Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV





Or, click to learn more

Search

Entries in Barack Obama (24)

Thursday
Jan072010

Israel-Palestine Analysis: Change" in the Air Over Peace Talks?

isr-pal peaceFollowing claims that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is close to finalizing an agreement with the Obama Administration for peace talks with the Palestinian Authority, the PA gave its approval for such talks this weekend.

One PA official stated that Netanyahu was now apparently ready to recognize the pre-1967 borders as the basis for future talks and was ready to swap territory between the two countries. He added, "We're beginning to hear new things from Israel. For the first time an Israeli government is willing to negotiate with us on the basis of the 1967 borders, and this is an encouraging move."

"Peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians could be relaunched as early as February," added another PA official in Ramallah.

Meanwhile, Egyptian sources told the Cairo-based daily Al-Ahram on Monday that Barack Obama's administration will put forward a plan whereby Israel would commit itself to the establishment of a Palestinian state within two years of the launch of peace talks with the Palestinian Authority.

On Monday, at the press conference following her meeting with Qatar Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised greater commitment to achieving a settlement between the PA and Israel:
We know that the Palestinians deserve a state to fulfill their aspirations. The Israelis deserve security to live peacefully side by side with their Palestinian neighbors. The Arab nations have made a very positive contribution in the peace initiative of the Arab League and others. So we’re going to be even more committed this year, and we’re starting this new year with that level of commitment and we’re going to follow through and hopefully we can see this as a positive year in this long process.

On the same day, while addressing lawmakers from his Likud party, Netanyahu said that he sensed "a change in the air":
In recent weeks I have felt that there is a certain change in the air, and I hope that this will mature, allowing the start of the diplomatic process.

We are serious in our intentions to reach a peace agreement.

Israel is ready for a peace process with the Palestinian Authority, without preconditions.

Netanyahu, however, added the caution, "Diplomatic plans said to be in my name that have appeared in the media have no truth."

There is also the standing obstacle of the declaration by PA leader Mahmoud Abbas that there will be no peace talks unless there is a complete freeze on Israeli settlements, both in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Following his meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Abbas repeated,
We have said and are still saying that at the time when settlement construction is stopped and the international legitimacy is recognized, we will be ready to resume the negotiations."

Our stance is known from the past and our stance remains the same - and in agreement with our brothers in Egypt - which is that we have no objections to negotiations or meetings in principle and we do not set conditions.

And then there was the complication of Israel's foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman hosted Quartet peace envoy Tony Blair and stated that reaching a final-status agreement within two years were unrealistic:
It is important to hold an honest, open dialogue with the Palestinians without sowing delusions that are disconnected with reality and that will only lead to violence and frustration. It is not possible to reach a full agreement within two years.

This is not a realistic goal. We need to begin direct talks without committing to any timeframe.

On Monday, U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly was on the 'silent side' but, at least, was "hopeful":
QUESTION: There’s an unsourced report in the Israeli Hebrew language daily Ma’ariv, and there are a bunch of other reports out there elsewhere, talking about the possibility of an imminent resumption of peace talks between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas under an American plan.

MR. KELLY: I certainly hope so. I hope it’s before that. But whether it’s realistic or not, I can’t say.

MR. KELLY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: True?

MR. KELLY: Well, first of all, we’re not going to discuss any of the private correspondence or private discussions we have had with either side, including with the Israelis. I mean, you know what our goal is. Our goal is to get the two sides to agree to sit down and resume the talks, and so all of our efforts really are really directed toward that. And it wouldn't – I mean, it’s not appropriate for me to talk about what may or may not have been in any kind of private correspondence.

QUESTION: But are you on the verge of re-launching the resumption of talks?

MR. KELLY: I hope so. But I don’t have any information to announce on that.

QUESTION: I think we’re talking about the same report here, which says that the U.S.’s latest proposal envisions a Palestinian state within two years. The Israelis say that’s unrealistic. Is this a real report? I mean, is it coming from you guys?

MR. KELLY: I don’t really have any information about the specifics of that particular report.

QUESTION: Is it realistic, though, to think that the Palestinians could have a state within a couple of years?

