Much like my post on the Virginia Tech Shooting two years ago, the Iran conflict was too raw and emotional to say what needed to be said until now.

Now that things have subsided a bit, I feel more comfortable saying what I have thought all along: Barack Obama handled the Iran Election Conflict amazingly well. Historians will look back at that and say one of the most genius things America ever did in handling Iran was to not do a single thing during the election conflict.

But first a Scrubs episode to highlight why:


I am going to be obnoxious and pull the "I've been the Middle East card, and I am guessing none of the rest of you have" to say that what most Americans fail to understand about our "presence" in the Middle East is how those who we are "fighting against" wield our disdain for them against us.

Like Scrubs - it doesn't matter what we say, it gets turned around and presented as propaganda against our case. This isn't just true in Iran and Scrubs episodes but in my own life as well.

At my previous job I had two older gentlemen who, well, let's just say didn't appreciate anything I had to say or thought. They made life incredibly difficult for me. But what was worse was that they made progress for the church impossible.

What I learned - but unfortunately didn't practice as well as Obama - is that even if I had the greatest idea, even if I was right, the best thing I could do was not get involved. Would I encourage other more "neutral" parties to discuss and attempt to influence these two gentleman's perspective: absolutely. Should I have actively continued to jump into a fight I knew I couldn't win and ultimately made things worse: no way.

Most of our problems in the Middle East are in large part due to our involvement in things we feel obliged to jump into, when in fact it only makes the situation worse. Then when we actually have an opportunity to do something good about it, we back out. Thus leaving the average Middle Easterner frustrated and angry with us.

The movie Charlie Wilson's War (although about Afghanistan and not Iran) is a phenomenal example of this.

As usual, I was extremely proud of Senator Richard Lugar. It is because of his bi-partisianship, non-grand standing, non-crowd pleasing, straightforward and educated approach to politics is the reason he is the only member of Congress that shouldn't be voted out.

Unlike everyone else - especially Republicans - clamoring at Obama's perceived weakness regarding Iran, Lugar came out and said what needed to be said: America needed to stay the hell out of the Iranian conflict.


Iran and the Middle East is about a generation away from true reform. I have seen it with my own eyes. And the last thing America needs to do is intervene and jack that up. Patience is a virtue, and American needs to practice it.

I had a wonderful weekend. Went to the Alliance Theatre, a Thrasher's game, and a Braves season ticket holder event. But then Saturday night's show came along...

If you listened and followed my Twitter you'll know that I got pretty frustrated with Allen during the Bobby Knight and Obama & Iran hours.

I will write later this week on why Allen is fundamentally wrong on those two issues in a blog where I won't be constantly interrupted. But first I must clear the air about one of my largest frustrations since starting this show almost 4 years ago: assumptions.

Allen let me talk during the Iran hour (not the Bobby Knight hour) and the following "conversation" took place. If you don't have time to listen, it can be summarized in that Andy thinks Obama would be right to go over and talk with Iran and Allen is wrong.



But after this conversation we got an email from a listener who agreed with Allen. No biggie. I know I am not in the majority on this one. But he made two assumptions that just ate at me over the next couple of days.

He (Andy) sounds very much like so many people, who went through school in the past twenty years and were influenced by liberal professors that are undermining support for Israel.

Your producer also sounds the naïve person, who would have to go to Gaza and be beheaded before he would get it.

Let's examine these two statements.

First, the liberal professors I was obviously educated under. I'd like for you to meet Mr. Oded Yinon. Oded was my Introduction to the Modern Middle East Professor while studying in Israel/Palestine. Oded's father was one of the founders of the Mossad (the Israeli CIA). Oded is easily one of the most intimidating people I have ever met as I am pretty sure he could kill me before I even knew it (this still didn't prevent me from arguing with him).

Oded once made a comment in class that, "these vermin [Palestinians] will never compromise." A statement I vehemently disagree with, but not exactly your typical "liberal professor" viewpoint now is it.

Second, I am obviously a naïve person who needs to go to Gaza and get blown up. This of course will change my mind.

The date was September 9, 2003. I was lying in my bed at 11:20 pm and I will never forget the dull thud and the ensuing police sirens. I didn't need to, but I walked out of my room onto the roof of my building and watched as police cars raced to the Café Hillel suicide bombing.

