The Latest from Iran (9 September): US Hiker Shourd to Be Released

2055 GMT: Iran Confirms Shourd To Be Released. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast has just told Press TV, "Given that Eid al-Fitr [the celebration of the end of Ramadan, occurring on Saturday] is upon us, it was decided that this lady (Sarah Shourd) should soon be released and rejoined with her family."

2045 GMT: The US Detainees. Chris Crowstaff of A Safe World for Women, which has campaigned for the three detained US hikers, has just provided a statement to EA:

I have just read reports that Sarah Shourd is to be released on Saturday. While the news fills me with joy, I also ask the Islamic Republic of Iran to be compassionate to her fiancé Shane Bauer and friend Josh Fattal and release them at the same time.

My heart also goes out to the families of other women imprisoned in Iran and ask the Iranian government to show the same compassion and benevolence to them.

NEW Iran Exclusive: The Escalating Battle With Ahmadinejad
NEW Iran Special: Abdollah Momeni Writes Supreme Leader About His Detention & Torture
NEW Iran Document: Karroubi on the Siege of His Home and of the Iranian People (8 September)
Iran Feature: Re-visiting the 2009 Election (Keshavarz)
Iran Snap Analysis: Who is Running Foreign Policy?
The Latest from Iran (8 September): Sakineh Execution Suspended?

1939 GMT: Hiker Shourd to Be Released? Journalist Christiane Amanpour, quoting the Iranian Mission to the United Nations, says detained American Sarah Shourd will be released soon.

Amanpour asked, "Today or tomorrow?" The delegation replied, "Very soon."

The Iranian spokesperson gave the same message to NBC News and to CNN.

1930 GMT: And on the Foreign Policy Front. Javad Mansouri, the former Iranian ambassador to China and Pakistan, has repeated his criticism of the President's appointment of four special envoys, declaring that Ahmadinejad must retreat or otherwise problems will rise. Mansouri added that Ahmadinejad's actions prove his doubts in Foreign Ministry and show that he wants to take over foreign policy.

I suspect that Mansouri's opinions are not just his own but on behalf of colleagues who are still in the diplomatic service.

1920 GMT: The Battle Within. Over to Mohammad-Hossein Saffar-Harandi for today's shot at the Ahmadinejad camp....

Saffar-Harandi, who was ousted as Minister of Culture in last summer's clashes within the Cabinet, tried to get a bit of payback today against Presidential Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai. Saffar-Harandi said only "disturbed and ill minds" can propagate the "Iranian school", a reference to Rahim-Mashai's recent statement that other countries should follow Iran rather than Islam as a model.

The former Minister added, "We must follow strictly all of the Supreme Leader's words,;unity can only be centred around him."

1645 GMT: The US Detainees. An official at Iran's Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance has said that one of three US detainees, taken by Iranian forces in July 2009 when they allegedly walked across the Iraq-Iran border, will be released Saturday. This would coincide with Eid al-Fitr, the celebration of the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

The official said one of Iran's vice presidents will be present when the detainee is released at 9 a.m. local time.

Another US journalist is reporting that the freed hiker will be Sarah Shourd. Shourd has reportedly been suffering from health problems.

The other two detainees are Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal.

1515 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Journalist and writer Javad Mahzadeh has been released from detention after 11 months on $40,000 bail.

1255 GMT: Execution (Ashtiani) Watch. The European Union has said that a "suspension" of the death sentence against Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, convicted of adultery, is not enough and that the penalty should be commuted.

1020 GMT: Execution (Sakineh) Watch. Sajad Ghaderzadeh, the son of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, has reacted to yesterday's statement, from the Iranian Foreign Ministry, that the execution of his mother on charges of adultery has been suspended. Ghaderzadeh said, ""We have so far not received an official and legal document on stopping the stoning sentence and execution, we therefore do not accept these claims.They must issue us legal documents in this regard."

The Foreign Ministry's statement said the process of sentencing for Ashtiani's conviction of complicity in the murder of her husband was continuing. Originally, the 43-year-old woman had been condemned to die by stoning on the adultery charge, but the method --- though not the death sentence --- was suspended earlier this summer.

0940 GMT: Exclusive. We have posted what we hope is a very special Iran Special, based on sources inside Iran, "The Escalating Battle With Ahmadinejad".

0840 GMT: Keyhan v. Ahmadinejad. The "hard-line" Keyhan newspaper has had another go at the President's men. It tells readers to beware of "intruders", for their mission is not only terror and bombings.

Who are those intruders? One might cast a glance at Keyhan's dislike of Ahmadinejad Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai.

0830 GMT: Economy Watch. Amidst concerns over imports and their effect of Iranian agriculture, the Ministry of Trade has announced that rice coupons are being re-introduced, with the replacement of the imports by domestic rice.

Seven months into this Iranian year, the budget and statistics for last year still have not been published by the Central Bank and Government. The suspicion is that the data is being withheld because it would reveal high Government debt, unpaid debts to Iranian banks, and a decline in builiding projects.

But never mind, for here is today's All-is-Well Alert. First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi says, "Soon we will celebrate all Iranians having a house of their own."

0825 GMT: Parliament v. President. About 100 MPs have signed the demand for impeachment of Minister of Education Haji Babaei. They claim that the ministry is on the verge of collapse, there is mismanagement of the budget, and they note protests against employment policies.

On another front, an olive branch from Alireza Tabesh. He said government representatives had approved changes to the 5th Budget Plan, and it will be approved by the Majlis Coordination Commission after discussion with the chamber of commerce, Strategic Research Centre, and the Audit Court.

Earlier this week, Ahmadinejad's representatives had boycotted a meeting of the Coordination Commission.

0810 GMT: Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. We note another message from the Supreme Leader to the President in Ayatollah Khamenei's speech on Tuesday.

Behind the headline that Iran will defy international sanctions, there was not only a sign of weakness in the Supreme Leader's reference to Iran's "economic downturn". Khamenei also urged a “full, precise, comprehensive and continuous” implementation of Article 44 of the Constitution on privatisation of state companies: “Implementation of this article will resolve most of the problems.”

Those "problems", as noted by key MPs and the Supreme Audit Court, have included the sell-off of the majority of state firms (85% in one estimate) not to the private sector but to consortia including groups within the state, notably the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.

Khamenei called on the government to “properly manage the country’s financial resources” and “improve business atmosphere”, he declared, "Excessive and illogical imports are a big danger.”

0725 GMT: We begin this morning with two features. We have posted the English translation of another statement of defiance from Mehdi Karroubi, commenting on the siege of his home and of the Iranian people and putting the blame at the feet of the Government.

And we have published what we think is an extraordinary letter, as activist Abdollah Momeni, detained since June 2009, tries to tell the Supreme Leader of his detention and torture in Evin Prison.

Video & Transcript: Hillary Clinton to Council on Foreign Relations "American Leadership for Decades to Come"

Hillary Clinton's speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on Wednesday:



Although many in Washington and around the country are just coming off their summer vacations, events of the past few weeks have kept us busy.  We are working to support direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, and next week I will travel to Egypt and Jerusalem for the second round of negotiations.  In Iraq, where our combat mission has ended, we are transitioning to a civilian-led partnership.  We are stepping up international pressure on Iran to negotiate seriously on its nuclear program.  We are working with Pakistan as it recovers from devastating floods and combats violent extremism.  And of course the war in Afghanistan is always at the top of the agenda.

None of these challenges exist in isolation.  Consider the Middle East peace talks.  At one level, they are bilateral negotiations involving two peoples and a relatively small strip of land.  But step back and it becomes clear how important the regional dimensions of the peace process are, what a significant role institutions like the Quartet and the Arab League are playing, and how vital American participation really is.

Solving foreign policy problems today requires us to think regionally and globally, to see the intersections and connections linking nations and regions and interests, and to bring people together as only America can.

The world is counting on us.  When old adversaries need an honest broker or fundamental freedoms need a champion, people turn to us.  When the earth shakes or rivers overflow their banks, when pandemics rage or simmering tensions burst into violence, the world looks to us.   I see it on the faces of the people I meet as I travel... not just the young people who dream about America's promise of opportunity and equality, but also seasoned diplomats and political leaders.  They see the principled commitment and can-do spirit that comes with American engagement.  And they look to America not just to engage, but to lead.

Nothing makes me prouder than to represent this great nation in the far corners of the world.  I am the daughter of a man who grew up in the Depression and trained young sailors to fight in the Pacific.  I am the mother of a young woman who is part of a generation of Americans who are engaging the world in new and exciting ways.  I have seen the promise and progress of America with my own eyes, and today my faith in our people has never been stronger.

I know these are difficult days for many Americans, but difficulty and adversity have never defeated or deflated our country.  Throughout our history, Americans have always risen to the challenges we have faced.  That's who we are. It's what we do.

