The Latest from Iran (24 February): Shocks and Erosions

2100 GMT: Law and Order Story of the Week. After the court session for Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor of Kayhan, the newspaper's journalist Payam Fazli-Nejad was reportedly "heavily beaten, barely escaping his death", and Ahmadinejad right-hand man Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai has become "mamnou ol-tasvir" (his photos forbidden) on Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.

An Iranian activist today is adding that the weapon used on Fazli-Nejad was a "dessert knife".

NEW Latest Iran Video: Rafsanjani’s Daughter is Confronted
NEW Iran Special: Interpreting the Videos of the Tehran Dorm Attacks
Iran Document: Karroubi Statement on 22 Bahman & The Way Forward (22 February)
UPDATED Iran 18-Minute Video: Attack on Tehran University Dormitories (14/15 June 2009)
The Latest from Iran (23 February): Videoing the Attacks

2040 GMT: War on Terror, I Tell You. I'm sure it is entirely coincidental in light of current events --- announcement of arrest of Jundullah leader a week after it occurred, Ahmadinejad declaring that it is Iran not "the West" that is fighting terrorism (1745 GMT), declaration of 100 arrested on 22 Bahman as "terrorists" (1435 GMT) --- but this just in from the Ministry of Intelligence:

Three agents of the [Kurdish] Komala terrorist group who were planning to bomb a factory belonging to the defence ministry in Tehran were identified and arrested....Two foreign made bombs concealed in loudspeakers and three Kalashnikovs (assault rifles) were seized....Due to the occupying presence of the US forces in Iraq and their support of some terrorist groups like Komala, their training, and equipping them with military hardware is carried out by America's intelligence services.

1940 GMT: Urgent --- Assembly of Experts Statement. Fars News reports, and Zamaaneh summarises, that the statement at the end of the two-day Assembly meeting has not only declared support for the Supreme Leader (expected) but declared that the opportunity for the "repent and reform" of opposition leaders has ended (unexpected). This "sedition" against the "intelligence guidance" of Ayatollah Khamenei can no longer be tolerated.

1920 GMT: Is This the Level of Ahmadinejad's Support? Claimed video from Birjand in south Khorasan (eastern Iran) for the President's speech today:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRAdgALdStI[/youtube]

1910 GMT: Defending Against the Video. The Los Angeles Times, drawing from Iranian state media (see 0645 GMT) has a summary of damage control from regime officials:

"Today, police are powerful, popular, courageous and reasonable," Maj. Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, the top military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, told police commanders...."Everywhere in the world, even in Europe and America, police strongly confront rioters. No government tolerates insecurity, arson and vandalizing of public properties."....

"All detention centers, interrogation rooms and reformatories have been ordered to install surveillance cameras and monitoring equipment," [Iran's police chief Gen. Esmail Ahmadi-Moqaddam] said. "Police inspectors will regularly visit the detention centers. Police are also setting up a committee to protect civil rights in detention centers."....

"Even when a European city hosts a summit, the city is militarized," said Brig. Gen. Hossein Hamedani, commander of the Tehran Revolutionary Guards. "How can we turn a blind eye to people's security?"

1900 GMT: Political Prisoner News (cont.). Iranian authorities have issued temporary release orders for Ebrahim Yazdi, head of the Freedom Movement of Iran, and Hedayat Aghai, of the Kargozaran Party, today.

The case of Yazdi, who has been released for 10 days, is still being considered; however, Aghai, freed released tomorrow for a week, has been sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison.

It is also reported that Feizollah Arabsorkhi, executive member of the Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution party, has been sentenced to six years in prison for “activities against national security and propaganda against the regime”.

1850 GMT: Political Prisoner News. The Iranian Supreme Court has commuted the death sentence of Kurdish journalist Adnan Hassanpour, who has been jailed since 2007 for mohareb (war against God). Adnanpour will now serve a 31-year prison term.

1840 GMT: The wife of Mohammad Maleki, the first post-1979 chancellor of Tehran Revolution, has spoken to Radio Farda of her husband's deteriorating health. The 76-year-old Maleki, who was detained in August and charged in September with actions against national security, suffers from prostate cancer.

Ghodsi Mirmoez said her husband sounded very ill the last time they spoke and that she had not been allowed to meet him for more than 20 days. She pleaded, "I wonder if international organizations can do anything for my husband. His physical condition is grave."

