Amir Vahedi and G.W.B.

"My chips are in the middle, everyone knows that, sometimes you just have to show people who is the boss." - Amir Vahedi at the 2003 WSOP

Iranian-born Amir Vahedi is an accomplished tournament poker player who utilizes very aggressive play to attempt to build up his chip stack early so that he can bully the table into submission through his attacking style. This style served him well through the initial rounds of the 2003 WSOP Main Event, culminating in him arriving at the Final Table with the second largest chip count, behind only Chris Moneymaker who had put one of the toughest beats in poker history on Phil Ivey the day before. Oddsmakers had made Vahedi the favorite to win the title, and early on it looked good for him as he dispatched another player at the table, David Singer. What happened next left many observers scratching their heads and saying "What the fuck is Amir Vahedi doing?"
What he was doing was "bluffing off" all his chips to Sam Farha with very weak holdings. Essentially, Farha would catch top pair and consistently check/call Vahedi's bluff attempts to the end, and take down a monster pot. Vahedi's attempts to bull over Farha simply weren't going to work as Farha had the goods and wasn't going to lay it down for anything. Because of his bullish plays, he cost himself a great deal of money, and looking back, I'm sure he wishes he had been a little more patient. At the same time though, his demise was not that surprising. Vahedi was merely doing what he does. He was doing exactly what had served him so well throughout the entire tournament to this point. Vahedi wasn't going to back down from his bluff.

Which brings us to our next subject, President George W. Bush. Like Vahedi, Bush and the neoconservatives use a very aggressive style in dealing with foreign policy. Essentially, Bush gives an ultimatum; "Stop your nuclear activities or else", and then refuses to negotiate or back off from his stance, the implied threat being that he is going to attack you (put you all-in). The Administrations' rhetoric before the Iraq invasion sounded very similar to what is currently being discussed about Iran. European countries have been in the process of sitting down with the ruling Mullah of Iran concerning their nuclear activities, but Bush has refused to have anything to do with these talks. Instead Bush will continue to talk up Iran's nuclear activities to Fox news, wait until public sentiment has been somewhat swayed, and then he will likely make strategic "preemptive strikes" against Iran at a time of his choosing. The neoconservatives believe, as they did about Iraq, that US forces in Iran would be seen as liberators and that the youthful masses in Iran would simultaneously rise up and help overthrow the clerics that rule the country. While it is true that many of Iran's populous does wish for the overthrow of its government, it is highly unlikely that any country would welcome outside invaders coming unto their land, especially as the civilian death toll rises as it inevitably will. Such an attack against Iran would further cement the widely held worldview that the US is fully in bed with Israel and is de facto at war with Islam, and is attempting to establish a stranglehold on the oil reserves in the Middle East. That Iraq was a mistake that was entered into because of false information is a fact that Bush and his cohorts will never admit to. Iran will be the next huge error that the neocons wish to jump right into. There will be no negotiations, Bush is going to show them who is the boss. Unfortunately, this is a move that everyone has already seen. Our table-image is shot. There are really only three ways to deal with a table bully. You can fold. You can catch a hand and call down the bluffs. Or you can play back at him with a re-raise. Lets see how our final table plays out.

*Read this article to learn more