Now, after years of war and uncertainty, people are wondering what the future holds, at home and abroad.

So let me say it clearly: The United States can, must, and will lead in this new century.

Indeed, the complexities and connections of today's world have yielded a new American Moment.  A moment when our global leadership is essential, even if we must often lead in new ways.  A moment when those things that make us who we are as a nation - our openness and innovation, our determination, and devotion to core values - have never been needed more.

This is a moment that must be seized --- through hard work and bold decisions --- to lay the foundations for lasting American leadership for decades to come.

Now, this is no argument for America to go it alone.  Far from it.  The world looks to us because America has the reach and resolve to mobilize the shared effort needed to solve problems on a global scale - in defense of our own interests, but also as a force for progress.  In this we have no rival.

For the United States, global leadership is both a responsibility and an unparalleled opportunity.

A New Global Architecture

When I came to the Council on Foreign Relations a little over a year ago to discuss the Obama Administration's vision of American leadership in a changing world, I called for a new global architecture that could help nations come together as partners to solve shared problems.  Today I'd like to expand on this idea, but especially to explain how we are putting it into practice.

Architecture is the art and science of designing structures that serve our common purposes, built to last and withstand stress.  That's what we seek to build - a network of alliances and partnerships, regional organizations and global institutions, that is durable and dynamic enough to help us meet today's challenges and adapt to threats that we cannot even conceive of, just as our parents never dreamt of melting glaciers or dirty bombs.

We know this can be done, because President Obama's predecessors in the White House and mine in the State Department did it before.  After the Second World War, the nation that had built the transcontinental railroad, the assembly line and the skyscraper turned its attention to constructing the pillars of global cooperation.  The third World War that so many feared never came.  And many millions of people were lifted out of poverty and exercised their human rights for the first time.  Those were the benefits of a global architecture forged over many years by American leaders from both political parties.

But this architecture served a different time and a different world.  As President Obama has said, today it "is buckling under the weight of new threats".  The major powers are at peace, but new actors - good and bad -- are increasingly shaping international affairs.  The challenges we face are more complex than ever, and so are the responses needed to meet them.

That is why we are building a global architecture that reflects --- and harnesses --- the realities of the 21st century.

We know that alliances, partnerships and institutions cannot solve problems by themselves.  People and nations solve problems.  But an architecture can make it easier to act effectively by supporting the coalition-forging and compromise-building that is the daily fare of diplomacy.  It can make it easier to identify common interests and convert them to common action.  And it can help integrate emerging powers into an international community with clear obligations and expectations.

We have no illusions that our goals can be achieved overnight, or that countries will suddenly cease to have divergent interests.  We know that the test of our leadership is how we manage those differences - and how we galvanize nations and peoples around their commonalities even when they have diverse histories, unequal resources, and competing world-views.  And we know that our approach to solving problems must vary from issue to issue and partner to partner.  American leadership must be as dynamic as the challenges we face.

But there are two constants of our leadership, which lie at the heart of the President's National Security Strategy released in May, and run through everything we do:

First, national renewal aimed at strengthening the sources of American power, especially our economic might and moral authority.  This is about more than ensuring we have the resources we need to conduct foreign policy, although that is important.  When I was a young girl, I was stirred by President Eisenhower's assertion that education would help us win the Cold War.  That we needed to invest in our people and their talents.  He was right.  America's greatness has always flowed in large part from the dynamism of our economy and the creativity of our country.  Today, more than ever, our ability to exercise global leadership depends on building a strong foundation at home.  That's why rising debt and crumbling infrastructure pose very real long-term national security threats.  President Obama understands this --- you can see it in the new economic initiatives he announced this week and in his relentless focus on turning our economy around.

The second constant is international diplomacy aimed at rallying nations to solve common problems and achieve shared aspirations.  As Dean Acheson put it in 1951, "the ability to evoke support from others" is "quite as important as the capacity to compel".  To this end we have repaired old alliances and forged new partnerships.  We have strengthened institutions that provide incentives for cooperation, disincentives for sitting on the sidelines, and defenses against those who would undermine global progress.  And we have championed the values that are at the core of the American character.

Now there should be no mistake: this Administration is also committed to maintaining the greatest military in the history of the world and, if needed, to vigorously defending our friends and ourselves.

After more than a year and a half, we have begun to see the dividends of our strategy.  We are advancing America's interests and making progress on some of our most pressing challenges.  Today we can say with confidence that this model of American leadership works, and that it offers our best hope in a dangerous world.

I'd like to outline several steps we are taking to implement this strategy.

Our Closest Allies

First, we have turned to our closest allies, the nations that share our most fundamental values and interests --- and our commitment to solving common problems.  From Europe and North America to East Asia and the Pacific, we are renewing and deepening the alliances that are the cornerstone of global security and prosperity.

Let me say a few words about Europe in particular.  In November, I was privileged to help mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which closed the door on Europe's broken past. And this summer in Poland, we marked the 10th anniversary of the Community of Democracies, which looked ahead to a bright future.  At both events, I was reminded how far we have come together.  What strength we draw from the common wellspring of our values and aspirations.  The bonds between Europe and America were forged through war and watchful peace, but they are rooted in our shared commitment to freedom, democracy and human dignity.

Today we are working with our allies there on nearly every global challenge.  President Obama and I have reached out to strengthen both our bilateral and multilateral ties in Europe.

The post-Lisbon EU [European Union] is developing an expanded global role, and our relationship is growing and changing as a result.  There will be complications as we adjust to influential new players such as the EU Parliament, but these are debates among friends that will always be secondary to the fundamental interests and values we share.  And there is no doubt that a stronger EU is good for America and good for the world.

NATO remains the world's most successful alliance.  And together with our allies, including new NATO members in Central and Eastern Europe, we are crafting a new Strategic Concept that will help it meet not only traditional threats but also emerging challenges such as cyber security and nuclear proliferation.  Just yesterday, President Obama and I discussed these issues with NATO Secretary General Rasmussen.  After the United States was attacked on 9/11, our allies invoked Article V of the NATO charter for the first time.  They joined us in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban.  And after President Obama refocused the mission in Afghanistan, they contributed thousands of new troops and significant technical assistance.  We honor the sacrifices our allies continue to make, and recognize that we are always strongest when we work together.

A core principle of all our alliances is shared responsibility --- each nation stepping up to do its part.  American leadership does not mean we do everything ourselves.  We contribute our share, often the largest share, but we also have high expectations of the governments and peoples we work with.

Investing in Developing Partners

Helping other nations develop the capacity to solve their own problems --- and participate in solving shared problems - has long been a hallmark of American leadership.  Our contributions to the reconstruction of Europe, to the transformation of Japan and Germany from aggressors into allies, to the growth of South Korea into a vibrant democracy contributing to global progress, these are some of our proudest achievements.

In this interconnected age, America's security and prosperity depends more than ever on the ability of others around the world to take responsibility for defusing threats and meeting challenges within their own countries and regions.

That is why the second step in our strategy for global leadership is to help build the capacity of developing partners.  To help countries obtain the tools and support they need to solve their own problems and help solve our common problems.  To help people lift themselves, their families, and their societies out of poverty, away from extremism, and toward sustainable progress.  The Obama Administration views development as a strategic, economic, and moral imperative - as central to advancing American interests as diplomacy and defense.

Our approach is not development for development's sake; it is an integrated strategy for solving problems.  Look at the work to build institutions and spur economic development in the Palestinian territories.  The United States invests hundreds of millions of dollars to build Palestinian capacity because we know that progress on the ground will improve security, help lay the foundation for a future Palestinian state, and create more favorable conditions for negotiations.  Think about our efforts to empower women and girls around the world.  This is the right thing to do, of course, but it is also rooted in the understanding that when women are accorded rights and afforded opportunities, they drive social and economic progress that benefits us all.  Similarly, our investments in places such as Bangladesh and Ghana are bets on a future where more and more countries will be capable of contributing to solving problems in their regions and beyond.

Engaging Emerging Centers of Influence

We must also take into account those countries that are growing rapidly and already playing more influential roles in their regions and in global affairs, such as China and India, Turkey, Mexico and Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa, as well as Russia, as it redefines its own role in the world.

Our third major step has been to deepen engagement with these emerging centers of influence.  We and our allies --- indeed people everywhere --- have a stake in their playing constructive regional and global roles.  Being a 21st century power means accepting a share of the burden of solving common problems.  It also means abiding by a set of rules of the road, everything from intellectual property rights to fundamental freedoms.  So through expanded bilateral consultation and within the context of regional and global institutions, we look to these nations to assume greater responsibility.