1805 GMT: Not Defeated. Writing for Tehran Bureau, Ali Chenar in Tehran reflects on the politics of 22 Bahman and its aftermath and concludes:

Certainly one of the questions about the Green Movement is why it has remained a grassroots movement and not become a political organization. One reason might be that it does not care to become identified with a specific ideology and risk alienating various segments of the society whose support it currently enjoys. In the past eight months it has instead walked a fine line, remaining a popular but amorphous phenomenon, encompassing all political factions and social groups seeking justice. It has avoided intensifying the conflict, avoided pressing for regime change. Rather than evolving, it has maintained a state of entropy. Yet over the past several months, its inclusive nature has helped it sustain its momentum and survive.

What the Green Movement has achieved already is enormous. Many would tell you that the events of the past eight months have permanently changed the social and political landscape. A new era has begun. Those groups critical of the government now map the very fabric of Iranian society. They include both traditional conservatives and secular liberals, progressive students and cautious businessmen, men and women alike. As one observer told this correspondent, "Everyone has realized that everyone else thinks the emperor is naked too."

1745 GMT: It's Our "War on Terror" Now. President Ahmadinejad neatly twinned the "terrorism" and "Iran v. the West" themes in his speech today in Khorasan in eastern Iran. "Why have you [in the US] issued a passport for Rigi if you want to arrest a terrorist?....The Iranian security forces captured Rigi without any bloodshed. It is better for these countries to adopt the Iranian model of campaigning against terrorism."

1435 GMT: The Big "Terrorist" Push. Ahh, here we go. In the same week that Iranian authorities trumpet the capture of Jundullah leader Abdolmalek Rigi, Revolutionary Guard Commander Hossein Hamadani declares that security forces arrested about 100 members of dissident groups on 11 February. He asserts that they are members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran and Association of Iranian Monarchists and intended to carry out “bombings and assassinations”.

1355  GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. On a very slow day for news, we have noted the account by blogger and journalist Zhila Baniyaghoub, posted by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, about the detention of her husband, "Bahman Amouei", and others in Evin Prison. Amouei is among the hundreds of journalists and activists arrested in the postelection crackdown:

Bahman says he, along with 40 others are imprisoned in a cell less than 20 meters square. He says their whole day is wasted in lines; queuing for the toilet, queuing for the showers, and queuing for the telephone....

Their condition is so harsh that he envies Masud and Ahmad, who got transferred to the Rajai Shahr prison. They would at least be able to spread their legs.

I asked if he read books there. He retorted with another question, "Do you think it's possible to read in such conditions?"

0925 GMT: We've posted a four-minute video, circulating widely on the Internet, and translation of an encounter between Faezeh Hashemi, the daughter of Hashemi Rafsanjani, and an unidentified group of men.

0910 GMT: Larijani in Japan. No surprise that the Speaker of the Parliament would make headlines in Iranian state media, as he begins his 5-day trip in the Far East, for a nuclear declaration: "Although the Islamic Republic has remained committed to its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the agency does not fulfill its duties about supplying fuel needed for the Tehran research reactor. Based on terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the IAEA has no right to urge Iran to suspend its nuclear activities."

0800 GMT: Full credit to CNN for highlighting the role of social media in disseminating the post-election news about events in Iran, featuring activists such as "OxfordGirl".

Shame, however, that the report closed with a soundbite reduction of the events of 22 Bahman: "while activism on-line was successful in organising the masses and keeping opposition alive, the opposition inside the country either did not plan for or now lacks the power to respond to the Government's crackdown". (No doubt that social media can soon put that right.)

0755 GMT: Firebreak. Amidst the drumbeat in parts of the US media for military action against Tehran (see our entry yesterday on The Washington Post), some Obama Administration officials are holding the line against an attack. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, repeated yesterday, "I worry a lot about the unintended consequences of any sort of military action. For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are, and ought to be, the levers first pulled."

0745 GMT: And the (Jundullah) Beat Goes On. Press TV tries once more to drive home the right message, "Iran says it has irrefutable evidence confirming that terrorist ringleader Abdolmalek Rigi had been aided and abetted by the US government before his arrest."

