The Latest from Iran (4 August): The President and The Plots

1830 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Farah Vazham, a female protestor detained during the Ashura demonstrations in December, has been sentenced to 15 years on charges of affiliation to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MKO).

1755 GMT: Deportation Update. Mission Free Iran reports that the threat to deport Iranian activist Jamal Saberi from Japan has been lifted.

NEW Iran Breaking: Grenade Attack on Ahmadinejad?
NEW Iran Feature: The Activism of the Women’s Movement (Mouri)
Iran Analysis: Saharkhiz & Abtahi Dent the Government’s “Fear Factor” (Shahryar)
Iran Feature: Did Ahmadinejad Chief of Staff Reveal the Bomb?
The Latest from Iran (3 August): Explosive Words

1705 GMT: Economy Watch. Iran's inflation rate dropped to 9.1% in the month to 22 July, the Governor of the Central Bank of Iran, Mahmoud Bahmani, has said. The previous month's official rate was 9.4%.

1700 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Esmail Sahabeh, a member of the reformist, Islamic Participation Front, has been sentenced to 4 1/2 years in prison.

Judge Salavati, in charge of the case, was absent during the hearing and handed down the ruling without hearing Sahabeh’s defence.

Sahabeh was arrested during a religious ceremony held in support of political prisoners in October 2009. He was released on bail after two months in prison.

1500 GMT: The Pressure on the Supreme Leader. Geneive Abdo and Arash Aramesh write in The New York Times of "The Widening Rift Among Iran's Clerics". Their provocative conclusion:

Khamenei’s success is the result of his ability to forge alliances with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, some clerics, and traditional conservatives. Although his ties to hard-liners and the Revolutionary Guards may seem stronger today, he still needs the support of the clerical establishment.

Khamenei’s idea of the Islamic Republic is certainly less republican and not necessarily more Islamic. With republican institutions in Tehran weakened and his religious authority challenged in Qum, the future of the Islamic Republic and the fate of velayat-e-faqih remain uncertain.

1450 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. The office of the Islamic Women's Sports Federation, headed by Hashemi Rafsanjani's daughter Faezeh Hashemi, has been closed, purportedly because of lack of payments from Iran's Olympics Committee.

1410 GMT: An explosion at a petrochemical plant has killed five people at Asalouyeh in southern Iran. The new phase of the plant, which was the largest producer of ammonia in the region, was opened only a week ago in a ceremony with President Ahmadinejad.

1355 GMT: Crime and Punishment. The former head of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, Mohammad Jafar Behdad, has been sentenced to 7 months for slandering the Larijani brothers and Hashemi Rafsanjani.

1350 GMT: Economy Watch. Aftab News claims that, over the past five years, prices have risen 220%.

1200 GMT: Parliament v. Government. A buffet of challenges from the Majlis....

Hojatoleslam Ali Asghari, the Parliamentary liaison with Strategic Studies Center, criticises "economic stalemate" with "political unrest and radicalism" leading to sanctions and a weakening Majlis leading to "dictatorship".

MP Ali Akbar Oulia declares that the Majlis will not allow the Government to continue its refusal to implement laws, as the delay is harmful to the Iranian people and continues the "chaos" in the country.

Reformist MP Nasrullah Torabi chides the "low language" of Government officials for giving the impression that all Iranian representatives are also "low".

Reformist MP Mohammad Reza Khabbaz claims that some Iranians are now spending three-quarters of their income for rent.

"Hardline" MP Ezzatollah Youssefian Mola says Iran's central bank, Bank Markazi, cannot be trusted as it does not present real data on cases of financial corruption.

1145 GMT: Someone's Looking for Trouble. Ahmadinejad chief of staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, according to Aftab News, has pronounced, "From now on we present the world the way and principles (maktab) of Iran, not of Islam."

So who is making mischief here: Rahim-Mashai or Aftab?

1130 GMT: Today's All-is-Well Alert: Member of Parliament Abdollah Kaabi has insisted that sanctions will lead to Iran's self-sufficiency in producing energy.

1125 GMT: The Campaign of the Politician Prisoners (Rafsanjani Annex). A twist in the story of the letter to the Supreme Leader from Hamzeh Karami, a former political prisoner alleging abuse (see 0635 GMT)....

Rah-e-Sabz claims former President Hashemi Rafsanjani took the letter to Ayatollah Khamenei, insisting on delivering it directly to the Supreme Leader.

1122 GMT: OK, I Was Wrong. Just to admit the error in my assertion (0825 GMT) that the "Iran Has 4 S-300 Missiles" would be the big story in the non-Iranian media today.

1109 GMT: The Campaign Against Jannati. More from Mr Verde on the growing movement against the head of the Guardian Council, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, fed by his claims that opposition leaders were paid $1 billion for causing trouble last year and offered a further $50 billion by the US and Saudi Arabia to overthrow the regime.... are not just causing problems for him, but are embroiling the Supreme Leader too.

Kalemeh reports that Rasool Montajebnia, a cleric who was close to Ayatollah Khomeini and a founding member of Mehdi Karroubi’s Etemade Melli party, has written that the Supreme Leader should now step in and address Jannati's accusation with “precision, transparency and decisiveness” so that “everyone could know if these allegations are true or lies”.