The emerging powers represent a spectrum of interests and values.  India, for instance, is the world's largest democracy, a country with which the United States shares fundamental values and a broad range of national interests.  That convergence of values and interests has helped us to lay the foundation of an indispensable partnership.  President Obama will use his visit in November to take our relationship to the next level.

With Russia, we took office amid talk of cooling relations and a return to Cold War suspicion.  This invigorated spy novelists and arm chair strategists.  But anyone serious about solving global problems such as nuclear proliferation knew that without Russia and the United States working together, little would be achieved.  So we refocused the relationship on mutual respect, interest and responsibility.  The results speak for themselves: a historic new arms reduction treaty, which the Senate must pass this fall; cooperation along with China in the UN Security Council on tough new sanctions against Iran and North Korea; a transit agreement to support our effort in Afghanistan; a new Bilateral Presidential Commission and civil society exchange that are forging closer people-to-people ties.  And, as we were reminded this summer, the spy novelists still have plenty to write about.

Working with these emerging powers is not always smooth or easy.  Disagreements over policies and priorities are inevitable.  On certain issues, such as human rights with China or Russian occupation of Georgia, we simply do not see eye to eye --- and the United States will not hesitate to speak out and stand our ground.  When these nations do not accept the responsibility that accrues with their expanding influence, we will use all the tools at our disposal to encourage them to change course while we will press ahead with other partners.

But we know that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to solve many of the world's biggest problems without the cooperation of these nations.  So our goal is to establish long-lasting positive and productive relationships that can survive the times when we do not agree and enable us to continue working together on shared challenges.

A central element of our approach is to engage directly with the people of these nations --- and indeed with foreign publics around the world.  Technology and the spread of democracy have empowered people around the world to speak up and demand a say in their own future.  Public opinions and passions matter, even in authoritarian states.  So in nearly every country I visit, I don't just meet with government officials.  In Russia, I did an interview on one of the few independent radio stations.  In Saudi Arabia, I held a town hall at a women's college.  And in Pakistan, I answered questions from every journalist, student and business leader we could find.

Strengthening Regional Architecture

While we expand our relations with emerging centers of influence and developing nations, we are also working to engage them in effective regional frameworks and global institutions that encourage constructive contributions.

Few, if any, of today's challenges can be understood or solved without working through a regional context.  Think about the complex regional dynamics surrounding the fight against violent extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan or the process of reintegrating Iraq into its neighborhood.

Nor can we expect regional dynamics to remain static.  Countries like China and Brazil have their own notions about what regional institutions should look like, and they are busy pursuing those ideas.  Our friends and allies depend on us to remain robustly engaged and to help chart the way forward.

So the fourth key step in our strategy has been to reinvigorate America's commitment to be an active transatlantic, Pacific and hemispheric leader.  In a series of speeches and through ongoing consultations and discussions with partners from Europe to the Americas to the Asia-Pacific, we have laid out core principles for regional cooperation and worked to strengthen institutions that can adapt to new circumstances.

Let's examine the Asia-Pacific region. When we took office, there was a perception --- fair or not --- that America was absent.  So the Obama Administration made it clear from the beginning that the United States was back.  We reaffirmed our bonds with close allies like South Korea, Japan and Australia.  We also deepened our regional engagement with China, and with India, which we see as a vital Asian democracy.

The Asia-Pacific has few robust institutions to foster effective cooperation, build trust, and reduce the friction of competition.  So with our partners, we began working to build a more coherent regional architecture that will strengthen both economic and political ties.

On the economic front, we have expanded our relationship with APEC, which includes four of America's top trading partners and receives 60 percent of our exports.  As President Obama has said, to realize the benefits from greater economic integration, we must implement policies that promote balanced and sustainable growth.  To this end, we are working to ratify a free trade agreement with South Korea and pursuing a regional agreement with the nations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, efforts that will create new opportunities for American companies and support new jobs at home.

On the political front, we are engaging with the East Asia Summit, encouraging its development into a foundational security and political institution for the region, capable of resolving disputes and preventing them before they arise.  I will be representing the United States at this year's EAS in Hanoi, leading up to presidential participation in 2011.

In Southeast Asia, ASEAN is home to nearly 600 million people and more U.S. business investment than China.  We have bolstered our relationship by signing the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, announcing our intention to open a mission and name an ambassador to ASEAN in Jakarta, and holding annual U.S.-ASEAN Summits.

As the Asia-Pacific region continues to grow in importance and influence, developing these regional institutions and establishing new habits of cooperation will be vital to stability and prosperity.

Global Institutions for the 21st Century

Effective institutions are just as crucial at a global level, where the challenges are even more complex and the partners even more diverse.

So our fifth step has been to reengage with global institutions and begin modernizing them to meet the evolving challenges of the 21st century.  We need institutions that are flexible, inclusive, and complementary, instead of competing with one another for jurisdiction.  Institutions that encourage nations to play productive roles, that marshal common efforts, and enforce the system of rights and responsibilities that binds us all.

The United Nations remains the single most important global institution and we are constantly reminded of its value: The Security Council enacting sanctions against Iran and North Korea.  Peacekeepers patrolling the streets of Monrovia and Port-au-Prince.  Aid workers assisting flood victims in Pakistan and displaced people in Darfur.  And, most recently, the UN General Assembly establishing a new entity --- UN Women --- which will promote gender equality, expand opportunity for women and girls, and tackle the violence and discrimination they face.

But we are also constantly reminded of its limitations.  It is difficult for the UN's 192 Member States, with their diverse perspectives and interests, to achieve consensus on institutional reform, especially reforming the Security Council itself.  The United States believes that the Council must be able to react to and reflect today's world.  We favor Security Council reform that enhances the UN's overall performance, effectiveness and efficiency to meet the challenges of the new century.  We equally and strongly support operational reforms that enable UN field missions to deploy more rapidly, with adequate numbers of well-equipped and well-trained troops and police they often lack, and with the quality of leadership and civilian expertise they require.  And we will continue to embrace and advocate management reforms that lead to efficiencies and savings and that prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.

The UN was never intended to tackle every challenge, nor should it.  So when appropriate, we are working with our partners to establish new venues and organizations to focus on specific problems.  To respond to the global financial crisis, we elevated the G-20.  We also convened the first-ever Nuclear Security Summit.  New or old, the effectiveness of institutions depends on the commitment of their members.  President Obama has reaffirmed our commitment and we have encouraged other nations to do the same.

Our efforts on climate change offer a good example of how we are working through multiple venues and mechanisms to advance our goals.  The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process allows all of us - developed and developing, north and south, east and west - to work within a single venue to meet this shared challenge.  But we also launched the Major Economies Forum to focus on the biggest emitters.  And when negotiations in Copenhagen reached an impasse, President Obama led our team into a meeting of key leaders that included China, India, South Africa, and Brazil - working with them and our colleagues from Europe and elsewhere to fashion a deal that, while far from perfect, saved the summit from failure and represents progress we can build on in the future.  For the first time, all major economies made national commitments to curb carbon emissions and report with transparency on their mitigation efforts.

An Architecture of Values

As we strengthen and modernize regional and global institutions, the United States is also working to cement democracy, human rights, and the rule of law into their foundations.  To construct an architecture of values that spans the globe and includes every man, woman and child.  An architecture that can not only counter repression and resist pressure on human rights, but also extend those fundamental freedoms to places where they have been too long denied.

This is our sixth major step.  We are upholding and defending the universal values that are enshrined in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Today these principles are under threat.  In too many places, new democracies are struggling to grow strong roots.  Authoritarian regimes are cracking down on civil society and pluralism.  Some leaders see democracy as an inconvenience that gets in the way of the efficient exercise of national power.

This world-view must be confronted and challenged.  Democracy needs defending.  The struggle to make human rights a human reality needs champions.

This work starts at home, where we have rejected the false choice between our security and our ideals.  It continues around the world, where human rights are always on our diplomatic and development agendas, even with nations on whose cooperation we depend for a wide range of issues, such as Egypt, China and Russia.  We are also committed to defending these values on the digital frontiers of the 21st century.  And in Krakow this summer, I announced the creation of a new fund to support civil society and embattled NGOs around the world.  This will continue to be a focus of U.S. foreign policy going forward.

Iran Sanctions: Our Strategy in Action

Now, how do all of these steps --- deepening relations with allies and emerging powers, strengthening institutions and shared values --- how do they work together to advance our interests?  One need only look at our diplomatic effort to stop Iran's provocative nuclear activities and its serial non-compliance with all of its international obligations.  There is a still a lot of work to be done, but how we are approaching the Iranian challenge is an example of American leadership in action.

First, we began by making the United States a full partner and active participant in international diplomatic efforts regarding Iran.  Through our continued willingness to engage Iran directly, we have re-energized the conversation with our allies and are removing easy excuses for lack of progress.