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit was also still "hopeful" about the future. He told reporter following the meeting between Mubarak and Abbas:
Our position is that the [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's] ideas are taking the Israeli position forward.

This is a protracted process and needs patience, clarity and prudence so that the Palestinians do not find themselves in a difficult position.

Gheit and intelligence chief Omar Suleiman are going to be in Washington and the U.S. Mideast special envoy George Mitchell is going to be in the Middle East next week. Abbas' last words were that he would postpone any decision on whether or not to restart the talks until he sees what happens during Friday's visit to Washington by the two senior Egyptian officials.

The story continues without a conclusion: is there any "change" except in rhetoric?
Wednesday
Jan062010

Israel Concerned over the U.S. Arms Deals with "Moderate" Arabs?

armsAccording to Haaretz, major arms deals signed between U.S.A and Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates have caused concern among Israeli officials; although Israel had already been informed about the scope and content of these agreements.

On the other hand, a report submitted to Congress by Pentagon states that none of the deals would "alter the military balance in the region." It is claimed that officials in Washington defended the arms deals on the basis that they will boost the moderate axis in the Middle East, deter Iran and in particular strengthen Saudi Arabia's military capabilities in its war against al-Qaeda in Yemen.

These are the contents of deals:

To Egypt:

  • Four batteries of Harpoon Block II anti-ship cruise missiles (20 missiles).

  • Four fast missile boats.

  • 450 Hellfire antitank missiles.

  • 156 jet engines for F-16 jets in the wake of a deal in October for the sale of 24 F-16 C/D fighter aircraft equipped with electronic warfare suites. It is stated that the F-16s supplied to Egypt are less advanced than the aircraft of similar type in Israel's arsenal.


To Saudi Arabia:

  • 2,742 TOW-2 antitank missiles.


To Jordan:

  • 1,808 Javelin antitank missiles with 162 launchers in the wake of a deal in September for more than 80 advanced rocket launchers, of types that have been sold to Israel in the past.


To UAE:

  • Ordnance at a value of $290 million.

  • 1,600 laser-guided "smart" bombs

  • 800 one-ton bombs

  • 400 bunker buster bombs.


It is also stated by the newspaper that although the UAE does not pose a threat to Israel and is not considered an enemy state, officials in Tel Aviv are concerned about this deal.

In the same report submitted to Congress, it is mentioned that there have been no arms deals since Barack Obama took office. So, what is really behind Israeli officials' concerns? Is it the fact that its neighbours are going to be armed with better high-tech devices, no matter how "moderate" they are? Or is it a subtle "protest"/"complaint" in order to use the argument that the 'balance of power' may tilt away from additional military aid to Israel from Washington following the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding, which promisws $30 billion to Tel Aviv over the following 10 years?
Wednesday
Jan062010

Iran: Hillary Clinton on Engagement & Pressure with Regime of "Ruthless Repression"

hillary clintonOn Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talked to Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani. At the press briefing, Clinton answered a question regarding Iran. She underlined the "so-far-unsuccessful yet continuing dual-track approach" - engagement and pressure - and emphasized the difference between the "must-do's" against the Iranian government in the absence of any "amelioration" in the government's response and the "needs & concerns" to be taken care of when it comes to Iranian people who are facing "ruthless repression":

The Latest from Iran (6 January): Distractions
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, on Iran, President Obama said last year that you’d have a pretty good sense by the end of year whether Iran was seriously interested in pursuing dialogue about its nuclear program. There aren’t a lot of signs that they are, and there are no signs that I’m aware of that they’re interested in carrying out the agreement on low-enriched uranium that was reached in Geneva.

Iran is going through a very turbulent period in its history. There are many troubling signs of the actions that they are taking. And we want to reiterate that we stand with those Iranians who are peacefully demonstrating. We mourn the loss of innocent life. We condemn the detention and imprisonment, the torture and abuse of people, which seems to be accelerating. And we hope that there will be an opportunity for Iran to reverse course, to begin engaging in a positive way with the international community, respecting the rights of their own citizens. But we’re going to continue on our dual-track approach.

One, from your point of view, is the LEU deal dead? Two, even if the door to talking about the LEU deal is still open, is the Administration now closer to imposing targeted sanctions, particularly on companies or individuals that have ties to the Revolutionary Guard Corps?

