If one of the secrets to success in any job is choosing the right predecessor, then Dilma Rousseff may be starting out with one strike against her.

Her current boss and political champion Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva could well be the toughest act to follow anywhere in the world. Despite the efforts of some commentators to take him down a notch or two (much like young guns in the old American west who used to try to boost their reputations by going after the fastest gun in town), Brazil's charismatic president has done a remarkable job. Confounding -- and consigning to the trash heap of history -- old distinctions between left and right, Lula has overseen an economic boom, major social reforms and the elevation of Brazil's standing to the top ranks of nations in the world. (See the excellent story in today's Latin Business Chronicle ... rapidly becoming required reading for anyone interested in Latin America ... summarizing Brazil's recent economic accomplishments. It's pretty dazzling stuff.)

The question is: What's a girl to do? Dilma, who almost certainly will become Brazil's first woman president -- despite a recent slight slip in the polls due to a scandal that doesn't in any way implicate; her one of those curiously timed dust ups that happen to come to light in the weeks before an election -- is going to inherit a country with very high expectations. Some critics expect that absent Lula's extraordinary gifts that she will falter. But read her story and you discover an exceptionally accomplished, tough as nails, politically canny, professional manager who will come to office much better prepared and equipped than some other leaders who have taken over major powers recently.

In fact, given that a centerpiece of her tenure will be the efforts to tap the enormous oil reserves off Brazil's shores -- thus making Brazil a major petropowerhouse -- her background as former energy minister is ideal. The fact that in that capacity she chaired Petrobras, the state's oil giant that recently completed a massive financing that made it the fourth most highly capitalized company in the world, gives her much more business understanding than many political leaders ... even if her views on the national responsibilities of that company make some market purists uncomfortable.

Read on

Today is yet another primary day in America. Some of the biggest decisions the country faces will be left to the tiny handful of voters who show up to vote. And once again the results will remind us of one of the enduring truths of democracy: The majority is often wrong.

This fact is as true today on global issues as it is on domestic ones. Blame it on ignorance. Blame it on the distorting lens of the media. Blame it on the spinmeisters and snake oil salesmen. But the reality is that more often than we care to admit, the people are dopes.

I know this will outrage some. But they are among the dopes. And as usual, a careful analysis of the facts undercuts their position. (But facts are to these people as my advice is to my cats -- just ambient noise that they ignore on their way to a sunny spot on which they can curl up and sleep. Which is why, as Soren Kierkegaard put it, the "public is everything and nothing...the most dangerous of all powers and the most insignificant.")

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that contrary to the populist liturgy the world would be an even bigger mess than it is if public opinion guided every major decision. And that's saying something.

For example, in July 1941, polls indicated only 17 percent of Americans supported the idea of intervening in the war in Europe. Or consider that 68 percent of Americans believe that "angels and demons are active in the world." (If you are one of them, please stop reading this.  We could get to some big words later and the rest of this is just going to make your head hurt.)  Or that George W. Bush was elected not once but twice to be president of the United States.

Now, we shouldn't be surprised. The reality is that the majority of the people haven't the slightest idea as to what they are taking about most of the time. In a 2007 poll it was found that more than two-thirds of Americans couldn't name the president of Russia and eight out of ten couldn't name the Secretary of Defense (while almost two thirds could identify Beyonce Knowles). In 2006 only just over a third of Americans between 18 and 24 could find Iraq on a map and fewer than three in 10 thought it was important to know the location of countries in the news.   

Everybody is entitled to their opinion. But not everyone deserves to have their opinion garner the same amount of respect. If you don't know anything about a subject, why should your viewpoint matter? It's why the founders of the republic opted for representative democracy -- the people should have a voice ... which would allow them to pick professionals who would study the issues to make their decisions for them. It's a better idea than the alternatives but you have to admit, even it hasn't worked out so well if our elected officials are the metric we're going to use to judge.

There are plenty of issues in the news right now where it is absolutely clear the public and the truth are on different sides of the argument. Take just these five:

• U.S. Immigration Law
  America was built by immigrants. Vast swaths of the economy depend on labor by illegal immigrants. The influx of (often young) legal and illegal aliens to the United States actually has helped make us the only major developed economy that is not suffering the burdens of a population whose average age is dramatically rising. And there are plenty of ways to deal with real problems associated with illegal immigrants that do not actually involve the constitutionally dubious practice of letting police stop people based on the (entirely racially motivated) "suspicion" they are immigrants. Yet, 60 percent of all Americans currently favor letting police stop and verify immigration status and a majority of Americans who have heard of the Arizona immigration law support it. Two thirds of all American believe U.S. military should be deployed to the border to prevent illegal immigration. Better there, I suppose, than Afghanistan but two exercises in futility do not make a right.

