A recent event has not gotten the attention that it arguably should have.

On Tuesday, Iran’s Guardian Council turned down the candidacies of two potential presidential candidates: one, a close aide and associate of current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the other, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, now associated with the reformist wing of Iranian politics.

While the Council did approve 8 other candidates, the two who would have been, arguably, the most important candidates–one with close ties to the incumbent administration, and the other with ties to reformists–have been denied the opportunity to run.

In addition to disenfranchising the Iranian electorate, this has important implications for American foreign policy, due to the restiveness and independence of the Iranian people, and furthermore, their willingness to take a stand against the will of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as they demonstrated 4 years ago in 2009.

Indeed, it is my argument that had Rafsanjani himself been allowed to run, it is likely that the peace process, both with Israel and with the wider Middle East, would have been greatly advanced, and moreover, a Rafsanjani presidency could well have been extraordinarily helpful in trying to resolve the ongoing stalemate over Iran’s nuclear program.

Once again, the West is failing to use a unique opportunity and pressure point against Iran.

Indeed, there was a simple step that the United States could and should have taken this week that had the potential to fundamentally change the dynamic vis-à-vis Iran, and yet, no one in Washington took a stand: we should have called on the Iranian regime, and particularly the Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, to allow all the candidates who have registered to run in Iran’s upcoming June 14th presidential election to have their names appear on the ballot.

Why was this seemingly innocuous step so important?

Because former President Hashemi Rafsanjani would have been a leading candidate–perhaps the leading candidate–in next month’s presidential election. Rafsanjani, with little notice or attention, has committed to a program of not only economic liberalization in the authoritarian country, but also a movement towards normalizing relations with the West and potentially resolving the ongoing nuclear stalemate, as well as–however tentatively and preliminarily– making it clear that he does not believe that Israel is Iran’s mortal enemy, and that he does not wish to initiate conflict with them, or with anyone else in the region. Indeed, Rafsanjani has recently said that no, “We are not at war with Israel.”

And Rafsanjani could have won the election. Iranians of all stripes, and particularly those in urban centers, long for a return to the success that the country achieved during his administration in the late 80s and 90s. Furthermore, a leader who advocates for the kind of ideas that Rafsanjani has presented would be a profound change from the policies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an outspoken Holocaust denier who has said that he believes that the state of Israel should be “wiped off the map.”

But instead, Rafsanjani has been banned from participating in the election. And there has only been silence in the West.

It is essential that the United States support freedom and democracy throughout the world, and particularly in countries where it can make a profound different in their governance. Thus, it was critically important for President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to take a stand on the issue of free and fair elections in Iran, and to say that it is of central importance that there be free elections in June, that everyone who has registered must be eligible to run, and that the United States, because of its commitment to the Arab Spring, and to freedom and liberty everywhere, wants to let the will and voice of the Iranian people be heard.

One of the saddest chapters in recent American foreign policy history was the outcome of the profoundly tragic presidential election in 2009, when reformist Mir-Hossein Mousavi appeared to have won the election, only to have it stolen from him by Ahmadinejad. Hundreds of thousands of people protested in the streets in 2009, but the United States turned the other cheek, and the result was four more years of authoritarian governance under Ahmadinejad, and Mousavi being put under house arrest, where he remains to this day.

In 2009 we allowed a critically important opportunity to place pressure on the tottering Iranian regime to pass us by because we seemingly did not want to jeopardize future negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program–negotiations that have been spasmodic at best, and have produced absolutely no results at all.

Now it appears that we have not, in fact, learned from our mistakes–our approach, as of this writing, has been no different. Rafsanjani has been barred from participating in the upcoming election. This is simply wrong, contrary to Iranian and American interests, and is ultimately an effort to silence the Iranian people.

Make no mistake–Rafsanjani is no angel. He has been linked to numerous corruption scandals in the past, and during his tenure as President, between 1989 and 1997, faced credible allegations that he was complicit in the persecution, if not assassination, of Iranian opposition activists. He has grown extraordinarily wealthy due to questionable business ventures, and while he has shown a willingness to accept Israel’s right to exist, he has still said that he would side with the Arab nations, should they engage in armed conflict with Israel.

But at the same time, Rafsanjani is a pragmatist and an economic reformer: he is an advocate of free market capitalism, and of normalizing relations with the West. He is a serious candidate who has effectively articulated the outlines of a reform platform for Iran that has the potential to diffuse tensions in the Middle East, reignite a failed economy, and most importantly, begin constructive talks to end the stalemate over their nuclear program.