On the side, however, it is interesting how state media's narrative is changing. Initially, Rigi was taken in Dubai as he was awaiting the departure of his plane. Or he was captured in Iran's Sistan-Baluchistan province. Or he was seized in Pakistan. Now "the leader of the Jundallah terrorist group was on a flight from the United Arab Emirates to Kyrgyzstan when he was tracked down by Iranian security forces on Tuesday".

All especially interesting, in fact, because an EA source continues to report that Rigi was actually detained last week. (Al Jazeera is also reporting this from its sources.)

0645 GMT: At one point on Tuesday it felt as if EA staff were trying to measure an earthquake that had taken place in a remote area. We all had seen and been taken aback by the 18-minute video of the 15 June attack on Tehran University's dormitories, but we did not know how many people inside Iran had viewed or knew of the footage.

We did know, from one of our correspondents with excellent contacts in Iran, that the BBC Persian broadcast which first displayed extracts from the video had been viewed and that those who had seen it had been unsettled and angered. And this morning, we have confirmation that the footage has shaken the political ground: Fars News has posted a long article trying to put the imagery in the "proper" context.

The impact of earthquakes is not necessarily that they bring a collapse, however; they can have longer-term effects by eroding and thus changing the landscape. So Tuesday was also a case of challengers chipping away at the Ahmadinejad Government, even as the regime was trying to manufacture its own earthquake with the propaganda around the capture of Abdolmalek Rigi, the leader of the Baluch insurgent group Jundullah.

While Ministers used press conference to announce that Rigi's detention proved the US-Israel-Europe campaign to terrorise the Islamic Republic into submission, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani and his allies in the Assembly of Experts were staking out their limited but important call for changes to Iran's electoral system. Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani was away from the main political arena, beginning his five-day trip to Japan (an event which, in itself, deserves attention; what is Larijani hoping to accomplish, not just for his country but for himself?), but his media outlets were not halting their assault on President Ahmadinejad.

And then there were the ripples from Mehdi Karroubi's statement, which made clear that the opposition --- rebuilding, re-assessing --- has not been quieted.

The significance of the Tehran University video is two-fold. On the one hand, it points to rifts within the regime; as Mr Verde has analysed in a separate entry, the vital question, "Who leaked the fotoage?", brings a variety of answers, but all of them point to battles and uncertainties in the Islamic Republic and the inability of the Supreme Leader to resolve them. And on the other hand, its existence --- even if known only to a fraction of the Iranian people at this moment --- is a catalyst for anger and thus renewed determination of those who want justice and responsibility from their Government and system.

And so another day begins. There may not be aftershocks, but there will be more shifts. And it is in the shifts, rather than the drama of earthquakes, that this crisis is playing out.

Transcript: General Petraeus on Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Other US Conflicts (21 February)

The head of US Central Command, General David Petraeus, appeared on NBC Television's Meet the Press, first to walk viewers through the US interventions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq and then to take a tour around other issues from Iran to Guantanamo Bay to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays and lesbians in the military.



In contrast to previous appearances, when Petraeus was fighting his own President to get his version of US foreign and military policy, this was a stay-the-course interview behind agreed approaches. The message on Afghanistan was long-haul effort to win. On Pakistan, it was supporting Pakistani forces to vanquish the Taliban. He spoke in generalities about maintaining pressure on Iran, and beyond his main agenda, on the tricky issues like Guantanamo Bay and "enhanced interrogation" (torture), he evaded any definitive statements.

MR. DAVID GREGORY: General David Petraeus joins us live from U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida.

General, welcome to MEET THE PRESS.

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Thanks, David. Good to be with you.


MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about Afghanistan. This NATO-U.S. offensive in southern Afghanistan is entering its second week with reports of resistance from the Taliban that our forces are facing. How formidable are the Taliban forces that we're confronting now?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, they're formidable. They're a bit disjointed at this point in time. The way the operation was conducted leaped over some of them. But there's tough fighting going on, without question.

If I could, David, in fact, I'd like to put this into context, because this is just the initial operation of what will be a 12- to 18-month campaign, as General McChrystal and his team have mapped it out. We've spent the last year getting the inputs right in Afghanistan, getting the structures and organizations necessary for a comprehensive civil-military campaign, putting the best leaders we can find in charge of those, helping with the development of the concepts, the counterinsurgency guidance General McChrystal has issued and so forth. And then now, with President Obama's policy announcement in December at West Point, the resourcing of that effort with the additional 30,000 forces that have now begun flowing, about 5,400 on the ground already, the additional civilians, the additional money, the additional authorization of Afghan security forces. So the inputs, we think, now are about right, and now we're starting to see the first of the output. And the Marja operation is the initial salvo, the initial operation in that overall campaign.

