In Peter Brookes' recent Heritage Foundation article, he discusses Venezuela's aggressive military and economic stance. Hugo Chavez is increasingly doing all those silly things so popular with aspiring dictators, from militarization to political indoctrination. Venezuela's arms purchases from Russia (The TJ Maxx of arms exporters) are expanding even as Chavez continues to consolidate power within his country. Although a June report by a Caracas-based agency indicates a drop in support for Chavez, particularly with respect to his political ideology, he doesn't seem to be too shattered, as his push for socialism isn't slowing down.
Another point of Brookes' article which caught our attention was the relationship between Venezuela and Iran. The two countries seem to have reached a point where one can hardly make a move without it being duplicated by the other. Consider Chavez's threats to the US naval presence in the South Atlantic:

Just this week, Latin America's troublemaker-in-chief, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, threatened the recently reactivated US Fourth Fleet with two squadrons of newly arrived Russian Su-30 fighter planes, part of a $3 billion arms package he bought in 2006.
Engaging in his unique brand of saber-rattling, Chavez said: "Any gringo ship that sails into brown [i.e., coastal] waters will itself turn brown and go to the bottom, because they'll not get through."

Chavez's words come on the heels of the Iranian announcement of a new naval weapon (The “Death Crescent,” see below) as the Islamic Republic performs missile tests and assures the world that it will triumph over any opponent.
Venezuela is notorious for fueling political unrest in the Americas, just as Iran is one of the most powerful destabilizing influences in the Middle East. Indeed, Brookes points out that Venezuela may also be jumping on the Islamic terrorism bandwagon as a platform for Hezbollah.
The startlingly similar pace of the two countries makes us wonder: if the situation explodes with one, can the other be far behind?

Iran has done the unthinkable. On Monday, Tehran unexpectedly announced its willingness to close the Strait of Hormuz in order to wreak havoc on oil-dependant powers. It backed up its statement with the claim that it now possesses a weapon even more powerful than its dreaded Photoshop missiles: the Death Crescent.

Actually, the Iranians did not say what the secret weapon was, only that they had it. We are convinced it is a battle station capable of destroying entire planets.

However, it is unlikely that the Death Crescent will be used against the West, as it is currently occupied with executing female Iranian citizens accused of sneezing in public. Also, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, head of the Revolutionary Guards, has described the mystery weapon as "unique in the world" - which we believe to mean that it is built from an Erector Set.

The Iranian statements came after the Islamic Republic ignored a Saturday deadline for it to cease the expansion of its uranium enrichment program. In response, the US has called for further UN sanctions to be put in place.

Barry Rubin, of the Global Research in International Affairs Center (GLORIA) posted an interesting article online earlier this month. His belief as to the nuclear aspirations of Iran is straightforward:


"The simplest and cheapest--therefore very popular--idea is to talk Iran out of making nuclear weapons. This is silly. The regime wants them, laughs at Western threats not backed by strength, and awaits the next American president (no prizes for guessing who it prefers) hoping he'll follow a surrender strategy.

Iran won't be bought off, it merely seeks to buy time."


And his mention of the undermining of diplomatic pressure and sanctions by ever-extensive trade with various members of the EU, which is unashamedly Iran's largest trading partner, reminds us of the fact that the states of Europe can't even devote themselves to their own positions, let alone the fostering of stability abroad.

But most interesting is his assertion that Obama's current policy on Iran would be disastrous for everyone who cringes at the thought of missiles at Iranian command - meaning everyone except for the winners who happen to rule the Islamic Republic. He writes, quite simply, that Obama would, by holding unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad, validate the Iranian president's shrewd policy of "scream psychotically enough from your prison cell and they'll move you to posh quarters in the nuthouse." A friendly dialogue with Iran would give the impression that the United States has been wrong in its position against Iran's nuclear program, eroding American status abroad and, frighteningly, making diplomatic pressure against the radical policies of the Iranian government even less effective. To hold the sort of talks Obama proposes is to automatically put the US on the defensive with regard to its foreign policy,which is exactly the sort of provocation a volatile and aggressive state like Iran needs to carry out its agenda.