Second, we have sought to frame this issue within the global non-proliferation regime in which the rules of the road are clearly defined for all parties.  To lead by example, we have renewed our own disarmament efforts.  Our deepened support for global institutions such as the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] underscores the authority of the international system of rights and responsibilities.  Iran, on the other hand, continues to single itself out through its own actions.  Its intransigence represents a challenge to the rules to which all countries must adhere.

Third, we continue to strengthen relationships with those countries whose help we need if diplomacy is to be successful.  Through classic shoe-leather diplomacy, we have built a broad consensus that will welcome Iran back into the community of nations if it meets its obligations and likewise will hold Iran accountable to its obligations if it continues its defiance.

This spring, the UN Security Council passed the strongest and most comprehensive set of sanctions ever on Iran.  The European Union has followed up with robust implementation of that resolution.  Many other nations are implementing their own additional measures, including Australia, Canada, Norway and most recently Japan.  We believe Iran is only just beginning to feel the full impact of sanctions.  Beyond what governments are doing, the international financial and commercial sectors are also starting to recognize the risks of doing business with Iran.

Sanctions and pressure are not ends in themselves.  They are the building blocks of leverage for a negotiated solution, to which we and our partners remain committed.  The choice for Iran's leaders is clear, even if they attempt to obfuscate and avoid it: Meet the responsibilities incumbent upon all nations and enjoy the benefits of integration into the international community, or continue to flout your obligations and accept increasing isolation and costs.  Iran now must decide for itself.

Conclusion

Our task going forward is to take all that I have discussed today and make it lasting.

To help achieve this goal, America needs the tools and capacity to do the work I've described.  So we are strengthening every aspect of our civilian power.  Congress already has appropriated funds for more than 1,100 new Foreign and Civil service officers.  USAID has begun a series of reforms that will reestablish it as the world's premier development agency.  Across the board, we need to rethink, reform, and recalibrate.  And in a time of tight budgets, we must ensure our resources are spent wisely.  That is why I launched the first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, or QDDR, a wholesale review of State and USAID to recommend how we can better equip, fund, and organize ourselves to meet the world's challenges in the years ahead.  I will be talking much more about this in the coming weeks and months as this review is completed.

We recognize the scope of the efforts we have undertaken.  And looking at our agenda, reasonable observers may question how we can handle so many problems at once.  The first answer is that, as I've described today, we are not trying to do it alone.  One of the central purposes of the strategy we're pursuing is to build relationships and institutions that encourage others to step up.

But I would also ask: Which of our great challenges today can be placed on the back burner?  Are we going to tell our grandchildren that we failed to stop climate change because our plate was just too full?  Or nuclear proliferation?  That we gave up on democracy and human rights?  That is not what Americans do.

Now, all of this requires what we call strategic patience.  Long after our troops come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, our diplomatic and development assistance and support for the Afghan security forces will continue.  Ridding the world of nuclear dangers, turning back climate change, ending poverty, hunger and disease - this is the work not of a year, or a presidency, or even a lifetime.  This is the work of generations.

America is up to the job.  We will seize this new moment of opportunity - this new American Moment.  We are a nation that has always believed we have the power to shape our own destiny, to cut a new and better path.  This administration will do everything we can to exercise the best traditions of American leadership at home and abroad to build a more peaceful and prosperous future for our children and children everywhere.

Thank you.

(Applause.)

MR. HAASS: Well, thank you. And I will ask a slightly longer first question than I normally would while you fumble with that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much. (Laughter.) Very kind of you.

MR. HAASS: The old stall tactic, filibuster, and you may recall that from a previous life.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, I do, but I never knew it would be so common. (Laughter.)

MR. HAASS: Yes, it’s – Council on Foreign Relations, we’re trying to keep up. We’re trying to keep up. Touché.

Let me start where – you okay?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah.

MR. HAASS: Let me start where you began --- where you ended rather --- which was with all these things we want to do, and you called for strategic patience in Afghanistan and so forth. Yet the United States is soon approaching a point where the scale or size of our debt will exceed our GDP. It’s a question of when more than if. Where does national security contribute to the solution to running deficits of $1.5 trillion a year, or do we continue to carry out a foreign and defense policy as if we were not seriously resource constrained?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Richard, first, as I said, I think that our rising debt levels poses a national security threat, and it poses a national security threat in two ways. It undermines our capacity to act in our own interests and it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable. And it also sends a message of weakness internationally. I mean, it is very troubling to me that we are losing the ability not only to chart our own destiny, but to have the leverage that comes from this enormously effective economic engine that has powered American values and interests over so many years.

So I don’t think we have a choice. It’s a question of how we decide to deal with this debt and deficit. I mean, it is – we don’t need to go back and sort of re-litigate how we got to where we are. But it is fair to say that we fought two wars without paying for them and we had tax cuts that were not paid for either, and that has been a very deadly combination to fiscal sanity and responsibility.

So the challenge is how we get out of it by making the right decisions, not the wrong decisions. There’s a lot of wrong things we could do that would further undermine our strength. I mean, it is going to be very difficult for those decisions. And I know there’s an election going on and I know that I am, by law, out of politics, but I will say that this is not just a decision for the Congress; it’s a decision for the country. And it’s not a Republican or a Democratic decision. And there are a lot of people who know more about what needs to be done and who, frankly, have a responsible view, whose voices are not being heard right now, and I think that is a great disservice to our nation. Whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, a conservative, a progressive, whatever you call yourself, there is no free lunch and we cannot pretend that there is without doing grave harm to our country and our future generations.

So when you specifically say, well, what about diplomacy, development and defense, we will have to take our share of the burden of meeting the fiscal targets that can drag us out of this deep hole we’re in, but we’ve got to be smart about it. And I think from both my perspective and [Secretary of Defense] Bob Gates’s perspective, and we talked about this a lot, Bob has made some very important recommendations that are not politically popular, but which come with a very well thought out policy. And what I’ve tried to do is to say, “Look, we’re going to try to be smarter, more effective.” In our QDDR [Quadrennial Defense and Development Review], we’re recommending changes in personnel policies, in all kinds of approaches that will better utilize what we have. But we needed to get a little more robust in order to catch up to our responsibilities.

A quick final point on that. When our combat troops move out of Iraq, as they’ve been, that will save about $15 billion. That’s a net win for our Treasury, and it’s the policy that we have committed to along with the Iraqis. The Congress cuts my budget of the State Department and USAID for trying to pick up the pieces that we’re left with. We now have the responsibility for the police training mission, for opening up consulates that have to be secure. So even though our troops are coming down and we’re saving money, and what we’re asking for is considerably less than the $15 billion that we are saving by having the troops leave, the Congress cuts us.

And so we have to get a more sensible, comprehensive approach. And Bob and I have talked about trying to figure out how to present a national security budget. It’s a mistake to look at all of these items – foreign aid, diplomatic operations, defense – as stovepipes. Because what we know, especially from the threats that we have faced in Iraq and now in Afghanistan, is you have to be more integrated. So let’s start thinking from a budget perspective about how to be more integrated.

So there’s a lot that we can do on our side to help. But the bottom line is that the public and the Congress and the Administration have to make some very tough decisions, and I hope we make the right decisions.

MR. HAASS: Let me just follow up on that because you broached the political issue, and let me do it in the following way. I don’t have a crystal ball any better than anyone else’s, but let’s assume some of the pundits are essentially right and Republicans pick up quite a few seats in the House – whether they have control or not, who knows, they pick up a few seats in the Senate – so government is more divided come the new Congress when it takes office early next year. What does that mean for you? What are the opportunities? What are the problems in that for being Secretary of State?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I won’t answer that as a political question because I don’t want to cross my line here. But I will say that I have found a lot of support for what we’re trying to do on both sides of the aisle in both houses, and I think we will continue to have that. And I’m hoping that we can maybe reestablish something of a détente when it comes to foreign policy that cuts across any partisan divide.

Like, take the START [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia] treaty; we have unanimous support for that. Our two chief negotiators, Rose Gottemoeller, our Assistant Secretary, and Ellen Tauscher, our Under Secretary, are here and they did a terrific job. And we’ve had a very positive endorsement of it by former secretaries of State and Defense, of both parties, the Joint Chiefs have come out, everybody’s come out for it. And it’s a political issue. I wish it weren’t because most of these treaties pass 95 to nothing, 90 to 3. They have huge overwhelming majorities in the Senate.

But we know that we have political issues that we have to address, which we are, and talking to those who have some questions. But I hope at the end of the day, the Senate will say, “Something should just be beyond any kind of election or partisan calculation,” and that everybody will pull together and will get that START treaty done, which I know, from my own conversations with Eastern and Central Europeans and others, is seen as a really important symbol of our commitment to continue working with the Russians.