Furthermore, Rafsanjani was a supporter of 2009′s Green Movement and of the reformist former President Mohammad Khatami, who made a particular effort to improve relations with the West in the late 90s and early 2000s. A long time pragmatist, Rafsanjani pledged to provide new, and arguably compassionate leadership, and a government of national unity, in contrast to the divisive and polarizing leadership of the current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Rafsanjani’s 50 year friendship with the Ayatollah Khamenei, as disturbing as that may appear to be, is actually an additional reason why his election could have spelled long term change for the country.

Put simply, Rafsanjani can reach the Ayatollah Khamenei on the phone, and indeed, in the days before he filed his candidacy, he reportedly sat in his home, waiting for the imprimatur of the Supreme Leader for his candidacy.

On Monday President Obama delivered a defense of his administration’s response to the Benghazi attacks: he said that nothing new came out in last week’s hearings, that he called the Benghazi attack what it was–a terror attack–the day after it happened, and furthermore, that the controversy over the edited talking points is a political sideshow, rooted in partisan motivations.

But the President can’t just dismiss the questions over what exactly happened in Benghazi.

A detailed examination of the record shows that the White House has had no consistent message–in fact, they changed their message from day to day–and it’s clear that the administration’s actions in the days and weeks after the tragedy was all political maneuvering. When you look at the full totality of what was said, for the President to simply say “I said it was an act of terror”(and furthermore, believe that is a sufficient explanation for the events in September) is clearly a serious oversimplification and mischaracterization of what the White House and the administration did and said.

You don’t need to look far to see where the questions are coming from.

The following selection of quotes from members of the Obama administration, made in the weeks following the tragic attack, bare out how disparate, wide-ranging, incoherent and unfocused the administration’s response has been: on September 20th President Obama spoke of acts of terror generally, while Hillary spoke of inflammatory material on the Internet. Moreover, on September 13th Jay Carney attributes the unrest to a movie, and on the 16th and the 18th the administration continues to speak of offensive material that sparked violence–but then on September 20th, it’s “self-evident” that the event in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

• September 12, 2012 – President Barack Obama

“The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. … No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.”

• September 12 — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

“We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is no justification for this; none.”

• September 12 — White House spokesman Jay Carney, on whether the attack was planned

“It’s too early for us to make that judgment. I think — I know that this is being investigated, and we’re working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time.”

• September 13 — Jay Carney

“The protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States.”

• September 14 — Jay Carney

“We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

• September 16 — Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations

“There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government, and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against Western facilities including our embassies and consulates.”

On CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Rice also said that, “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

• September 18 — Jay Carney

“Our belief, based on the information we have, is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped — that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere. What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation.”

• September 20 — Jay Carney

“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials.”

• September 20 — President Obama on the possible involvement of al Qaeda

“What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

• September 21 — Hillary Clinton

“What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

• September 25 — President Obama on ABC’s “The View,” in response to interviewer Joy Behar’s question, “I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

“We’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. We don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it. But what’s clear is that around the world, there’s still a lot of threats out there.” Obama also said “extremist militias” were suspected to have been involved.

• September 27 — A senior U.S. official tells CNN that it became clear within about a day of the Benghazi attack that it been the work of terrorists, and separately, CNN National Security Analyst Fran Townsend reports that a law enforcement source told her that “from day one, we had known clearly that this was a terrorist attack.”

The administration’s response to the events in Benghazi is completely incoherent, and has been from the start. A simple perusal of what has been said is enough to raise serious questions: it doesn’t matter what side of the political aisle you’re on–it just doesn’t make sense.

In the first week, there were references to both incendiary films and terror attacks, as members of the administration, and President Obama himself, vacillated between uncertainty and declarative, confident statements attributing the attacks, at different times, to both an offensive YouTube video and a premeditated act of terrorist violence.

While officials appear both willing and comfortable to call the attack an “act of terror” in the 24 hours immediately following the tragedy, the administration’s narrative quickly shifts on September 13th, as they batten down the hatches and begin condemning both the insensitivity and incendiary nature of the American-made video denigrating the Prophet Mohammed, as well as the mob in Libya that resorted to violence in the expression of its anger.

Indeed, on September 18th, White House spokesman Jay Carney remains confident that the only concrete intelligence available suggests that the attack was precipitated by the offensive video–but two days later, in the face of mounting questions, Carney makes a 180 degree shift, and it’s suddenly “self evident” that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Moreover–and even stranger–President Obama doesn’t seem to be on the same page as either his spokesperson, or his Secretary of State.