And lastly, do you not perceive a danger that additional sanctions could play into the hands of the hardliners, who often make the argument that they are engaged in a struggle with foreign forces and try to rally people around them that way? And they’ve made that argument even as they’ve been crushing the protests recently.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Arshad, we remain committed to working with our international partners on addressing the serious concerns we have regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Now, our approach, as you know, has always proceeded on two tracks; we have an engagement track and a pressure track. And as I’ve said, the results of our efforts to engage Iran directly have not been encouraging. We’re disappointed by their response to the proposal for the Tehran research reactor. And the Iranian Government announced a deadline to receive a positive response to their unacceptable counter-offer. So yes, we have concerns about their behavior, we have concerns about their intentions, and we are deeply disturbed by the mounting signs of ruthless repression that they are exercising against those who assemble and express viewpoints that are at variance with what the leadership of Iran wants to hear.

Now, we’ve avoided using the term “deadline” ourselves. That’s not a term that we have used because we want to keep the door to dialogue open. But we’ve also made it clear we can’t continue to wait and we cannot continue to stand by when the Iranians themselves talk about increasing their production of high-enriched uranium and additional facilities for nuclear power that very likely can be put to dual use.

So we have already begun discussions with our partners and with likeminded nations about pressure and sanctions. I can’t appropriately comment on the details of those discussions now, except to say that our goal is to pressure the Iranian Government, particularly the Revolutionary Guard elements, without contributing to the suffering of the ordinary Iraqis [sic] who deserve better than what they currently are receiving.
Tuesday
Jan052010

Latest Iran Video and Transcript: Haghighatjoo and Marandi on CNN (4 January)

On Monday CNN framed the Iran story by interviewing Fatemeh Haghighatjoo, a former member of Parliament who is challenging the system, and Seyed Mohammad Marandi, a Tehran University academic who defends it. The transcript below the video also includes the comments of former State Department official Ray Takeyh:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6r0U1tB5U0[/youtube]

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, has Iran's opposition movement crossed the point of no return? And is the Islamic republic struggling to survive? We'll examine what is next for Iran.

Good evening, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour, and welcome to our program.

For the past week, Iran has again been plunged deep into crisis, with the outcome far from certain. On the holy day of Ashura last Sunday, Iranian security forces used bullets and batons to suppress the biggest anti-government protest since June. At least eight protestors were killed, including one who died when a police van reportedly ran over him, as you can see in these images.

Now, the government says that that van was stolen. Nonetheless, demonstrators vented their anger against Basij militiamen, burning their motorbikes, attacking their buildings, shocked that such a crackdown could happen on Ashura.

Government supporters, for their part, were also outraged that the opposition had turned Ashura into a day of political protests, and so hundreds of thousands of them came out three days later. We'll talk with a former Obama administration official about what all this means for the U.S. in a moment.

But we start with some prophetic words from an Iranian woman, a member of parliament who told me 10 years ago that Iran's conservative leadership was out of touch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FATEMEH HAGHIGHATJOO, FORMER IRAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER (through translator): The Koran gives us freedom of choice. If the conservatives want to disagree with the idea of personal freedom, then they are against the essence of the Koran. But unfortunately, the conservatives are doing this in order to maintain their own power.

AMANPOUR: What happens if you don't get what you want?

HAGHIGHATJOO (through translator): The reform movement of President Khatami has started, and it cannot go back. How many people can the conservatives throw in jail? They can't jail the whole population of Iran.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: That was 10 years ago. Today, Fatemeh Haghighatjoo lives in the United States after being forced to resign for her outspoken challenges to the regime. And now a visiting scholar at the University of Massachusetts in Boston, she joins me here in our studios.

And from Iran, Mohammad Marandi, head of the North American Studies program at the University of Tehran.

Welcome, both of you, to this program.

Let me ask you first, Mrs. Haghighatjoo, what is your reaction to what you told me 10 years ago? You basically said then that the government can't arrest everyone.

HAGHIGHATJOO: First of all, good evening, and thank you very much for having me here. As I said 10 years ago and still I am saying, the government is not able to arrest all population in Iran. People of Iran need fundamental change in the country, and I am so optimistic that they will see this change in the country in future.