MR. GREGORY: The fight is going to be tough. As you have said, there are questions about how long the U.S. will be there in the fight, whether the Afghan army is capable enough to take over that fight. What should Americans expect as there's more engagement, as there's more fighting, in terms of U.S. losses?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, David, the same as in the surge in Iraq. When we go on the offensive, when we take away sanctuaries and safe havens from the Taliban and the other extremist elements that we and our Afghan and coalition partners are fighting in that country, they're going to fight back. And we're seeing that in Marja. We will see that in other areas. But we are going after them across the spectrum. We have more of our special, special operations forces going in on the ground, and you've seen the results, you've heard some of the initial results of that with more Afghan shadow governors, the Taliban shadow governors being captured, more of the high value targets being taken down. Then, through the spectrum of providing additional security for the people, supporting additional training of Afghan security forces, as I mentioned, 100,000 more of those over the course of the next year and a half or so. And then also, out on the local defense and even the reintegration of reconcilables effort that will be pursued and is being pursued with the Afghan government.

MR. GREGORY: But U.S. losses, significant?

GEN. PETRAEUS: They'll be tough. They were tough in Iraq. Look, I am--I have repeatedly said that these types of efforts are hard, and they're hard all the time. I don't use words like "optimist" or "pessimist," I use realist. And the reality is that it's hard. But we're there for a very, very important reason, and we can't forget that, David. We're in Afghanistan to ensure that it cannot once again be a sanctuary for the kind of attacks that were carried out on 9/11, which were planned initially in Kandahar, first training done in eastern Afghanistan before the attackers moved to Hamburg and then onto U.S. flight schools.

MR. GREGORY: As the offensive is taking place in southern Afghanistan, a major development in Pakistan, in neighboring Pakistan, as U.S. and Pakistani authorities captured a major Taliban figure, Abdul Baradar. What are you learning from him now that he's in custody?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, David, if I could, what we've learned, actually, in working with our Pakistani partners, who have done some very impressive work over the course of the last 10 months in particular, is that it's sometimes not best to talk a great deal about intelligence operations. And that's what I'll do here this morning.

What I will say is, again, I'd like to put this into context as well. Some 10 months or so ago, the Pakistani people, their political leaders, including major opposition figures and even the clerics, all recognized the threat posed to the very writ of governance of Pakistan. They saw this as the most pressing existential threat to their country, and they supported the Pakistani army and Frontier Corps as it went into Swat and the Malakand division of the northwest frontier province and then expanded its operations into the federally administered tribal areas. They've made some significant gains. They know they can't just clear and leave. They have to clear, hold, build and, over time, transition to local security forces. That's indeed what they're endeavoring to do. They are carrying out this fight. This is their fight against extremists internal to their country, threatening Pakistan, not them fighting our war on terror.

MR. GREGORY: Can I ask it a slightly different way, if you don't want to talk about what specifically is being learned? Presuming that both U.S. forces and Pakistani officials are doing the interrogation, do you wish you had the interrogation methods that were available to you during the Bush administration to get intelligence from a figure like this?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I have always been on the record, in fact, since 2003, with the concept of living our values. And I think that whenever we have, perhaps, taken expedient measures, they have turned around and bitten us in the backside. We decided early on in the 101st Airborne Division we're just going to--look, we just said we'd decide to obey the Geneva Convention, to, to move forward with that. That has, I think, stood elements in good stead. We have worked very hard over the years, indeed, to ensure that elements like the International Committee of the Red Cross and others who see the conduct of our detainee operations and so forth approve of them. Because in the cases where that is not true, we end up paying a price for it ultimately. Abu Ghraib and other situations like that are nonbiodegradables. They don't go away. The enemy continues to beat you with them like a stick in the Central Command area of responsibility. Beyond that, frankly, we have found that the use of the interrogation methods in the Army Field Manual that was given, the force of law by Congress, that that works. And...

MR. GREGORY: Well...

GEN. PETRAEUS: And that is our experience...

MR. GREGORY: In terms of recruitment threats...

GEN. PETRAEUS: ...in, in the years that we have implemented it.