It is bad enough that former Mongolian President Nambaryn Enkhbayar was unfairly convicted and jailed last summer for four years after being charged with misusing property and government power. And that prior to his conviction he was imprisoned so as to prevent him from standing in last June’s parliamentary elections.

Today, Enkhbayar faces an even greater challenge than ever before – his health is deteriorating at a rapid rate and shows no sign of improving. Much like when President Elbegdorj stood in the way of Enkhbayar receiving adequate treatment when he was imprisoned before his conviction over the summer, Enkhbayar is once again suffering further pain at the hands of the Mongolian administration.

It is clear that unless immediate action is taken Enkhbayar will not survive. The Director of the hospital where he is being treated certified to the Director of the Detention Centre that, upon extensive medical examination, Enkhbayar meets the conditions for the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Justice’s 2002 decree that a convicted individual with life-endangering conditions can be released on medical grounds. Indeed, Prime Minister Norovyn Altankhuyag has also concluded that the only way for Enkhbayar to survive is for him to be sent to a hospital abroad. Altankhuyag has appointed a medical commission to complete all the necessary paperwork to this end, but this takes time – valuable time that Enkhbayar does not have.

The decision to move Enkhbayar to a hospital abroad so that he can receive proper medical treatment is not just one for the medical commission. Like so many matters in Mongolia, the process must go through the courts which, unfortunately for Enkhbayar, are controlled by President Elbegdorj. Over the past year, we have seen how little concern Elbegdorj has for the rule of law in Mongolia and certainly how little he values Enkhbayar’s health and wellbeing.

There is a deep concern, which I share, that Elbegdorj will drag this process out longer than necessary thereby further endangering Enkhbayar’s chances at receiving the medical attention he needs. What’s more, the Seventh Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies is now underway in Mongolia – the perfect delaying tactic for Elbegdorj. He has already refused to meet to discuss Enkhbayar’s condition.

Deputy Secretary of State William Burns is participating in the conference as the US representative. Mr. Burns is well aware of Enkhbayar’s situation: California Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry last week, cc’ing Mr. Burns, asking him to intervene and do everything in his power to ensure that Enkhbayar receives the treatment he needs.

To be sure, it would be a great tragedy if a man like Enkhbayar, who dedicated his life to building a free and democratic Mongolia, died on the very week that Mongolia hosts an international conference on democracy.

Once again, it falls on the shoulders of the international community to voice concern over Enkhbayar’s treatment. We are now facing the imminent prospect of losing a great figure of democracy, a fate that may be avoided if we can draw enough attention to his condition and level of care. The stakes could not be any higher.

Nicolas Maduro’s 1.5% win indicated that Venezuela is, at best, a totally divided society. It also suggests that the winner, Maduro, has no legitimacy.

In winning the election, Maduro deployed tens of millions–if not hundreds of millions–of dollars in state assets, and controlled both the entire media and the government bureaucracy to win what the Central Election Commission (CME) called a “narrow victory.”

But, in reality, it’s a hollow victory, if a victory at all.

Put another way, it’s absolutely certain that without the widespread use of state resources, control of the media, and control of the government bureaucracy, Maduro would not have won.

Moreover, it isn’t even clear that Maduro did win, given the fact that the counting took almost an extra hour and a half to complete after the results were supposed to be announced. Having worked in Venezuela in the past, and having seen widespread manipulation of both voting procedure and the count, I have no real confidence that a 1.5 point victory is, in fact, a victory.

But there is a larger issue here than who actually won the election– a hugely important issue.

Venezuelan society remains divided.

Given the narrow nature of Maduro’s win, it is unlikely that large percentages of the Venezuelan electorate will accept the results. There is, indeed, a definite possibility, given the weakness of the economy and the suspicious nature of the vote, that there will be less than full acceptance of President Maduro’s victory. And there is the chance that there could be additional instability in the country as well.

Venezuela is one of our largest trading partners; it is our fourth-largest source of imported oil and we certainly have a vested interest in the stability of the region.

But we have a larger interest in Venezuela beyond oil – promoting democracy and freedom in a country that has systematically undermined our interests in Latin America, and around the world, for the last 10 to 15 years.

The Venezuelan government has been an ally of the Russians, the Chinese, and more controversially, the Iranians for some time now. President Ahmadinejad and the late President Chavez were great friends who made deals on economic issues, and, indeed, on military cooperation.