AMANPOUR: And change for you means what exactly?

HAGHIGHATJOO: Change -- change for me, that means people could see their freedom in the country. They -- this diversity in the country, in the population could be seen inside the power structure in the country. And also the portion (ph) of the government is important for people of Iran.

AMANPOUR: Let me turn to you, Mr. Marandi. Thank you for joining us. It looks like the situation has really reached a turning point here, particularly with the events of Ashura and then the competing protests -- or, rather, counter-demonstrations -- on Wednesday. Many here in the United States are calling this a game-changer. How do you see it from there?

MOHAMMAD MARANDI, UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN: Well, I think that the -- the so-called opposition -- I say so-called, because there is no monolithic opposition, and there is no monolithic conservative or principlist movement. There are many different political groups in Iran that have different agendas.

But I think that the opposition that protested on Ashura made a very major tactical mistake by -- by carrying out, by being very brutal towards the police on that day, and also by carrying out these protests on a day of public mourning.

And I think that there was a major backlash on Wednesday when probably the largest gathering of people in protest of Mr. Mousavi and the green movement in Tehran's history, really, gathered on Wednesday. They were -- I think that was a defining movement. I think Mr. Mousavi, his letter that was written the day after the anti-Mousavi demonstration, revealed that he, too, was a bit rattled.

AMANPOUR: OK, well, let me ask you this. You say that they were outraged, the government supporters, and yet the protestors -- and as you know, very huge sections of the international public opinion were outraged that the Iranian forces used deadly force, gunfire, against the protestors. I mean, does this not really challenge now the authority of the government?

MARANDI: Well, first of all, the -- the protest -- the demonstration in Tehran, it was -- was not necessarily pro-government. It was pro- Islamic republic. And many critics of the government but who are opposed to Mr. Mousavi participated. As I said, it was a huge rally. But they were not -- it's not a monolithic group on any side of the political equation that we can talk about easily.

But I think that the outrage here was that -- that the MEK terrorist organization, which although officially banned by the United States, it is being supported by the United States under different names, they were involved in Tehran, according to their own statements, and they were -- as you can see in the footage -- they attacked police stations...

AMANPOUR: Which we'll show right now.

MARANDI: ... when a police officer was blinded -- sorry?

AMANPOUR: We're just showing that pictures as you speak.

MARANDI: Right. In any case, I can't hear you very well, but they attacked police stations, they destroyed public property, and they attacked police officers. And at the same time, as I said, it was a day of mourning. Ashura is the anniversary of the martyrdom of the grandson of the prophet of Islam, and it's a very holy day in Iran, and that didn't go down well with a majority of Iranians who saw these protestors clapping and whistling and so on.

But I think that, in general, the protests -- the counter-protests, the protest that was critical of Mr. Mousavi on Wednesday, was itself a turning point.

AMANPOUR: Well, let me ask you then, Mr. Haghighatjoo, you are in the reformist camp, obviously. Do you believe that there are violent elements taking part in your demonstration and in your movement? Is that a concern?

HAGHIGHATJOO: You know, what I am going to say is the people of Iran (inaudible) Green movement wanted, you know, requested, demand peacefully without violence. Unfortunately, the government forces try to pull people toward violence. And I would consider (inaudible) scenario by the government, they try to make these crash between -- clash between people in both sides.

And if you look at, since disputed election in June 12 to now, we will see that this protest was silent protest, and that shows that people wanted to do -- to request (inaudible) demand peacefully. But, unfortunately, the government, you know, especially on day of Ashura, you know, acted very violently, bloody against people and protests.

AMANPOUR: OK. Let's move -- since we're trying to figure out what's next, let us ask now about these steps that Mr. Mousavi has put out towards resolution. Now, I'm going to read them off here on our screen. He says, "First of all, the Iranian administration should be held accountable. Secondly, there should be new and clear election laws. Then, there should be the release of all political prisoners, free and informed media, and finally, recognition of legal demonstrations."

Mr. Marandi, do you think there's any chance the government is going to agree to those five ideas that Mr. Mousavi has put forward?

MARANDI: Well, I think the problem is that the government sees things in a different light from Mr. Mousavi. And as I said, there are very many different political factions at play, both in the government and in the opposition.