MR. GREGORY: In terms of recruitment threats, do you consider the prison at Guantanamo Bay in the same way? Do you consider it to be related, or do you think, in other words, should it be closed, or do you believe it was short-sighted to set a deadline certain for its closure?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I've been on the record on that for well over a year as well, saying that it should be closed. But it should be done in a responsible manner. So I'm not seized with the issue that it won't be done by a certain date. In fact, I think it is--it's very prudent to ensure that, as we move forward with that, wherever the remaining detainees are relocated and so forth, whatever jurisdiction is used in legal cases and so forth, is really thought through and done in a very pragmatic and sensible manner.

MR. GREGORY: One more question about--on the subject of terrorism. You often say when it comes to politics, you like to go around the minefield rather than go through it. But this is a question, really, related to your experience and your expertise. In the past couple of weeks, there's been a big debate about what kind of threat al-Qaeda poses directly to the United States. Vice President Biden considers another 9/11 type attack unlikely. Former Vice President Cheney, who you served under as well, said that he disagrees with that, that 9/11 is indeed possible again, this time using a nuclear or biological weapon. Again, appealing to your expertise, where do you come down on that question? What is the specific threat that al-Qaeda poses now?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, let me just express how we assess al-Qaeda in the Central Command area of responsibility, which happens to be where the bulk of al-Qaeda is located; although, certainly, the network extends beyond our area. And our assessment is that over the course of the last year or so, al-Qaeda has been diminished in that area, that Saudi Arabia and the other Arabian Peninsula countries have continued to make gains with the exception, obvious exception of Yemen--we can talk more about that if you want--that the, the progress has continued against al-Qaeda in Iraq, although, again, there are certainly remaining threats there. And we see those periodically shown in the form of horrific, barbaric attacks. There's been progress against al-Qaeda's senior leadership in the federally-administered tribal areas as well. So, as a general assessment, again, diminished. But, having said that, al-Qaeda is a flexible, adaptable--it may be barbaric, it may believe in extremist ideology, as it does, but this is a thinking, adaptive enemy, and we must maintain pressure on it everywhere.

MR. GREGORY: But...

GEN. PETRAEUS: It is a network, and it takes a network to keep the pressure on a network. And that is, indeed, what we're endeavoring to do.

MR. GREGORY: But, general, my question is do you think they want to pull off another 9/11 or smaller bore attacks?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well I think al-Qaeda is assessing to pull off any kind of attack. I mean, you saw the Abdulmutallab attempt on--the, the would-be Detroit bomber. Again, this is an enemy that is looking for any opportunity to attack our partners and, indeed, our homeland, and we have to keep that in mind. There's no question about its desire to continue to attack our country and our allies.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about Iran. International inspectors think that, in fact, that country is moving toward production of an actual nuclear warhead. How close is that regime to going nuclear?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well it's--it is certainly a ways off, and we'll probably hear more on that from the International Atomic Energy Agency when it meets here in the, in the next week or so. It has clearly--its new director has expressed his concern about the activities. There's no question that some of those activities have advanced during that time. There's also a new National Intelligence Estimate being developed by our intelligence community in the United States. We have over the course of the last year, of course, pursued the engagement track. I think that no one at the end of this time can say that the United States and the rest of the world has--have not given Iran every opportunity to resolve the issues diplomatically. That puts us on a solid foundation now to go on what is termed the "pressure track." And that's the course in which we're embarked now. The U.N. Security Council countries, of course, expressing their concern. Russia now even piling on with that. We'll have to see where that goes and whether that can, indeed, send the kind of signal to Iran about the very serious concerns that the countries in the region and, indeed, the entire world have about Iran's activities in the nuclear program and in its continued arming, funding, training, equipping and directing of proxy extremist elements that still carry out attacks...

MR. GREGORY: But...

GEN. PETRAEUS: ...in Iraq, albeit on a much limited basis, but still do that there, and also pose security challenges in southern Lebanon, Gaza, and elsewhere.

MR. GREGORY: But over the span of now two administrations so much has not worked in terms of the pressure option on Iran. Can a single country, be it the United States or Israel, deter Iran from going nuclear without a military strike?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, again, I think we have to embark on the pressure track next, but certainly they're, needless to say--you know, I was asked a couple of Sundays ago on another show, "Well, tell me, General, about your plans to take down Iran's nuclear program." And the way I answered was to, to note that it is the job of combatant commanders to consider the what-ifs, to be prepared for contingency plans. I'm not saying this in a provocative way. I'm merely saying that we have responsibilities, the American people and our commander-in-chief and so forth expect us to think those through and to be prepared for the what-ifs. And we try not to be irresponsible in that regard.