It follows that it is in American interests, and the interests of the hemisphere, that we be much more assertive in standing up for our values and our interests rather than kowtowing to a President who lacks legitimacy, who was elected without anything other than a synthetic majority, and who is playing out the last messages of the failed social revolution of Hugo Chavez.

Douglas E. Schoen is the author of ”The Threat Closer to Home: Hugo Chávez and the War Against America.”

Hearings in the James Holmes trial are underway and a trial date has been set for February 2014. There has been much discussion of the prosecution’s decision to seek the death penalty – a decision made in consultation with the victims’ families – but far less attention has been given to a tremendously important issue that has now become part and parcel of the Holmes trial: protecting our first amendment rights.

You will all remember a crucial breakthrough in the James Holmes case that came courtesy of Jana Winter, a veteran Fox News journalist, in late July of last year. Winter learned that police had “searched for and recovered” a notebook that Holmes had sent to his former psychiatrist, Dr. Lynne Fenton at the University of Colorado, which contained drawings such as gun-wielding stick figures blowing away other stick figures.

Winter investigated the tip and published her exclusive story on July 25^th. She cited unnamed law enforcement sources, a practice that is customary in investigative journalism.

But where this story takes an unusual turn is in how Holmes’ defense team reacted to Winter’s exclusive: they complained that these law enforcement officials had violated the judge’s gag order, issued days beforehand.

And they aren’t stopping. In 24 hours, Winter will appear in court and Judge Samour will hear arguments as to whether Winter should be compelled to reveal her sources. Winter has invoked the protection of the Colorado State Shield Law, which permits journalists to decline to reveal their sources on matters of public interest, but it is possible that the Shield Law won’t be able to protect her.

The Colorado State Shield Law has a loophole that the court can conclude that the need to know the identity of the source is greater than the need to protect the source. If Judge Samour sees it that way, Winter will be compelled to give names or go to jail.

Winter has made it clear, through her attorneys, that she would rather go to jail than give up the identities of her sources. This is certainly one of the toughest, if not the toughest, decision that a reporter is apt to face in his or her career. But the real question becomes, why is Winter having to face this decision at all?

It is wholly out of line with the principles of the First Amendment for a court to compel a journalist to reveal their sources. Not only does it set a bad precedent, but it also endangers the entire field of investigative journalism. I am hard pressed to imagine a scenario in which this type of ruling would not have a deleterious effect on the number of sources willing to take to journalists on a confidential basis.

As I see it, Winter provided an essential piece of evidence to a hugely important case. She did this with the best interests of the public at heart and in pursuit of the truth. For her two options to be either facing jail time or to violate the implicit pact between a journalist and their sources is a betrayal of what our country is meant to be about.

In the past few weeks, Democrats and Republicans have offered up competing budget proposals—the Democrats in the Senate, the Republicans in the House—to address the nation’s mounting fiscal challenges.

The two budgets are roughly $1 trillion apart on taxes and $750 billion apart on military spending over the next ten years. They are fundamentally at odds on Medicare and entitlement reform as well as deficit reduction: the Republican plan would balance the budget over the next 10 years, while the Democratic plan reduces the deficit to an amount equivalent to 2.2% of GDP by 2023.

At the same time, the American people are in a profoundly pessimistic and angry mood. The Republican Party’s approval ratings stand at a 20-year low, with 66 percent judging it unfavorably compared to 33 percent favorably. The Democrats are viewed in a more favorable light, but are still not in good stead (43 percent favorable to 53 percent unfavorable).

Fifty-two percent of voters believe the country is off on the wrong track, and 50 percent say the same about the economy. Close to a majority say we will not be able to balance the budget anytime soon.

A new poll that we recently completed for the Campaign to Fix the Debt shows that Americans view the Republican plan favorably by a tepid 46-37 margin. By a broader margin (56-31), they favor the Democratic plan, but neither plan inspired much confidence in our respondents. When we asked whether they thought that either the Democrats or Republicans had a realistic plan to reduce the deficit, just 20 percent said that the Republicans did, while 25 percent said that the Democrats did. But 49 percent believe that neither side has a realistic plan.

Stalemate, gridlock, and lack of public confidence: it all sounds depressingly familiar.

But our poll found that there is a bipartisan, compromise plan in Washington that Americans overwhelmingly support: the revamped Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan.

By an overwhelming margin—80 percent to 8—our respondents support the new Simpson-Bowles plan, which cuts wasteful spending, reforms our outdated tax code, and makes the necessary changes to entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security in order to protect them for future generations of Americans. This plan would reduce our debt by $2.4 trillion.