This bombing took place less than a mile from my bed. It was a cafe I had eaten at earlier in the week. And I lived in Israel/Palestine at the height of the suicide bombings of the Intifada II (the height being 2002-2003 where 362 people died).

So don't you dare call me naïve and excuse my insight to be out of ignorance or blindly following liberal professors.

Your assumptions aren't just wrong about me, but like most people, your assumptions are what make you wrong about most of the beliefs that you hold regarding issues you know only what FoxNews or MSNBC tells you.

We try and label people based on our perception of them and in doing so we ignore the value their perspective might bring to the discussion. It's a problem we have in our relationships, in our politics, and in our companies. Assumptions do far more than make an ass out of you and me, they destroy cultures.

It has now been two weeks since the Virginia Tech shooting (I refuse to call it a massacre like the sensationalized press). I, like every other blogger on the web, of course was tempted to blog about this the second after this happened. But I, unlike every other blogger on the web, decided to wait two weeks. Why? Because what I am about to say was probably too emotionally charged to say the minute after it happened, but now seems a little more realistic (although still probably somewhat extreme). The Virginia Tech shooting is a non-event.

WOAH! You have got to be kidding me. You are nuts. You are so insensitive. You are ridiculous! Are those pretty much your thoughts? Well, give me a second and maybe I will make some sense. If I don't, you are welcome to think I am ridiculous.

Before I go further, I do not want to minimize the pain of those that were personally affected by this event. The families, direct friends, and students deserve our prayers and our sympathy. But the sensationalism the media, and if we are honest, ourselves, had/have turned that event into is almost just as much of a tragedy because it lacks perspective. And why do we lack perspective? Because we are self-centered and we all either are going to college, are in college, went to college, or have kids going to college.

Let's take a look at perspective for a second.

• In 2000 there were 850,293 abortions in the US. That's 2,329 deaths each day, or 77x as many deaths per day as the VTech shootings. Ok, so now you think I am a crazy right-wing nut job. Well hold on.
• In 2006, 2.9 million people died of AIDS, which is 7,900 per day (or 264x that of VTech). 1,041 of those 7,900 deaths per day are innocent children.
• Every year 15 million children die of hunger, or 41,095 per day - that's 1370x that of VTech.
• So just out of those three statistics, we see that 51,324 people die per day that are reasonably treatable and I consider a "tragic death."

Now some of you are probably on the same page with me; others still think I am a nut job. One more thing. I think the American culture proves that VTech is a non-event. Why? Because just two weeks later we have pretty much forgotten about this. It no longer graces the front pages of MSNBC.com, FoxNews.com and CNN.com. In addition to that, how many of us remember the Amish School shooting back in November. Or better yet, that there have been 36 school shootings since 1996. In a month, this will be completely a non-event.

So why is this a non-event? Because we are self-centered. We only care about what we think will happen to us or our family. This is why we don't really care about the alarming statistics of unnecessary death around the world. It is also why at first we appear to care about things like VTech more than anything else, but in the end, we retreat back to our realization that we are really quite safe, our college students are safe, and we've got life pretty good. So since our Darwinian instinct of survival is back in tact, we put these memories into our past as tragic, but essentially incurious.

It's 5:12 am "locally" (locally here is defined as 35,000 feet over Whitehorse, Canada). It is now the second time this day (April 14th) I have experienced 5 am. Traveling over the International Date line is weird. I actually will arrive in Chicago before I took off in Japan. Take that Back to the Future. I am just sitting down after an hour conversation with a Marine named Mark, who apparently is also super claustrophobic on planes like I am and decided to stand back with the flight attendants for an hour.

Mark was reading a book on Philosophy when I first started talking to him, and I later found out he had served in Iraq twice and Afghanistan once. We talked about everything from the historical context of the problems in the Middle East, to traveling the world, to our homes, and what we want to do with the rest of our life. It was a good hour.

One thing I brought up with him was an observation I had made about Japan while there: I wish Europe was more like Japan. I loved Japan. These are words I never thought I'd say. In fact, in all my extreme desire to travel, traveling to the Far East never really interest me. This changed on this trip. I could go many different routes with this, but I am going to stick with one.

About 51 years ago, the USA dropped two Atomic bombs on Japan. They were our enemy, and we were in a bitter, bloody fight and we decided this was the best course of action to save lives. You would think there was some modern day resentment by the Japanese, but there was none. Contrast to Europe, who would all be speaking German right now if it weren't for our help, and they hate our guts. So let me get this straight: here we have a country where we killed innocent men, women, and children, and they were the most friendly, warm, "American" place I have been to (except Israel was more "American, but that's another story).