AMANPOUR: Right, but these seem to be -- this seems -- these seem to be clear requests that seem to manifest themselves under, in fact, the Iranian constitution. Is there any feeling that the government is willing at all to meet Mousavi halfway? Or is this going to be a continued confrontation?

MARANDI: Well, I think that after the anti-Mousavi protests throughout the country on Wednesday, Mr. Mousavi's position has been severely weakened, and I think that is partially reflected in his letter. But I also think that the government is not going to release people, for example, who've blinded police officers or abused police -- police officers and so on.

I do think that there are moves to, let's say, move -- go back to more openness, but I think that the major problem, really, is that Mr. Mousavi has affiliated himself with a more extreme faction within the reformist movement. Even people like Mr. Sahobi (ph) have spoken about how the green movement is moving towards violence. And I myself have experienced death threats every time I come on television to talk about these issues. So it is a reality.

But a lot of the more mainstream reformists, they are moving away from Mr. Mousavi, for example, Mr. Tabesh (ph), who is the head of the reformist faction in parliament.

So there are very sharp internal debates in Iran about policy, about politics, about many issues in the country, but I think that the government and many political factions in the country are no longer willing to discuss serious issues with Mr. Mousavi anymore.

AMANPOUR: OK. We want to show some pictures that we have up on our wall, pictures of Mr. Mousavi receiving condolences when his own nephew was gunned down on the day of Ashura. And I want to ask you (OFF-MIKE) is there, do you believe, a split inside the factions in -- in Iran? Mr. Marandi has talked about people moving away from the reformist movement. Is this true?

HAGHIGHATJOO: No. I wanted to say that, if we have really -- if the government (inaudible) for green movement, then we will see people would side with Mousavi or would side with government. I disagree with Mr. Marandi's analysis regarding weakening Mousavi's position, because the government, you know, try to bring (inaudible) by paying money in some place, by bringing paramilitia to the city, by bringing student from school to the (inaudible)

And I would say this is not pro-government demonstration. Let's see. If the government allow...

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: So you're talking about competing rallies to see whose are bigger?

HAGHIGHATJOO: Yes, yes, and then we will see what we're going on. And then the second issue, unfortunately, I -- unfortunately, I don't think so the government and the supreme leader is going to accept Mousavi's fair position, because, you know, they think they can control issue. Unfortunately, their -- their solution is wrong solution. And this is not real answer to the crisis.

AMANPOUR: One final question to Mr. Marandi. You know, so much has been made and so many fears raised about the actual security of the reform leaders, the opposition leaders, such as Mr. Mousavi and Mr. Karroubi. I've been told that actually a decision has been made to step up their security by the Iranian government. Does that ring true to you? Do you think that they're going to try to make sure no harm comes to those principal figures?

MARANDI: Yes, I think so, especially since his nephew was killed under very suspicious circumstances. He was not killed in the demonstrations themselves. And the fact that he was singled out and assassinated, I think, is something that the many people in the political establishment find suspicious, and they -- they believe that perhaps terrorist organizations were behind it to increase tension in the country.

I also believe I -- I should add one final point, and that is that, within Iran itself, there are -- we shouldn't be speaking about the government and the opposition, because within the, let's say, the conservative groups or the principlist movements, there's no consensus. And the same is true with the reformists. Many key reformists have come -- distanced themselves completely with Mr. Mousavi and the green movement, especially since Mr. Mousavi has more and more aligned himself with -- or at least silently accepted the support of Western, American-backed television stations being broadcast into Iran, as well as former shah supporters and the MEK terrorist organization.

AMANPOUR: OK, Mr. Marandi. What do you say as a final word against - - you know, many people in Iran, obviously, are trying to discredit the reform movement, saying that they're agents of -- of -- of foreign countries. What do you say to that?

HAGHIGHATJOO: Unfortunately, this is analysis of the government and pro-government, you know, people. This is not...

MARANDI: I didn't...

(CROSSTALK)

MARANDI: ... for the government or Mr. Ahmadinejad.