• Off-shore Drilling
  Something like a third of U.S. energy comes from offshore drilling. Something like 80 percent of that comes from deep water drilling. Much of the most important new sources of off-shore oil are in deep water. A moratorium on new off-shore and deep off-shore will cost billions (almost three billion next year if the current hold on activities is kept in place.) What's more much of that money goes to regimes that don't much like America increasing our dependence on a bunch of bad guys. Further, despite this year's catastrophe, off-shore drilling has a great track record (and would have a better one if we had better regulatory enforcement...as opposed to a shutdown.)  Still 51 percent of Americans now feel off-shore drilling is too risky (a big swing from two years ago when 70 percent supported it).

• Anything That Has to do with Israel
  A majority of Americans believe Israel should allow an international investigation of the flotilla fiasco. Well, that seems reasonable...unless you take into consideration that a 2007 BBC poll of 27 countries showed 56 percent of respondents believing Israel was a negative influence.  Or that within that poll, Israel was regarded unfavorably in 23 countries, worse than Iran which was seen as unfavorable in 21 and North Korea which is seen as unfavorable in 20. Think Israel-the only democratic, successfully non-resource-based economy in the region -- could get a fair hearing on this planet? (Viz. the Goldstone report, a deeply flawed and biased analysis from a guy with a very dubious background.) Seems unlikely...but a change of venue is beyond our technological capabilities at the moment. (I noted The Economist critiqued Israel's "siege mentality" in the current issue. But I think the critique overlooks the fact that Israel is actually under siege and has been since its founding. Doesn't that excuse something?)

• Global Warming
  While the vast majority of the world's scientists believe that man made global warming is a major and imminent threat and despite the data they cite on rising global temperatures, accelerating polar ice and glacial melting and changing weather patterns...and while 73 percent of people surveyed worldwide want their governments to prioritize climate change, only a minority (44 percent) of Americans felt this way. Further, percentages of those who believe global warming has begun are dwindling and the number who see it as a serious problem has slipped to 35 percent from 44 percent. Almost half of all Americans, 48 percent, believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated.

• Women's Rights
  According to a Pew poll, the majority of those polled in Mali (65 percent), the Palestinian Territories (64 percent), Kuwait (62 percent), Pakistan (54 percent) and Ethiopia (51 percent) said that men make better political leaders than women. Which is something considering the history each of these countries has had under male leadership. Further in Jordan, Nigeria and Russia almost equal numbers says men are better leaders as who say men and women make equally good leaders. A different perspective: almost 8 out of 10 American women say that we still don't have equal pay for equal work while only just over half of men feel that way. (The facts say we don't.)

The list goes on and on, a poll this month showed that only 37 percent of Americans favor more government regulation of the financial system despite all obvious evidence to the contrary. And a poll last month showed that 53 percent of Americans believe same sex marriages should not be recognized.

Why raise this? Because people too often confuse majority opinions with what is right and too often suggest that it is the responsibilities of leaders to heed the majority. It clearly is not. In fact, often what has distinguished great leaders is their ability to actually lead people away from the problems to which they, left to their own devices, might have been heading. 

Finally, is this an argument for elites? Heck, no. (Unless you mean should people with the education and experience to make decisions actually be listened to more carefully than say, I don't know, radio talk show hosts or movie directors who don't know the slightest thing about geology?) Elites get it wrong as often as the majorities do. For years they thought Pluto was a planet.  Few predicted the fall of the USSR. Few predicted the market collapse of a couple years ago. Heck financial markets assume that half the elite will be on the opposite side of any deal from the other half. No, this is just an argument for giving the facts and the experts a bit of a listen when it comes to really important decisions because believe what you may about angels, it is generally not a good idea to make plans based on their intervention.

With the statement of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov asserting that his country would not support sanctions against Iran and his dismissal of U.S. calls for a negotiating timetable with that country, several important questions are raised. They are:

First, how do you like your Iranian nukes? Fried or over-easy?

In other words, without sanctions Iran's program progresses. That leaves two choices: Israel steps up and takes military action to set back the program or second, we simply roll-over and get used to the world's largest state-sponsor of terror producing the nuclear weapons the U.S. intel community now believes they are capable of making.

My sense is that the risk of Israeli military moves just went up dramatically ... and it was pretty high to begin with. But they will only set back the Iranian program briefly if they do intervene and the resulting turmoil on the international scene is likely to produce plenty of blowback for an Israel that is already more isolated than it has been in forty years.