The plan stood up to scrutiny. When we gave specifics of the plan—including arguments against it that included cuts to Medicare and Social Security—support dropped, but remained between 56 percent and 65 percent favorability. Opposition to the plan never increased above 24 percent.

What does this mean?

It says that the American people are prepared for shared sacrifice to address our fiscal woes—much more than either party has acknowledged in their respective budget plans.

Americans are prepared for both entitlement reform and perhaps even higher taxes. They support limiting tax deductions and sacrificing some of their Medicare and Social Security benefits to ensure that we can balance the budget and reduce our debt and deficit.

But they want these reforms instituted across the board as part of a comprehensive plan. Most of all, they want compromise in Washington.

To date, very few surveys have examined this issue in any great detail, comparing the actual details of the Democratic, Republican, and compromise plan and gauging American attitudes. Our findings offer compelling evidence that, while there is a great divide between the two parties, what the public wants is a clear, bipartisan fix to our nation’s fiscal situation.

The Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan that the Campaign to Fix the Debt has advocated is a clear way forward to avoid another crisis this summer, when the debt ceiling comes up for review again. It is what Americans want, and it is the only viable compromise that will satisfy both the Republican and Democratic agendas.

The time to act on it is now.

In the past few weeks, Democrats and Republicans have offered up competing budget proposals—the Democrats in the Senate, the Republicans in the House—to address the nation’s mounting fiscal challenges.

The two budgets are roughly $1 trillion apart on taxes and $750 billion apart on military spending over the next ten years. They are fundamentally at odds on Medicare and entitlement reform as well as deficit reduction: the Republican plan would balance the budget over the next 10 years, while the Democratic plan reduces the deficit to an amount equivalent to 2.2% of GDP by 2023.

At the same time, the American people are in a profoundly pessimistic and angry mood. The Republican Party’s approval ratings stand at a 20-year low, with 66 percent judging it unfavorably compared to 33 percent favorably. The Democrats are viewed in a more favorable light, but are still not in good stead (43 percent favorable to 53 percent unfavorable).

Fifty-two percent of voters believe the country is off on the wrong track, and 50 percent say the same about the economy. Close to a majority say we will not be able to balance the budget anytime soon.

A new poll that we recently completed for the Campaign to Fix the Debt shows that Americans view the Republican plan favorably by a tepid 46-37 margin. By a broader margin (56-31), they favor the Democratic plan, but neither plan inspired much confidence in our respondents. When we asked whether they thought that either the Democrats or Republicans had a realistic plan to reduce the deficit, just 20 percent said that the Republicans did, while 25 percent said that the Democrats did. But 49 percent believe that neither side has a realistic plan.

Stalemate, gridlock, and lack of public confidence: it all sounds depressingly familiar.

But our poll found that there is a bipartisan, compromise plan in Washington that Americans overwhelmingly support: the revamped Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan.

By an overwhelming margin—80 percent to 8—our respondents support the new Simpson-Bowles plan, which cuts wasteful spending, reforms our outdated tax code, and makes the necessary changes to entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security in order to protect them for future generations of Americans. This plan would reduce our debt by $2.4 trillion.

The plan stood up to scrutiny. When we gave specifics of the plan—including arguments against it that included cuts to Medicare and Social Security—support dropped, but remained between 56 percent and 65 percent favorability. Opposition to the plan never increased above 24 percent.

What does this mean?

It says that the American people are prepared for shared sacrifice to address our fiscal woes—much more than either party has acknowledged in their respective budget plans.

Americans are prepared for both entitlement reform and perhaps even higher taxes. They support limiting tax deductions and sacrificing some of their Medicare and Social Security benefits to ensure that we can balance the budget and reduce our debt and deficit.

But they want these reforms instituted across the board as part of a comprehensive plan. Most of all, they want compromise in Washington.

To date, very few surveys have examined this issue in any great detail, comparing the actual details of the Democratic, Republican, and compromise plan and gauging American attitudes. Our findings offer compelling evidence that, while there is a great divide between the two parties, what the public wants is a clear, bipartisan fix to our nation’s fiscal situation.

The Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan that the Campaign to Fix the Debt has advocated is a clear way forward to avoid another crisis this summer, when the debt ceiling comes up for review again. It is what Americans want, and it is the only viable compromise that will satisfy both the Republican and Democratic agendas.

The time to act on it is now.