MR. GREGORY: In our remaining moments, I want to cover a couple of other areas. Iraq: Of all the countries within Central Command that you oversee, 20, would you consider Iraq to be the most democratic?

GEN. PETRAEUS: It's interesting. I've actually posed that question to think-tankers and others, and I think it actually may be. Now, we hope that that is sustained through the elections and beyond 7 March. Right now it--I don't think there's any question right now that the Iraqi government, however imperfect--and this is "Iraqracy" at work, not necessarily Western democracy. But this is a government that is representative of all of the people, it is responsive to the people, it, its leaders know they are facing the electorate on 7 March. There's a fierce campaign, there's high political drama that's gone on. Some of it is of concern in, in a substantial way to elements to the Iraqi population and leadership. But we hope that this will move through, that the elections will be, as were the provincial elections in January 2009, deemed free and fair by the United Nations, which is very much supportive of this effort, needless to say; and that, indeed, the process of selecting the next prime minister, the next government and the other leadership will be a smooth one. Although, frankly, we expect that it is going to take some time. And, again, we do expect that there's going to be considerable drama and emotion that accompanies it, and it will be a period of months, at the very least, before that second election, if you will, the election of 7 March, which selects the parliament, the council of representatives; and they then will do the wheeling and dealing and the maneuvering to select the next prime minister and the key ministers and president.

MR. GREGORY: General, with the, the military engaged in two wars, with a country fighting terrorism in other forms as well, is this an appropriate time for the military to revisit the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, there's a process at work here now, David, and I, and I think that it is a very sound and good process. The secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs announced, when they were testifying, the creation of a review be headed by General Carter Hamm, U.S. Army four-star, and DOD General Counsel Jay Johnson. I don't think this has gotten enough prominence frankly. It is very important to this overall process. It will provide a rigorous analysis of the views of the force on the possible change. It will suggest the policies that could be used to implement a change if it, if it does come to that, so that it could be as uneventful as it was, say, in the U.K. or the Israeli militaries or, indeed, in our own CIA and FBI. And then it will assess the effects, the possible effects on readiness, recruiting and retention.

MR. GREGORY: What do you say?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Very important for that process to move forward. We'll hear from the chiefs, the Joint Chiefs on this I think, probably their personal assessments and personal views in the course of the next week or so...

MR. GREGORY: But...

GEN. PETRAEUS: ...when they're on Capitol Hill. And then the geographic combatant commanders, the other combatant commanders and I, will have our turn on Capitol Hill in a few weeks.

MR. GREGORY: But what, but what, what do you say, General? Should gays and lesbians be able to serve openly in the military?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, I'll provide that, again, on Capitol Hill if, if asked at that time. I, I know you'd like to make some news here this morning. I support what our secretary and, and chairman have embarked on here. I will--I'm fully participating in that process. And I think it's very important, again, that these issues be handled and discussed and addressed by this review that will be so important in informing decisions as we move forward.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think soldiers on the ground in the field care one way or the other if their comrades in arms are gay or lesbian?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I'm not sure that they do. We'll see. Again, that's why this review panel. You know, all we have are, are personal soundings to go on, and I've certainly done some of that myself. I mean, you've heard General Powell, who was the chairman when the policy was implemented, had a big hand in that, who said that, yes indeed, the earth has revolved around the sun a number of times since that period 15 months ago. And you've heard a variety of anecdotal input. We have experienced, certainly, in the CIA and the FBI, I know. I served in fact in combat with individuals who were gay and who were lesbian in combat situations and, frankly, you know, over time you said, "Hey, how's, how's this guy's shooting?" Or "How is her analysis," or what have you. So--but we'll see. Again, that's the importance of this review that will be conducted by General Hamm and also by the DOD general counsel. I think it is hugely important that we have the answers from the questions that they'll be asking in a very methodical way, something we've not done before because of the emotion and the sensitivity of this issue.

MR. GREGORY: All right, we'll leave it there. General Petraeus, thank you very much this morning.

GEN. PETRAEUS: Great to be with you, David. Thanks again.