MR. HAASS: Let’s ask one last question, then I’ll open it up to our members. You’re about, as you said, to head back to the Middle East for the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian talks. The op-ed pages have been filled. I would say a majority of the pieces have been quite pessimistic. Why are the pessimists wrong? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think they’re wrong because I think that both sides and both leaders recognize that there may not ever be another chance. I think for most Israeli leaders that I have known and worked with and especially those coming from sort of the right of Israeli politics, which the prime minister does, it’s like Mario Cuomo’s famous line: “They campaign in poetry and they govern in prose.” And the prose is really challenging.

You look at where Israel is and the threats it faces demographically, technologically, ideologically, and the idea of striking a peace deal with a secular Palestinian Authority that is committed to its own people’s economic future makes a lot of sense if it can be worked out. From [Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud] Abbas, he was probably the earliest and at times the only Palestinian leader who called for a two-state solution going back probably 20, 30 years, and for him, this is the culmination of a life’s commitment.

And I think that the Arab League Initiative, the peace initiative, put the Arab – most Arab and Muslim countries on record as saying that they could live with and welcome a two-state solution. Fifty-seven countries, including some we know didn’t mean it, but most have followed through in commitments to it, has changed the atmosphere. So I know how difficult it is, and I know the internal domestic political considerations that each leader has to contend with, but I think there is a certain momentum. We have some challenges in the early going that we have to get over, but I think that we have a real shot here.

MR. HAASS: So I’ll open it up and what I’ll ask is people to identify themselves, wait for a microphone, and please limit yourself to one question and be as short as you can. Sir, I don’t know your name, but just – pick up.

QUESTION: How are you, Secretary Clinton? My name is Travis Atkins. I’m an International Affairs Fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations focusing on Sudan this year. And my question is if – you mentioned Darfur once in your talk – if you could elaborate a little bit on our ramped up efforts in Sudan as we head towards the referendum there in January.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you. Thanks for asking and thanks for your work on Sudan. We have a very difficult set of challenges in Sudan. Some of you in this audience, those of you who were in government before like John Negroponte and others, you know this firsthand – the situation in Darfur is dangerous, difficult, not stable.

But the situation North-South is a ticking time bomb of enormous consequence. So we are ramping up our efforts to bring the parties together, North and South, the African Union, others to focus on this referendum which has not been given the attention it needs, both because the South is not quite capable of summoning the resources to do it, and the North has been preoccupied and is not inclined to do it because it’s pretty clear what the outcome will be. The African Union committee under Thabo Mbeki has been working on it.

So we are upping our diplomatic and development efforts. We have increased our presence in Juba, we have sent a – we’ve opened a – kind of a consulate and sent a consul general there, we are – Princeton Lyman, whom some of you know, is – sort of signed on to help as well with Scott Gration and his team.

MR. HAASS: Until last week, a senior fellow here.

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s right, and Assistant Secretary Johnnie Carson. It’s really all hands on deck, so that we’re trying to convince the North and South and all the other interested parties who care about the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to weighing in to getting this done. The timeframe is very short. Pulling together this referendum is going to be difficult. We’re going to need a lot of help from NGOs, the Carter Center, and others who are willing to help implement the referendum.

But the real problem is what happens when the inevitable happens and the referendum is passed and the South declares independence. So simultaneously, we’re trying to begin negotiations to work out some of those intractable problems. What happens to the oil revenues? And if you’re in the North and all of a sudden, you think a line’s going to be drawn and you’re going to lose 80 percent of the oil revenues, you’re not a very enthusiastic participant, what are the deals that can possibly be made that will limit the potential of violence? And even if we did everything perfectly and everyone else – the Norwegians, the Brits, everybody who is weighing in on this – did all that they could, the reality is that this is going to be a very hard decision for the North to accept.

And so we’ve got to figure out some ways to make it worth their while to peacefully accept an independent South and for the South to recognize that unless they want more years of warfare and no chance to build their own new state, they’ve got to make some accommodations with the North as well. So that’s what we’re looking for. If you have any ideas from your study, let us know. (Laughter.)

MR. HAASS: We’ll turn to Carla Hills.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, first of all, thank you for a really far-ranging, extraordinarily interesting talk. You mentioned strategies that are regional, and I’d like you to just say a word more about this hemisphere. You gave a wonderful speech at the border of Mexico where you asserted that we had responsibility for the drugs coming north and the guns going south. Talk a little bit about how we are implementing strategies to turn that around and also to gain friendships that would be helpful throughout Latin America.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, Carla, thank you for asking about this hemisphere, because it is very much on our minds and we face an increasing threat from a well-organized network drug trafficking threat that is, in some cases, morphing into or making common cause with what we would consider an insurgency in Mexico and in Central America.

And we are working very hard to assist the Mexicans in improving their law enforcement and their intelligence, their capacity to detain and prosecute those whom they arrest. I give President Calderon very high marks for his courage and his commitment. This is a really tough challenge. And these drug cartels are now showing more and more indices of insurgency; all of a sudden, car bombs show up which weren’t there before.

So it’s becoming – it’s looking more and more like Colombia looked 20 years ago, where the narco-traffickers control certain parts of the country, not significant parts. And Colombia – it got to the point where more than a third of the country, nearly 40 percent of the country at one time or another was controlled by the insurgents, by FARC. But it’s going to take a combination of improved institutional capacity and better law enforcement and, where appropriate, military support for that law enforcement married to political will to be able to prevent this from spreading and to try to beat it back.

Mexico has capacity and they’re using that capacity, and they’ve been very willing to take advice. They’re wanting to do as much of it on their own as possible, but we stand ready to help them. But the small countries in Central America do not have that capacity, and the newly inaugurated president of Costa Rica, President Chinchilla, said, “We need help and we need a much more vigorous U.S. presence.”

So we are working to try to enhance what we have in Central America. We hear the same thing from our Caribbean friends, so we have an initiative, the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative. And our relationship is not all about drugs and violence and crime, but unfortunately, that often gets the headlines. We are also working on more economic programs, we’re working on Millennium Challenge grants, we’re working on a lot of other ways of bolstering economies and governments to improve rule of law. But this is on the top of everyone’s minds when they come to speak with us.

And I know that Plan Colombia was controversial. I was just in Colombia and there were problems and there were mistakes, but it worked. And it was bipartisan, started in the Clinton Administration, continued in the Bush Administration, and I think President Santos will try to do everything he can to remedy the problems of the past while continuing to make progress against the insurgency. And we need to figure out what are the equivalents for Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean.

And that’s not easy because these – you put your finger on it. Those drugs come up through Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, through Central America, Southern Mexico to the border, and we consume them. And those guns, legal and illegal, keep flooding along with all of the mayhem. It’s not only guns; it’s weapons, it’s arsenals of all kinds that come south. So I feel a real sense of responsibility to do everything we can, and again, we’re working hard to come up with approaches that will actually deliver.

MR. HAASS: Speaking of guns, I’m going to be shot if I don’t ask a question that comes from one of our national members, and thanks to the iPad I have on my lap, I can ask it. Several have written in about the impact of the mosque debate in New York, about the threat to burn Qu’rans. How do – what’s your view on all this from the Department of State? How does this complicate your life? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I mean, we’re a country of what, 310 million-plus right now and – I mean, it’s regrettable that a pastor in Gainesville, Florida with a church of no more than 50 people can make this outrageous and distressful, disgraceful plan and get the world’s attention, but that’s the world we live in right now. I mean, it doesn’t, in any way, represent America or Americans or American Government or American religious or political leadership. And we are, as you’ve seen in the last few days, speaking out. General Petraeus made the very powerful point that as seemingly small a group of people doing this, the fact is that it will have potentially great harm for our troops. So we are hoping that the pastor decides not to do this. We’re hoping against hope that if he does, it won’t be covered -- (laughter) --

MR. HAASS: Bonne chance.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- as an act of patriotism. But I think that it’s unfortunate. I mean, it’s not who we are, and we just have to constantly be demonstrating by our words and actions. And as I remind my friends around the world, in the environment in which we all now operate, anybody with an iPhone, anybody with a blog, can put something out there which is outrageous. I mean, we went through the cartoon controversy. We went through the Facebook controversy in Pakistan. Judith McHale, who is our Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, is on the front lines of pushing back on all of this all the time. And so we want to be judged by who we are as a nation, not by something that is so aberrational. And we’ll make that case as strongly as possible.

MR. HAASS: Time for one more?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Sure.

MR. HAASS: Okay, let me first of all apologize for the 283 of you whose questions will not – (laughter) – get answered. And let me also say that after the Secretary completes her next answer, if people would just remain seated while we get you out quickly and safely.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Safely? Do you think they’re going to storm the stage? (Laughter.)