But on the question at hand, let's be absolutely clear: Russia has just essentially unilaterally given the green light to Tehran to join the nuclear weapons club. Russia can block action in the Security Council and no effort to, for example, halt oil and gas flows to Iran could work without Russian cooperation. The last chance of stopping the Iranians over the long-term has probably therefore been undercut. As disturbingly, the Russian message is clearly that this is something they actually support. Otherwise, they could have kept their own counsel while negotiations continued. They didn't have to tip their hand now unless they wanted to scuttle the entire negotiation process. They are saying they believe their approach is the one most likely to work with Tehran. Tehran may even find ways to pretend it is working. But without any effective international levers against the Iranians, they have been given the go-ahead to pursue whatever agenda they choose.

Second, in a related vein, what was Bibi doing in Moscow?

If he was there, as current speculation suggests, to press the Russians to stop shipments of S300 missiles to Iran, that didn't turn out so well, with Russia standing by its right to engage in arms sales with the Iranians...and then adding a threat of severe consequences if Israel or another state used military measures to stop the Iranian nuclear program. At this point, with the Russians providing so much diplomatic, political and military cover for the Iranian efforts, it is almost tempting to start referring to Tehran's initiative as a joint Russian-Iranian nuclear program.

Third, will it be NPT 2.0, NPT 1.1 or N²PT?

Once it is recognized that Iran's entrance into the nuclear club proves (yet again) the impotence of the non-proliferation treaty do we go for an entirely new agreement, a variation on what we have now or just accept that what we have is really the N²PT, which is to say the non-nonproliferation treaty (this is one case where a double negative definitely does not equal a positive.) A completely new deal is, in reality, a non-starter because it would be impossible to get agreement from many nations to opt in. The U.S. view is to renovate the sagging framework of the existing agreement with a much more robust international mechanism for dealing with the creation and disposal of nuclear fuel. But the real question is whether or not there will ever be an enforcement mechanism strong enough to enable multilateral inspections and to ensure multilateral action in the face of proven violations. Actually, Russia has gone quite a long way toward answering that ... which in turn raises another question: Just what is the best way to safely dispose of spent nuclear agreements?

Finally, just how much does Russia have to do before they go from being a contentious partner to actually once again being an enemy?

Ok, this is rhetorical. Given that this week Russia became the world's largest petroleum exporter, we're not going to be outright enemies with them. After all, we've long proven that if you give us a nice meal and pump enough oil into us, we're easy ... or at least flexible. Still, after a rough visit to Moscow by Obama, differences on missile defense, Russia's calls for a new global currency, Russian efforts to place itself at the center of every emerging global alliance to counterbalance the United States, provocative weapons deals with among others Tehran and Caracas, possible missile shipments on board ships that disappear and reappear, aggression in the near-abroad and torpedoing our efforts to stop Iran short of gaining nuclear weapons, you've got to start wondering when we're going to get the message. They'll take whatever we have to give but their agenda diverges from ours on a wide array of critical issues and on some, they conflict with us directly and, one might almost say, exultantly.

Oh, we'll try to put a good face on it. But note: they have given us every incentive to start working hard on our new BIC strategy ... which is to say trying to isolate Russia among the leaders of the emerging world by forging stronger ties with China, India and Brazil (among others). This in turn raises the final question in this litany: which is how much do you think we can get on eBay for one virtually new, unused reset button? Perhaps there is a museum somewhere that would like to put it in a display alongside Neville Chamberlain's umbrella.

Today Hillary Clinton made a statement in Thailand that the United States would work to create a defensive shield to help protect Gulf allies from a potential Iranian nuclear threat. Her point is that Iran should not think creating nukes will give them a strategic advantage because we will work relentlessly to blunt any edge nukes might provide.

Seems reasonable enough. Not surprisingly though, Clinton's comments landed in Jerusalem like a dud scud. According to Agence France Presse, Israel's Intelligence Services Minister Dan Meridor responded:

I heard without enthusiasm the American declarations according to which the United States will defend their allies in the event that Iran uses nuclear weapons, as if they were already resigned to such a possibility. This is a mistake. We cannot act now by assuming that Iran will be able to arm itself with a nuclear weapon, but to prevent such a possibility."

I also agree with this view. That's what I like about the Middle East. It's rife with complexities and no issue has fewer than three sides. What I don't like much about the Middle East is when it becomes, as it often does, that magical fantasy land where passions can be applied to fantasies to produce facts ... or where the insupportable is often the unshakable foundation of absolute certitude. (Which explains a number of religious developments in the region ... but I will gingerly sidestep that discussion for now.)

