from tribalist roots whose values systems almost make Pop Evolutionary Psychology sound true.

And they, and their Kool-Aid drinkers, label them as “religions of peace” as needed for external public relations, while not-insignificant minorities in all three push the “religions of war” side externally against the other two, or internally about their own “crusades” for “religious corporate communications,” also as needed.

Oh, and you bet your ass I'll be using the fake Photoshopped book cover in the future.

Another GOP hypocrite can’t keep his pants on

Hello, Nevada Sen. John Ensign, with the extra angle of being hypocritical toward members of one’s own party by demanding the resignation of former GOP Senate colleague Larry Craig.

Politico has details; Ensign was boinking a female staffer, then paid her off when he reconciled with his wife after some sort of separation. Staffer’s hubby later, allegedly, wanted some big dinero from Long John Ensign.

Of course, Ensign started his hypocrisy against Bill Clinton in 1998, while a Congressman running against Sen. Harry Reid. as Think Progress notes.

And, he did NOT call for fellow Senate GOP adulterer to resign in 2007.

So, here’s how sex works for the GOP.

Extramarital heterosexual sex is OK for the GOP.

Gay sex is not OK at all.

Extramarital heterosexual sex is NOT OK for Democrats. (Or “others,” if Bernie Sanders ever gets busted.)

And, since Ensign is a Pentecostal, a member of the “holy roller” Foursquare Gospel church, maybe he can (or maybe he will) claim demonic possession.

Not just the affair, but the hypocrisy within the party, has probably killed your presidential hopes not only for 2012 but beyond.

(For more snark along these lines, click either the “Republican sex hypocrisy” or “GOP Pants Watch” tags.

Update: On the blackmail angle, I guess two jobs courtesy of Ensign weren’t enough payout for Doug Hampton, husband of former Ensign mistress Cindy Hampton. It’s nice to see the good old Christian political value of “greed” joining “lust” and “hypocrisy” at their finest.

Second, Ensign has now dropped the blackmail angle, instead noting Doug Hampton approached Fox News. But, the Las Vegas Sun has several questions related to that, including how Ensign found out about Doug Hampton’s approach to Fox, and what sort of angle Hampton put on that.

In an additional bombshell, he says Ensign had a forced sit-down with a group of his Senate GOP peers over the matter; he lists Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn by name.

Update 2, June 20: And now, we’re back to the extortion angle. I guess “lying” is joining the list of good old GOP Christian values, too.

Oh, and on the NYT op-ed pages, Gail Collins gets some snark at Ensign as would-be presidential candidate.

Update 3: Note to COTG visitors and others. Mark Sanford hit the radar screen after I submitted this John Ensign post. Just click this “Sanford” tag link, though, and you can read away to your heart’s content.

Cow belches get climate bill ‘pass’

Rural Democrats have blocked the regulation of cow belches of methane, which may contribute as much as one-quarter of U.S.-produced greenhouse gases, from the Waxman-Markey climate bill.

OK, that does it.

Throw this piece of crap in the Dumpster rather than pass it, followed by shoving it down our throats as something revolutionary. If rural forestry wants to be credited for a carbon sink, then ranchers definitely have to pay up.

Don’t like it? Raise cows with less grain and more grass to reduce their methane belches. Or switch to hogs or chicken, both of which require less feed per pound of added weight and so are at least somewhat more environmentally friendly. And, stop signing on the dotted line of Big Ag, who is really behind this.

Published on ESPN!

Well, not "published" in that sense, but the limerick I e-mailed to Jason Sobel's U.S. Open liveblog:

As rains poured anew at Bethpage
Conspiracists fell into black rage.
Would Tiger not win?
The golf fix was in!
Methinks they lost a big betting wage.

Time: Four endgames on Iran misses No. 5

Time has a thought-provoking speculative article four ways the Iranian political tussle could play out. It rightly notes none of the main actors want to destroy Iran’s current political structure, for example.

But, it misses option No. 5.

That would be for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and former President Akbar Rafsanjani to cut a deal behind the backs of both Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and opposition presidential candidate Mir Mousavi.

Ahmadinejad has no particular loyalty to Khamenei, despite the latter’s pre-election quasi-endorsement of him. Rafsanjani has no special loyalty that I know of to Mousavi; rather, I think he’s just seen him as a stalking horse to his goal of unseating Khamenei.

If the two can line up enough support among both the Council of Guardians and the Academy of Experts, Ahmadinejad has control of the Basij to nullify any lingering Mousavi street protests after Rafsanjani sells him down the river.

Amnyay, take a look at the Time story and judge for yourself if a scenario like mine is plausible, then, if it is that likely.

Update: True, Ahmadinejad attacked Rafsanjani during the election, over his foreign policy as well as alleged opulence. But, politics can always make strange bedfellows. And, I don’t think I”ve yet exhausted the possibilities.

Rafsanjani might cut a deal with Khamenei, for that matter, that could involve a new election, or other possibilities.

To use an old foreign policy word, I think the situation in Iran is very “fluid” right now.

From comments, “uninformed” shows he’s anything but:

I agree that there are more than 4 possible scenarios. Another, real possibility, is Mousavi and Rafsanjani simply back down. I think both have too much too lose in a full scale revolt. A sick variant of this, is this was the plan all along. An agreement to reform, but only after the revolutionary element could be weeded out from the reform camp. Mousavi publicly distances himself from those who revolt, leaving a smaller group isolated, allowing the government to cull them. After the dust settles, the 2 major and 2 minor players "mend" fences.

Definitely agree these are all possibilities.

Also agree that the four major/semi-major players probably would like to at least be started on a resolution process by Monday.

Update: The Guardian’s four-option scenario, though DOES have a Rafsanjani takeover as one of the options. As often is the case in the world of foreign affairs, the British MSM thinks more broadly than America’s.