MR. HAASS: This is the –

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t know. I’m looking at this audience. There’s a – (laughter) – a few people I think that might. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Thanks, Richard. Barbara Slavin, an independent journalist. Madam Secretary, it’s a pleasure and I appreciate the responsibility on my shoulders. I have two very quick ones.

MR. HAASS: (Off mike.)

QUESTION: Very easy ones.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Is it the role of the United States to support the Green Movement, the opposition in Iran? And if so, how should we be doing that?

And secondly, you’ve hardly mentioned North Korea. Is U.S. policy now just to let North Korea stew in its own juices until the next Kim takes over? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, with respect to the first question, it is definitely our policy to support freedom and human rights inside Iran, and we have done so by speaking out. We have done so by trying to equip Iranians with the tools, particularly the technology tools that they need, to be able to communicate with each other to make their views known. We have strongly condemned the actions of the Iranian Government and continue to do so.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that Iran is morphing into a military dictatorship with a sort of religious, ideological veneer. It is becoming the province of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and in concert with some of the clerical and political leadership. And I don’t think that’s what the Iranian Revolution for a Republic of Iran, an Islamic Republic of Iran was ever meant to become.

So I know there’s a great deal of ferment and activities inside Iran that we do try to support. At the same time, we don’t want to either endanger or undermine those very same people so that it becomes, once again, the U.S. doing something instead of the U.S. being supportive of what indigenous efforts are taking place.

We know that Iran is under tremendous pressure. Early returns from implementation of the sanctions are that they’re feeling the economic effects. We would hope that that would lead them to reconsider their positions, not only with respect to nuclear weapons, but, frankly, the export of terrorism. And it’s not only in the obvious places with Hezbollah and Hamas, but in trying to destabilize many countries in the region and beyond, where they have provided support and funding for terrorist activities as far away as Argentina.

So I think there is a very, very sad confluence of events occurring inside Iran that I think eventually – but I can’t put a time frame on it – the Iranian people themselves will respond to. And we want to be helpful, but we don’t want to get in the way of it. So that’s the balance that we try to strike.

Now, with respect to North Korea, we are continuing to send a very clear message to North Korea about what we expect and what the Six-Party process could offer if they are willing to return and discuss seriously denuclearization that is irreversible. We are in intense discussions about this with all the other Six-Party members and we’re watching the leadership process and don’t have any idea yet how it’s going to turn out. But the most important issue for us is trying to get our Six-Party friends, led by China, to work with us to try to convince whosever in leadership in North Korea that their future would be far better served by denuclearizing. And that remains our goal.

MR. HAASS: As always, thank you so much for coming here, first of all, but also giving such a thorough and complete and serious and comprehensive talk about American foreign policy. And I know I speak for everyone that we wish you Godspeed and more in your work next week and beyond. Thank you so much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks, Richard.

(Applause.)

The Latest from Iran (7 September): The Real Stories

2140 GMT: Is It Really OK to Criticise the President Now? We noted last evening that the chairman of the Supreme Audit Court, Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli, had "taken apart the Ahmadinejad Government over its development plans, privatisation, imports, and subsidy reform".

Iran's Press TV either A) forgot to read EA or B) thought long and hard about whether it would be wise and appropriate to publicise Fazli's criticism. Finally, this afternoon it decided it was OK to let Ahmadinejad have it: "The Iranian government's plans to scrap state subsidies should not lead to 'political disputes' in the country, says the head of Iran's Supreme Audit Court."

Press also noted Fazli's comments on the suspect nature of the Government's privatisation but left out the chairman's scathing remarks on cheap imports pushing out Iranian goods and costing Iranian jobs.

NEW Iran Exclusive: Rafsanjani Declares “I Won’t Bear This Situation”
NEW Iran Exclusive: FM Mottaki Attempted to Resign over Ahmadinejad Foreign Policy
Iran Witness: Political Prisoner Arjang Davoudi From Evin on Human Rights (2008)
Iran Feature: Inside Rajai Shahr Prison (Bijnen)
The Latest from Iran (6 September): Stresses on Authority

2120 GMT: Ahmadinejad's Foreign Policy Problem. You know it's been a bad day for the President when even the Foreign Ministry spokesman is slapping him around.

At his press briefing today, Ramin Mehmanparast was asked if foreign policy had been hindered by the President's appointment of special representatives for international affairs.

Mehmanparast replied, "We believe the Foreign Ministry should not be undermined....The Foreign Ministry is the only body that makes final decision and implement foreign policy."

1540 GMT: School Days. "Free teachers", with between four and eight years of experience, from 5 provinces have protested in front of Parliament over discrimination in professional examinations and lack of jobs.

1535 GMT: Economy Watch. Khabar Online reports that about 800,000 jobs have been lost in agriculture since 2005.

1530 GMT: Sedition Alerts. The head of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, Mohammad Ali Jafari, says fitna (sedition) is much more dangerous than the 1980s war with Iraq. Commander Ali Fazli has asserted that tens of thousands were arrested during the past year's fitna. Of these, 5000 have "repented".

1525 GMT: A New Political Contender? The supporters of the new "Front for Justice and Welfare", linked to Ahmadinejad's Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, met yesterday. They defended the and his Government and sharply attacked the hardline newspaper Keyhan, which has been critical of Rahim-Mashai.

1510 GMT: Parliament v. President. Challenges to Ahmadinejad on a number of fronts....

122 of the 290 MPs in the Majlis have issued a warning to the President about "parallel actions" in foreign policy, reminding him to follow the command of the Supreme Leader.

The Article 90 Commission has threatened to send its file on the National Iranian Oil Company, whose statutes since 2007 are supposedly missing, to the judiciary.

On Wednesday the Parliament will officially present letters of impeachment of Minister of Energy Majid Namjoo and Minister of Agriculture minister Sadegh Khalilian.

Reformist MPs have demanded the pursuit and punishment of the perpetrators, and those who led them, of last week's attacks on the home of Mehdi Karroubi and Qoba Mosque in Shiraz.

1500 GMT: The Battle Within. Mohammad Nabi-Habibi, the Secretary-General of the Motalefeh party, has issued a stinging criticism of the President in Khabar Online.

Nabi Habibi rebuked Ahmadnejad for his "parallel actions" in foreign policy and said he should stop them immediately to please the Supreme Leader. While noting the "good performance" of the Ahmadinejad Governments, he added that they should also accept criticism, end quarrels, and create a better life for the people by establishing justice. He urged concentration on the creation of jobs and economic growth.

Nabi Habibi called for a Government commission with Parliament and the Expediency Council to resolve problems.

1440 GMT: Labour Front. Textile workers in Amol in northern Iran have rallied in front of the governor's office.

1435 GMT: Execution (Sakineh) Watch. The Parliament's Human Rights Commission has condemned the intervention of the French and Italian Governments in the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, condemned to death for adultery.

1430 GMT: Putting Away the Rumour of the Day. The Majlis has denied the story, which we noticed this morning, that Speaker of the Parliament Ali Larijani suffered a heart attack last week.

1315 GMT: MediaWatch. A quick answer to our enquiry earlier today (see 0650 GMT) about whether Thomas Erdbrink of The Washington Post, one of the few front-line "Western" correspondents in Tehran, would be returning to Iran after a break in The Netherlands.

Turns out Erdbrink's story on the Iranian opposition in Delft, published today, was developed last month, and he is already back in post in the Iranian capital.

1250 GMT: Sanctions Watch. On Monday, the Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates froze four Iranian bank accounts, in accordance with the recent sanctions on 41 firms and individuals adopted by the United Nations Security Council.

A source at the CBE said the other 37 accounts on the UN list were outside the country and the amounts frozen in the UAE were "very limited".

1245 GMT: Power Squeeze. Peyke Iran reports that electricity bills for some people in Tehran have risen five times. Khabar Online is also carrying the story.

1120 GMT: Transport News. Claims are circulating that, with a shortage of gasoline in Tehran, private bus drivers are waiting hours at stations.

1025 GMT: Execution (Sakineh) Watch. For the second time in two weeks, the Iranian Foreign Ministry has warned other countries not to interfere in Iran's legal system over Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, sentenced to death for adultery.

"Unfortunately, (they are) defending a person who is being tried for murder and adultery, which are two major crimes of this lady and should not become a human rights issue," Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast. "If releasing all those who have committed murder is to be perceived as a human rights issue, then all European countries should release all the murderers in their countries."