I just don't get it. Transition to a conversation between Hoey (APU student) and a part-Japanese kid on the trip whose Grandfather fought against America in WW2. He proceeds to tell us that his Grandfather even admits it was good for America to use the A-Bomb as it probably saved Japanese lives. Hoey proceeds to tell him that it was/is never ok for us to do something like this and I step back and think: man this is strange.

We have built so much "white/American guilt" that we hate ourselves more than those we wronged do. Why? Why can't we recognize that if we have been forgiven and the Japanese have moved on, why can't we? Better yet, why can't anyone but the Japanese recognize that America is not perfect, but that we are a good country, trying to do good in the world.

America has done some historically awful stuff. But we have also done some great things (long before Bono & Jolie ever stepped on to the scene). So why are we hated? Why are we ashamed sometimes of our international presence? Why when the countries in which we "affect" are better off then if left alone, do we get accused of imperalization?

Historically speaking, most of what is turbulent in the Middle East is Europe's fault. Whether it was the English drawing country lines without consideration of indigenous people & tribes, or German's forced exile of the Jews back to the Middle East, the problems we are trying to rectify were created by Europe. So it ends now. I've said all along Iraq will be a better place for Iraqis because of our involvement, and I won't feel guilty about that. Let's just hope the Iraqis are more like their Asian counterparts and less like Europe.


You can listen to similar thoughts I shared on our radio show this weekend by pushing the play button above. The entire show can be found at http://www.allenhuntshow.com/Listen/189/

If you asked me who is the one person you would like to meet that is still alive I would answer Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (yes I had to copy and paste that name from a Google search). Now half of you would say, who the heck is that, and the other half would probably be appalled. For those that don't know, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran.

Now, before I get any further. I want to say that the preceding does not condone or excuse any of the comments Ahmadinejad has made in the past (especially in relation to Israel). I do not love Hitler. Nor do I want the Jews wiped off the face of the earth. But I digress.

What fascinates me about this man is that he doesn't seem like your average Middle East nutball (reference Osama Bin Laden). I don't see him touting around automatic weapons, and in the good majority of his photos he is smiling, dressed in fairly western cloths, and if you didn't know him under the context of being the President of Iran, wouldn't he seem pretty sane?

This past week, Ahmadinejad sat down with Wallace on 60 Minutes. I not only watched that interview, but I also watched the interview, in its entirety, with no edits on C-SPAN. Now this guy definitely seems to be a good manipulator (and I am not necessarily saying that is a bad thing). When Wallace asked him a question he obviously didn't want to answer, he just talked for 10 minutes about something else and by the time he got done, we all forgot what the question was.

But here's my point. Twice this week I heard reference to Iran and the Anti-Christ (or Great Satan). Once, was the re-quoting of Ahmadinejad himself when he referred to America as the Great Satan, and the other time was when (I am ashamed to say) someone on my radio show actually accused Ahmadinejad of being the Anti-Christ. But in my mind, neither of these terms do anyone any good. I don't understand why we can't just sit down and talk to one another like adults. I have said this before, and now I am putting it in writing. If I were elected President the first thing I would do is travel to the three countries that "supposedly hate us the most," with a relatively small entourage, with little security, on their turf, and at least attempt to talk this out. Sure, it might fail. Sure, they might reject my plane entering their airspace. Sure, I might find out the guy really is a nutball like everyone thinks and the situation is nonnegotiable. Sure, I might even get killed in the process. But at least then I will never have to meet the real Great Satan because I will have lived a life that valued all human life enough to put aside the past, put aside stereotypes, and met my responsibility to talk out issues in the hope of saving millions of lives. In my mind, the only great Satan in our presence today is stupid diplomacy.

If you haven't heard about what is going on in Lebanon now, I am not sure what cave you are living in. The basic summary of the story. The Hezbollah, who is a "political group" (Some call Terrorists, and they certainly reflect terrorists, but it gets tricky because they are also an elected political group in Lebanon. So to make sure I am clearly describing the situation, I will call them a political group.), that is funded by Iran (to the tune of $100 million dollars), kidnapped some Israeli soldiers, so Israel has declared an attack on Lebanon in general, and it has just escalated from there.