My recent post on shifting attitudes in Israel and the United States regarding the relationship between the two countries produced among those commenting on it a host of really interesting comments from all over the spectrum ... and some of the nasty/loony stuff we could all do without. 

Of course, item number one in this latter category is racism or prejudice of any sort against any group. Examples of this were visible in a number of the comments, sometimes boldly, sometimes insidiously. The big winner in the makes-ya-wanna-barf contest came from a guy named "briand" who, in reference to a rather overheated pro-Israeli post by AllanGreen, wrote, "If this is parody, kudos! I think the thing I'll miss the most about you Jews is your sense of humor. Not so much the apartheid/lebensraum mentality though." Scroll on through the comments ... there's lots of hatred there, in and among some fairly thoughtful arguments for one side or another.  

Another commenting technique that drives me up a wall is imputing views to me (for whatever reason) that I don't actually hold. For example: I'm no fan of the settlements, think they ought to be dismantled, am not a Zionist, don't support the views of the Likud, and based on his track record to date am no Bibi fan. I also don't think that taking a tough stand against the Iranian nuclear program implies the need to attack and lay waste to Iran. Rather, we need an international program of inspections and enforcement that explicitly asserts the right to use force to compel compliance and offers a multilateral guarantee of providing that force. (Not just in the case of Iran, by the way, but in the case of all future signatories of the new NPT we will start negotiating next year ... an NPT that should offer the framework within which the deal with Iran ought to be included.) 

Another aggravating approach which often undercuts otherwise reasonable arguments is making insupportable assertions. For example, one reader argued that Israel had Iran and Ahmadinejad all wrong, that the Iranian president's comments about destroying Israel were really a deliberate, unfair misquoting of him and that by extension; Israel had nothing to fear from Tehran. Really? Aren't we forgetting 30 years of official pronouncements or the guy who chants "death to Israel" at afternoon prayers? I think it was the same reader who argued another reason to chill out about any potential Iranian threat was that Iran has not attacked anyone in 250 years. This overlooked, as another reader pointed out, the fact that the country has for decades been the world's leading state sponsor of terror...which ought to count for something.    

In this vein, one of the most popular insupportable assertions is that somehow solving the settlements problem or even the larger Israel-Palestinian problem will in turn solve or contribute greatly to solutions for all our other problems in the Middle East -- this despite the fact that many of the biggest problems in the region antedate the founding of Israel by a number of centuries.

In the interest of dispelling this misconception, here, off the top of my head, are 15 major problems in the Middle East that would not be solved by solving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute:

1. The Iranian nuclear program
2. The regional arms race that may be triggered by the advancement of the Iranian nuclear program
3. The Saudi succession problem
4. The problems associated with getting Shias, Sunnis and Kurds to get along in Iraq
5. The problems associated with possible Kurdish succession from Iraq and Turkey
6. The Egyptian succession problem
7. The battle between moderates and hard-liners in Iran
8. Our dependency on Middle Eastern oil and its economic, political and environmental consequences
9. The efforts of Taliban, al Qaeda and other extremists to assert their influence in Afghanistan
10. The efforts of Taliban, al Qaeda and other extremists to assert their influence in Pakistan
11.  Anti-U.S. and anti-Western terrorism not associated with Israel but with the promotion and expansion of Western cultural values and perceived global inequalities
12. The ability of the Palestinians to form a stable, working state with functioning political processes
13. The historic competition for resources in the region including, increasingly, water
14. The conflict between Hezbollah and pro-Western political groups to gain a foothold in Lebanon
15. Israel's historical tensions with Syria, Iran, and virtually every other major Arab state

This doesn't include related issues like the tensions between extremist or tribal Islamic groups with roots in the region and Russia, China, and other bordering countries. Perhaps you have others, feel free to add. (Just try to restrain yourself if you feel the impulse to make a comment that uses as its primary source The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.)

Dismantle the settlements. Create two states. Create an internationally monitored buffer between those states. Let billions in aid flow in to help relieve the plight of the Palestinians. Please, do all these things. They are all long overdue. But know this: They may remove an irritant, they may remove an argument from extremists, they may put U.S. relations on a more even footing with other countries in the region. But they won't make the Middle East appreciably less dangerous or difficult and I guarantee you, they won't stop efforts by the countries of the region to continue to scapegoat, confront and battle Israel on countless other pretexts.

David Silverman/Getty Images