Not sure that the latest Iranian protest will check the pressure, however: the Parliament of the European Union will pass a resolution on Wednesday in support of Ashtiani. On Monday, the introduction of the resolution brought more than 30 minutes of denunciation of Tehran:



1020 GMT: The Foreign Policy Battle. Key MP Ahmad Tavakoli has issued a harsh warning to President Ahmadinejad over his naming and retention of special envoys for foreign policy, amidst the growing dispute with the Foreign Ministry. Tavakoli said that ignoring the commands of Ayatollah Khamenei to cease "parallel actions" would have "grave consequences".

1015 GMT: Stopping the Lawyers. Reporters Without Borders has condemned the detention of defense attorney Nasrin Sotoudeh, whose office was raided on 28 August and who was summoned to the prosecutor's office inside Evin Prison on Sunday over charges of anti-government propaganda and conspiring against the regime

Reporters Without Borders said. “Detained journalists and other political prisoners are denied their most basic rights. Lawyers cannot visit their detained clients or see their case files. Now the repression is being stepped up a notch. By arresting lawyers, the regime is trying to gag the last dissenting voices. Lawyers’ organisations throughout the world must demand this courageous lawyer’s immediate release.”

0755 GMT: Nothing to See Here, Move Along (Nuclear Edition). And now the other side of the headline hype (see 0525 GMT). Press TV quotes Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, on the IAEA's latest statement: "After seven years of constant inspections, the report once again confirms the non-diversion of Iran's nuclear activities towards military and banned objectives

Ali Abkar Salehi, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, chimes in, "Like the previous reports, the new report reiterates the non-diversion of declared nuclear material ….Therefore, we believe that the other issues mentioned in the report are minor."

It is useful to note Salehi's response to the most challenging remarks in the IAEA reports, criticising Iran's denial of inspections of its heavy water plant: "The IAEA should tell us that by which clause of the mutual agreement can it inspect the heavy water facilities. We have not found such a clause…if they prove it, I will immediately allow inspectors to visit [the plant]."

0700 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. We have posted an exclusive, based on sources in Iran, "Rafsanjani Declares, 'I Won't Bear This Situation'".

0650 GMT: Opposition Abroad. Here's a story I suspect some EA readers already knew, brought out by Thomas Erdbrink of The Washington Post:

A dreamy university town in the Netherlands known as the birthplace of 17th-century painter Johannes Vermeer has become a major center for Iranian activists abroad.

Over 1,000 Iranian students, the majority fresh arrivals from Iran's best universities, are studying courses such as applied physics and aerospace engineering at the Delft University of Technology, and meeting during evenings in cafes that line the city's canals.

The university hosts one of the largest communities of visiting Iranian scholars in Europe, and many are involved with the Iranian opposition movement.

Now a question: Erdbrink, one of the few front-line "Western" correspondents who remained in Iran during the post-election conflict, by-lines the story from Delft. Is the Dutch national now outside Iran and, if so, will he be able to get back in?
0535 GMT: We're going to leave the nuclear chatter to others, unless there is a significant development. We've got more important matters to consider....

Our exclusive on the tension between the President and the Foreign Ministry, including Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's attempted resignation, was posted last night. This morning, we'll be putting up an equally important story involving former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, and tomorrow or Thursday we should have an analysis --- based on new information from inside Iran --- of the battle within the regime.

0525 GMT: As we noted at the end of last night, there will be a lot of "Western"media brushfires to put out today,  with the coverage of the International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report on the Iranian nuclear programme. Even though there is almost nothing new of substance in the IAEA summary, most newspapers will be looking for --- actually, they have already seized upon --- a morsel of information to turn into a dramatic statement of conflict and threat.

So far, however, the Obama Administration has put out a relatively muted statement of "disappointment" in Iran over its failure to co-operate fully with the IAEA inspectors. That indicates the US Government is putting more emphasis on the possible resumption of talks with Tehran via the 5+1 Powers rather on a public conflict with Iran.

There is the slighter possibility that another rogue story may be whipped up into a cause for showdown. Reza Aslan, who normally is a good reporter and analyst of Iran affairs, is pushing the speculative and over-hyped claims of the agency STRATFOR that Iran "may have orchestrated last week's brutal attacks by Hamas militants against Israeli settlers in the West Bank in an attempt to derail the Middle East peace talks".

Israel-Palestine Video & Transcript: Clinton-Abbas-Netanyahu Statements and Meeting (3 September)

Video 1: US Secretary of Statement Hillary Clinton

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

NEW Israel-Palestine Analysis: “Security” Moves to the Front in Direct Talks (Yenidunya)
Israel-Palestine Transcript: George Mitchell on the Direct Talks (3 September)
Israel-Palestine Video & Transcript: Clinton-Abbas-Netanyahu Statements and Meeting (3 September)

Video 2: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Video 3: Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning and welcome to the State Department here in the Benjamin Franklin Room. I want to thank all of you for joining us today to re-launch negotiations to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I know the decision to sit at this table was not easy. We understand the suspicion and skepticism that so many feel, born out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes. The tragic act of terror on Tuesday and the terrorist shooting yesterday are yet additional reminders of the human costs of this conflict. But by being here today, you each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change, and moving toward a future of peace and dignity that only you can create. So, thank you. Thank you for your courage and your commitment.

I also want to recognize the support of Egypt and Jordan, which have long been crucial partners for peace. And we appreciate the support of the Arab League for the vision of a comprehensive peace embodied in these talks.

I also wish to thank former Prime Minister Tony Blair, the special representative of the Quartet, for his leadership and efforts. Mr. Blair’s work in support of the institutional and economic development of the Palestinian people is critical to the success of these peace efforts. As we’ve said all along, progress on this track must go hand-in-hand with progress in negotiations.

And let me also, as represented by this overwhelming turnout of representatives of the press from across the world, express our gratitude to many friends and allies who have worked so hard for progress toward our shared goals. To those who criticize this process, who stand on the sidelines and say no, I ask you to join us in this effort. As President Obama said yesterday, we hear often from those voices in the region who insist that this is a top priority and yet do very little to support the work that would actually bring about a Palestinian state. Now is the opportunity to start contributing to progress.

For our part, the United States has pledged its full support for these talks, and we will be an active and sustained partner. We believe, Prime Minister and President, that you can succeed, and we understand that this is in the national security interests of the United States that you do so. But we cannot and we will not impose a solution. Only you can make the decisions necessary to reach an agreement and secure a peaceful future for the Israeli and Palestinian people.

Now, for many of us in this room, this is not the first trip to the negotiating table. I look around and I see veterans from all three of us. We’ve been here before and we know how difficult the road ahead will be. There undoubtedly will be obstacles and setbacks. Those who oppose the cause of peace will try in every way possible to sabotage this process, as we have already seen this week.

But those of you here today, especially the veterans who are here today, you have returned because you have seen the cost of continued conflict. You know that your people deserve the benefits of peace. The core issues at the center of these negotiations – territory, security, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, and others – will get no easier if we wait. Nor will they resolve themselves.

Success will take patience, persistence, and leadership. The true test of these negotiations will not be their first day and it will not be their last day. It will be all those long days in the middle, when the path toward peace seems hidden, and the enemies of peace work to keep it obscured. But we are convinced that if you move forward in good faith and do not waver in your commitment to succeed on behalf of your people, we can resolve all of the core issues within one year.

You have taken the first steps. You have both embraced the idea of a two-state solution, which is the only path toward a just, lasting peace that ensures security and dignity for both Israelis and Palestinians. I fervently believe that the two men sitting on either side of me, that you are the leaders who can make this long, cherished dream a reality. And we will do everything possible to help you. This is a time for bold leadership and a time for statesmen who have the courage to make difficult decisions.

Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. President, you have the opportunity to end this conflict and the decades of enmity between your peoples once and for all.

And I want to conclude by just saying a few words directly to the people of the region. Your leaders may be sitting at the negotiating table, but you are the ones who will ultimately decide the future. You hold the future of your families, your communities, your people, this region, in your hands. For the efforts here to succeed, we need your support and your patience. Today, as ever, people have to rally to the cause of peace, and peace needs champions on every street corner and around every kitchen table. I understand very well the disappointments of the past. I share them. But I also know we have it within our power today to move forward into a different kind of future, and we cannot do this without you.

So now let me turn to the prime minister, who will make his remarks, followed by the president.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Thank you, Madam Secretary. I want to thank you and President Obama for the many efforts that you have invested to bring us to this moment. My friend, Senator Mitchell, thank you for your consistent effort, for you and your staff’s efforts to bring a lasting and durable peace to our region.

President Abbas, as I said yesterday in our meeting at the White House with the President of the United States, the President of Egypt and the King of Jordan, I see in you a partner for peace. Together, we can lead our people to a historic future that can put an end to claims and to conflict.