This article is not meant to debate whether or not Israel's actions were justified, but rather discuss what the "West's" response to this should be. Israel & its neighbors is a tough situation that few of us can understand with out spending extensive amounts of time there. So what may look like an unnecessary escalation of force to us, is a necessary escalation of force to protect a country the size of New Jersey surrounded by people who want them wiped off the face of the planet. Although, it may not be reasonable either. But I digress.

As I was riding down to the show last night, we (there are 3 of us) were talking about whether or not we should discuss this topic on the air. To my surprise, the other person in the car (not Allen) decided that 1.) this "new" conflict in Lebanon is something "big," and 2.) the answer is to wipe Iran off the face of the planet and that will solve everything. To point #1, I have to say, this isn't any "new big development." Israel has had a war like this in 1948, 1967, 1973, & 1982 - and that doesn't even count the Intifada I or the Intifada II. So to say this is something new, is a bit dramatic.

But it was point #2 that I wanted to punch her in the face for. Keep in mind, as I have posted before, I am for the Iraq war - so I am not "anti-war" per se. However, bombing the "hell" out of Iran isn't going to solve anything - and that's assuming we can actually do this - which we can't. First of all, as I learned while in Israel, West Bank & Jordan, Middle Easterners are people. I know that sounds simplistic, but we need to remember that in the West. I might not of shared the same political beliefs (or religious beliefs) with the guy I had lunch with in the West Bank, but ultimately all he wanted to do was to provide for his family and be able to live "relatively" free. Bombing Iran to smithereens would be wiping out millions of people that are just like our middle class. It would be like wiping out the major US cities for something the "Oklahoma City Bombers Militia Group" did - it just doesn't make sense.

In addition to that, our reputation is already one of "crusadism" in the Middle East, and anymore more war will only surge the hatred and recruit more people into terrorism. I know this is a shock, but the Middle East doesn't trust us. Now I am not going to debate on whether or not they should, but lets just recognize that they don't and start from there. We aren't going to build any trust by wiping out Iran. We will build trust by finishing the job in Iraq, improving the countries conditions, and then the rest of the region will recognize they like the "new-Iraq" more than what Iran offers. That's it!

It sounds a bit ridiculous at this point I know, but I truly believe the Iraq war will be looked back historically as a graceful act. Like Germany & Europe in 1940s, our actions there will bring about an incredible economic and societal change that I believe most Middle Easterners will desire. This change, has the ability to grow through out the region, but not if our answer to everything will be to just bomb the heck out everyone.

It has happened. The second most dangerous man in the world, according to the US government, has been killed. And here in America we are singing the praises of the American military. This post really doesn't have much of a point. I am glad Al-Qaeda has been disabled. However, I don't think Al-Zaqarwi's death means evil is any less prevelant in the world. As long as their is sin in the world, their will be evil. But I digress. This post has one point: always strive to look at all sides of an issue, even the obvious ones.

Studying in Israel my junior year taught me how powerful our news outlets really are. Why? Because I was right there. I knew what happened, not because of what people have told me, but because I witnessed it with my own eyes. For example, one night, I heard a loud "thud" while laying in bed. Sure enough, 1/4 of a mile from my bed, a suicide bomber blew up a restaurant. The next day of course this was covered by CNN, but I was amazed how much information was left out of their story. This got me in the habit of checking out Aljazeera for news information (a practice I continue now that I am back in the States). It surprised me how even in a "fact-based" news story, slant can be applied so easily on both sides of the argument.

My point is this. CNN's articles about yesterday’s killing quoted Army generals, Ambassadors, Tony Blair, and more of the like. Aljazeera's articles about yesterday’s killing quoted Al-Zarqawi’s uncle, people from his home town, and even included a conspiracy theory about the timing of Al-Zarqawi’s death and the rise of the new Prime Minister of Iraq (which CNN left out).

But here's where I am going to get in trouble. Why? Because neither news outlet is wrong. They both are reporting factual information based on the opinions of those in which they are interviewing. Why is Tony Blair's opinion anymore important than towns people from Al-Zarqawi (and yes, that's the name of the city he was from and his last name). Ultimately, we should recognize that all of today's news is really just opinion wrapped in the presentation of fact and it is up to us to decipher what is and is not absolute truth in any given situation. If you take the spoon-fed version of the news you're just going to get opinions, to which I say: death to opinions.