HAGHIGHATJOO: Sorry. No reformists in the country will, you know, take (inaudible) Mousavi (inaudible) everybody support Mousavi. After Mousavi's statement, we see many people outspoken to support Mousavi's statement and all reformists, such as (inaudible) Mujahideen and also outside of the country, opposition and Iranian people who just (inaudible) for the country support Mousavi's current position.

AMANPOUR: All right. And we will talk to you again another time. And you, too, Professor Marandi. Thank you both very much for joining us.

MARANDI: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: And when we return, is the turmoil in Iran an opportunity or a challenge for the U.S. president, Barack Obama?
...
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What's taking place within Iran is not about the United States or any other country. It's about the Iranian people and their aspirations for justice and a better life for themselves. And the decision of Iran's leaders to govern through fear and tyranny will not succeed in making those aspirations go away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So that was President Obama just a few days ago. We're joined now by Ray Takeyh, former Obama administration official on Iran and now continuing with the Council on Foreign Relations, joining me from Washington.

Mr. Takeyh, thank you for joining us. You probably heard our other two guests, and we're just particularly playing that sound bite from President Obama. Has he stepped up his rhetoric? And why is he doing that now?

RAY TAKEYH, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, SENIOR FELLOW: Well, I think it's inevitable as the situation in Iran deteriorates and as you have a greater degree of human rights abuses and government forceful suppression of the dissent movement that the United States and the president would react in this such manner. It's inconceivable for me -- for the president not to have done so, particularly strong language in terms of depicting Iran as -- as a tyranny.

AMANPOUR: What does that mean, then, for his desire to continue or to try to hold the door open for negotiations?

TAKEYH: Well, I'm not quite sure if the two are incompatible. You can have negotiations with Iran, as the United States has had negotiations with many adversarial countries, while also at the same time disapproving of the internal practices of those regimes, now, whether that was the Chinese government or -- or other such non-representative states.

I -- I think you can do both of them, but the president and the United States will have to stand up and declare that some of the behavior of the clerical regime is unacceptable, but also be open to negotiating some sort of a restraint on Iran's nuclear program, which also violates Iran's international obligations.

AMANPOUR: So you talk about the nuclear program. A deadline has come and come for Iran to respond to the -- to the proposals of the West. Iran is now putting its counterproposal.

TAKEYH: Right.

AMANPOUR: Where do you think this is headed in the -- in the immediate term?

[15:20:00]

TAKEYH: Well, I suspect, in the immediate term, the United States and its allies will try to ratchet up economic pressures on Iran, particularly targeting the Revolutionary Guard organization and its business -- business enterprises, maybe even some aspect of the Iranian petroleum sector, so you begin to see intensification of economic pressure on Iran in the hope that external pressure, combined with internal pressure, will cause Iran to adjust its behavior...

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: This is a tried and true -- Mr. Takeyh, this is a tried and -- some would say -- not so true method, that sanctions and pressure haven't really worked. Why would it be different this time?

TAKEYH: Well, it may not be different this time, but the idea is that you have a greater degree of international cooperation, particularly with a greater degree of assistance from Russia. That may be more hopeful than real, but that's essentially what the -- what the assessment is today.

Now, second of all, is the Iranian government internally is rather weak and vulnerable and it may seek some sort of an agreement abroad to at least mitigate international pressures.

I mean, as I said, this is -- this is a theory. And like most speculative ideas, we'll see how it pans out in practice.

AMANPOUR: You wrote an analysis on what was going on, and you basically compared the revolutionary situation back in '79 to what's going on right now, in that both seem to have, let's see, uncertain responses to the challenges of the regime. Do you think the government -- go ahead.

TAKEYH: Well -- well, it's important to suggest that history doesn't always repeat itself, actually, as a matter of fact, seldom repeats itself. Some of the challenges that the Islamic republic faces today are not dissimilar to the challenges that the monarchy faced. But the situations are also different.

I think the Iranian government at this point, for instance, if the supreme leader was receptive to some of the proposals made by Mr. Mousavi, you could perhaps see some sort of a peaceful resolution for this. But however it comes about, in terms of internal compromise, the supreme leader would have to accept that his power will be diminished, and I'm not quite sure if he's ready to do that.

AMANPOUR: Now, you heard what Mr. Marandi, who supports the Islamic republic, said in terms of saying that it's -- you know, the reform movement is fractured, that, you know, they're agents of the -- of international entities. What is the analysis inside the -- inside the U.S. about the strength of the reform movement?