Now, this will not be easy. A true peace, a lasting peace, would be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides – from the Israeli side, from the Palestinian side, from my side, and from your side. But the people of Israel, and I as their prime minister, are prepared to walk this road and to go a long way, a long way in a short time, to achieve a genuine peace that will bring our people security, prosperity, and good neighbors – good neighbors, to shape a different reality between us. That’s going to involve serious negotiations, because there are many issues in contention. The core issues that you outlined, Madam Secretary, are things that we have disagreements on, but we have to get from disagreement to agreement – a big task.

Now, two years ago, or rather, a year ago, in a speech I gave in Bar-Ilan University in Israel, I tried to outline the two pillars of peace that I think will enable us to resolve all the outstanding issues. And these are legitimacy and security. Just as you expect us to be ready to recognize a Palestinian state as the nation-state of the Palestinian people, we expect you to be prepared to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. There are more than a million non-Jews living in Israel, the nation-state of the Jewish people, who have full civil rights. There is no contradiction between a nation-state that guarantees the national rights of the majority and guaranteeing the civil rights, the full civil equality, of the minority.

I think this mutual recognition between us is indispensible to clarifying to our two people – our two peoples that the conflict between us is over. I said, too, yesterday that a real peace must take into account the genuine security needs of Israel that have changed. They have changed since I was last here. You spoke about the veterans who are gathered here at this table. We’ve been here before. We fashioned the Hebron agreement and the Wye agreement. This was 12 years ago. In these 12 years, new forces have risen in our region, and we’ve had the rise of Iran and its proxies and the rise of missile warfare. And so a peace agreement must take into account a security arrangement against these real threats that have been directed against my country, threats that have been realized with 12,000 rockets that have been fired on our territory, and terrorist attacks that go unabated.

President Abbas, I am fully aware and I respect your people’s desire for sovereignty. I am convinced that it’s possible to reconcile that desire with Israel’s need for security. We anticipate difficult days before we achieve the much-desired peace. The last two days have been difficult. They were exceedingly difficult for my people and for me. Blood has been shed, the blood of innocents: four innocent Israelis gunned down brutally, two people wounded, seven new orphans. President Abbas, you condemned this killing. That’s important. No less important is to find the killers, and equally to make sure that we can stop other killers. They seek to kill our people, kill our state, kill our peace. And so achieving security is a must. Security is the foundation of peace. Without it, peace will unravel. With it, peace can be stable and enduring.

President Abbas, history has given us a rare opportunity to end the conflict between our peoples, a conflict that has been lasting for almost a century. It’s an unprecedented opportunity to end a century conflict. Well, there have been some examples in history, but not many. But we face such a task to end the bloodshed and to secure a future of promise and hope for our children and grandchildren.

In the first book of the Bible, the book of Genesis, there is a story of how two brothers in conflict – brothers, Isaac and Ishmael – joined together to bury their father Abraham, our father, the father of our two peoples. Isaac, the father of the Hebrew nation, Ishmael, the father of the Arab nation, joined together at a moment of pain and mutual respect to bury Abraham in Hebron.

I can only pray, and I know that millions around the world, millions of Israelis and millions of Palestinians and many other millions around the world, pray that the pain that we have experienced – you and us – in the last hundred years of conflict will unite us not only in a moment of peace around a table of peace here in Washington, but will enable us to leave from here and to forge a durable, lasting peace for generations. Shalom. Salaam. Peace.

PRESIDENT ABBAS: (Via interpreter) In the name of God, Madam Secretary Hillary Clinton, Mr. Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, ladies and gentlemen, let me, in the first place, once again, extend my thanks to President Barack Obama and to Secretary Clinton and Senator George Mitchell and their teams for the unrelenting effort they exerted during the last month in order to re-launch the negotiation on the final status between the PLO and the Israeli Government.

Ladies and gentlemen, now that you are launching these negotiations today, we do know how hard are the hurdles and obstacles we are facing and we will face during these negotiations, negotiations that should, within a year, lead to an agreement that will bring the peace – the just peace of international law – international legality between our two people, the Israelis and the Palestinians. What’s encouraging as well and what’s giving us confidence is that the road is clear in front of us in order to reach peace. The road of international law is represented by the National Security Council and the General Assembly of United Nations, the Quartet, and the positions of the European Union, of the Arab Follow-up Committee. And all these position clearly for us represent international unanimity on the references, the bases, and the goals of the negotiations.

Ladies and gentlemen, also we’re not starting from scratch, because we had many rounds of negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli Government, and we studied all horizons and we also defined and determined all the pending issues. We will work on all the final status issues – Jerusalem, the settlements, the borders, security, water, and also releasing the detainees – in order to end the occupation that started 1967, the occupation of the Palestinian territories, and in order to create the state of Palestine that lives side by side with the state of Israel, in order to end the conflict and end the historic demands in the Middle East, and to bring peace and security for the two people and all the peoples of the region.

Once again, we want to state our commitment to follow on all our engagement, including security and ending incitement. And we call on the Israeli Government to move forward with its commitment to end all settlement activities and completely lift the embargo over the Gaza Strip and end all form of incitement.

Also, with respect to security, you do know, ladies and gentlemen, that we have security apparatuses that are still being built, that are still young, but that are doing everything that is expected from them. Yesterday, we condemned the operations that were carried. We did not only condemn them, but we also followed on the perpetrators and we were able to find the car that was used and to arrest those who sold and bought the car. And we will continue all our effort to take security measures in order to find the perpetrators. We consider that security is of essence, is vital for both of us, and we cannot allow for anyone to do anything that would undermine your security and our security. And we therefore do not only condemn, but we keep on working seriously. Security is fundamental and very sensitive.

Ladies and gentlemen, once again, I want to state today what I said at the White House meeting yesterday in front of President Obama, President Mubarak, and King Abdullah. And we do believe that their participation was of essence and was very strong and represented the belief of Jordan and Egypt in peace. These two states alongside with other Arab states do believe that peace is a vital interest not only for the Palestinians and the Israelis, but also for all the peoples in the region and for the United States, as President Obama said when he said that the creation of a Palestinian state, or the two-state vision, is a vital national American interest.

The PLO participates in these negotiations with good intentions and seriousness and is adamant about bringing just peace that guarantees freedom and independence for the Palestinian people who is attached to his land and his rights, the fair solution of the problem of the refugees according to international resolutions. We are attached to the international resolutions. We do not want anything above and we do not want anything under. We want to have a new era in our region, an era that brings peace, justice, security, and prosperity for all.

And let me say here that in 1993, on the 9^th of September of this year, we signed, Mr. Prime Minister, what is called a document of mutual recognition between us and Israel, between former President Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, and this document was signed. And in this document, we give enough so – to show that our intentions are good, our intentions with respect to recognizing the state of Israel. And you do know, sir, that in Camp David, also commitments were required from us. And when we came back with President Clinton, we carried on with all our commitments because we respect our commitments and our agreements.

Therefore, we stand from here to reach a peace that will end the conflict, that will meet all the demands, and start a new era between the Israeli and the Palestinian people.

Thank you, and peace be among you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I want to thank both leaders for their statements. And I also want to thank the members of their respective teams who are here in both delegations. The people sitting here have worked very hard, some for many years, and they certainly have traveled a long way to be here and we’re grateful for their commitment as well.

Today, President Obama and I, Senator Mitchell and our entire team, are prepared to do whatever we can to help you succeed. And we believe in you and we support you. So again, let me thank you for being here, and now it’s time to get to work.

Thank you all very much.

Palestine-Israel Analysis: The Two Questions to Answer Today (Yenidunya)

Starting question for today's direct Israel-Palestine talks in Washington: as a group lacking the legitimacy of being a state, both in the eyes of Palestinians and of the international community, can the Palestinian Authority get any traction for its negotiating position?

Palestinian negotiators will first urge Israelis, as move towards resolution of the status of borders, to reach a solution on settlement construction both in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. Before agreeing on drawing the borders, Israel will urge its "partner" to come as close as possible to a proposal based on its "security needs". That in turn will take talks to a broader agenda beyond Ramallah's demands, which means an early victory for Israel.

Palestine to Israel: “What Kind of State Does Netanyahu Have in Mind?” (Yenidunya)
Israel-Palestine Talks: Will Confidence-Building Measures for Ramallah Work? (Yenidunya)
Gaza Latest: UN’s Flotilla Interviews Start, More Aid Ships?, Worry Over Hamas
Israel-Palestine: Were 4 Settlers Killed to Sabotage Talks? (Yenidunya)

The only exit for Palestinians from this outcome is standing firm against the broader agenda while re-stating its conditions, including the extension of the settlement freeze to East Jerusalem.

And thus a more specific question: will the settlement freeze issue replace the status of Temple Mount at the 2000 Camp David talks as the breaking point of discussions?