TAKEYH: Well, in my view, that -- the -- the opposition movement is somewhat incoherent. It doesn't have a central nervous system. It doesn't even have an identifiable set of leaders or even a coherent ideology. It is a protest movement.

But it's been a peculiar protest movement in a sense that it has sustained itself. And the longer it sustains itself, the more ideology and so forth and even leadership will suggest themselves.

And whether they're agents of the West and that sort of a thing, that's just obviously nonsense. And I'm not sure if that rhetoric really impresses anyone. It certainly convinces no one.
Monday
Jan042010

Video & Transcript: Barack Obama on "War on Terror" (2 January)

On Saturday, President Barack Obama's weekly address to the American people discussed the attempted explosion on an Amsterdam-Detroit flight and offered thoughts on the "War on Terror".



OBAMA: It has now been more than a week since the attempted act of terrorism aboard that flight to Detroit on Christmas Day. On Thursday, I received the preliminary findings of the reviews that I ordered into our terrorist watchlist system and air travel screening. I've directed my counterterrorism and homeland security advisor at the White House, John Brennan, to lead these reviews going forward and to present the final results and recommendations to me in the days to come.

As I said this week, I will do everything in my power to make sure our hard-working men and women in our intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security communities have the tools and resources they need to keep America safe. This includes making sure these communities-and the people in them-are coordinating effectively and are held accountable at every level. And as President, that is what I will do.

Meanwhile, the investigation into the Christmas Day incident continues, and we're learning more about the suspect. We know that he traveled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies. It appears that he joined an affiliate of al Qaeda, and that this group-al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula-trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America.

This is not the first time this group has targeted us. In recent years, they have bombed Yemeni government facilities and Western hotels, restaurants and embassies-including our embassy in 2008, killing one American. So, as President, I've made it a priority to strengthen our partnership with the Yemeni government-training and equipping their security forces, sharing intelligence and working with them to strike al Qaeda terrorists.

And even before Christmas Day, we had seen the results. Training camps have been struck; leaders eliminated; plots disrupted. And all those involved in the attempted act of terrorism on Christmas must know-you too will be held to account.

But these efforts are only part of a wider cause. It's been nearly a year since I stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and took the oath of office as your President. And with that oath came the solemn responsibility that I carry with me every moment of every day-the responsibility to protect the safety and security of the American people.

On that day I also made it very clear-our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred, and that we will do whatever it takes to defeat them and defend our country, even as we uphold the values that have always distinguished America among nations.

And make no mistake, that's exactly what we've been doing. It's why I refocused the fight-bringing to a responsible end the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and dramatically increasing our resources in the region where al Qaeda is actually based, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's why I've set a clear and achievable mission-to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies and prevent their return to either country.

And it's why we've forged new partnerships, as in Yemen, and put unrelenting pressure on these extremists wherever they plot and train-from East Africa to Southeast Asia, from Europe to the Persian Gulf. And though often out of sight, our progress has been unmistakable. Along with our partners, we've disrupted terrorist financing, cut off recruiting chains, inflicted major losses on al Qaeda's leadership, thwarted plots here in the United States, and saved countless American lives.

Yet as the Christmas Day attempt illustrates, and as we were reminded this week by the sacrifices of more brave Americans in Afghanistan-including those seven dedicated men and women of the CIA-the hard work of protecting our nation is never done. So as our reviews continue, let us ask the questions that need to be asked. Let us make the changes that need to be made. Let us debate the best way to protect the country we all love. That is the right and responsibility of every American and every elected official.

But as we go forward, let us remember this-our adversaries are those who would attack our country, not our fellow Americans, not each other. Let's never forget what has always carried us through times of trial, including those attacks eight Septembers ago.

Instead of giving in to fear and cynicism, let's renew that timeless American spirit of resolve and confidence and optimism. Instead of succumbing to partisanship and division, let's summon the unity that this moment demands. Let's work together, with a seriousness of purpose, to do what must be done to keep our country safe.

As we begin this New Year, I cannot imagine a more fitting resolution to guide us-as a people and as a nation.