Mr Verde notes:

The timing of Jannati's claims, so soon after his reappointment to the Guardian Council, is allowing the reformists to push for the Supreme Leader's intervention. If Jannati is misinformed to such an extent, is lying, or is incapable of thinking straight, then Ayatollah Khamenei has made an enormous mistake by reappointing him to the Council. This wouldmean that Khamenei’s judgment cannot be trusted, which in turn could become a reason for him being unfit to hold the position of Supreme Leader.

And another “minor” point: if Jannati’s recent claims about the payments are false, then how can one accept that the Guardian Council  was correct in “verifying” Ahmadinejad’s disputed re-election last year?

Making these claims, Jannati was probably providing excuses for the actions of the regime over the past year. Instead he seems to have provided a good opportunity for attacks on Khamenei. This is another example of remarks or events spiralling out of control.

1105 GMT: Mousavi Watch. On the eve of Journalists Day, Mir Hossein Mousavi has met with editors, reporters, and families of imprisoned journalists. Mousavi said:

Our voice should reach our imprisoned friends who are on hunger strike to gain their very basic rights;,so that they know that the Green Movement, freedom-seekers, and all layers of the nation are supporting them to achieve their rightful demands....

The great number of imprisoned journalists proves the legitimacy of the path that the Green Movement has chosen, because the knowledgeable, wise, and justice-seeking members of the society are in prison due to their protest against the re-eruption of tyranny.

1040 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Peyke Iran claims Iranian security forces have attacked families of political prisoners who are on hunger strike. The families were demonstrating in front of the office of Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi (see 0800 GMT).

1035 GMT: The Missing Lawyer. The United Nations' refugee agency has confirmed human rights lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei is in Turkey.

Mostafaei, whose clients include Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, sentenced to death for adultery, has been in hiding after Iranian security forces tried to detain him. His wife and brother-in-law are in prison.

1030 GMT: We have been busy with a separate entry following this morning's story of a possible attack on President Ahmadinejad's motorcade in Hamedan in western Iran.

0845 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Detained teacher Rasoul Baddaghi has been sentenced to six years in prison.

0830 GMT: We have posted a feature, "The Activism of the Women's Movement".

0825 GMT: Today's Tough Talk. Expect this story to take over in non-Iranian press today....

Fars News is claiming that Iran has obtained four S-300 surface-to-air missiles despite Russia's refusal to deliver them to Tehran. The agency claims two came from Belarus and two from an unspecified source.

There has been no immediate official confirmation of the report.

Russia signed a contract in 2007 to sell S-300 missiles to Iran, but has delayed delivery amidst its manoeuvring between Tehran and Washington. The S-300 system can shoot down aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missile warheads at a distance of more than 90 miles and altitudes of about 90,000 feet.

0815 GMT: Mousavi on Oppression in the Name of Islam. Green Voice of Freedom has a full summary of Mir Hossein Mousavi's speech, which we noted yesterday, to veterans of the Iran-Iraq War:

Tyranny and oppression are bad regardless of the circumstances and the time, regardless of whether it is during the Pahlavis [the dynasty of the Shahs] or the Islamic Republic. In fact, oppression under the Islamic Republic is worse because it is done in the name of Islam. Does Islam accept the violation of a human being or obtaining confessions from him by forcing his head down the toilet?

Mousavi's reference to forced confessions is drawn from the experience of Hamzeh Karami, who has written to the Supreme Leader about the abuse in prison (see 0635 GMT).

0800 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. According to IRNA, Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi met with 17 prisoners, some or all of whom are reportedly on hunger strike, and their families on Tuesday.

After hearing the concerns and demands, Doulatabadi reportedly ordered that families be allowed to meet with the detainees, denying that there had been any restrictions.

0645 GMT: Sanctions Watch. The Washington Post picks up on the US formal announcement of sanctions against 21 "front companies" for the Iranian Government, including firms in in Belarus, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Luxembourg.

An EA source points us to background on two of the sanctioned German companies: Breyeller Stahl Technology and IFIC Holding AG.

0635 GMT: The Campaign of the Political Prisoners. Yesterday, Josh Shahryar offered a sharp analysis of the impact of revelations by journalist Isa Saharkhiz, detained in Evin Prison, and former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi, held for months after the election and forced to appear in a show trial.

There's a significant sequel. Hamzeh Karami, the manager of the reformist Jomhouriat website and a senior official at Islamic Azad University, has written to the Supreme Leader of his treatment in detention: "They put my head in a dirty toilet 20 times to make me give a false confession. When I screamed "Ya Allah". they said, "We are your God today and will do to you whatever we want."

In the "confession" that he gave at the Tehran mass trial last August, Karami implicated Mehdi Hashemi, the son of Hashemi Rafsanjani, claiming that Hashemi had been involved in fraud and manipulation of the Presidential election.

0615 GMT: We open today with some political theatre from President Ahmadinejad (Drama? Comedy? Farce? You decide.):

We had noted yesterday that the President had criticised current United Nations sanctions, connecting them to the "cup of poison" that Ayatollah Khomeini had to drink when accepting the 1988 UN resolution for a cease-fire in the Iran-Iraq War. He had denounced Western media such as the BBC and CNN. But there's more....

According to Raja News, a fervent backer of the Government, Ahmadinejad told his audience at a conference on international broadcasting that the recent "spy swap" between Russia and the US affects Tehran. In the deal between Washington and Moscow, the released Russian agents will pose as nuclear scientists and accuse Iran of plans for a military capability.

Iranian sources claim that official media were so embarrassed that, except for Raja, they censored this section of the speech.

Meanwhile, Pedestrian has posted a clip of Ahmadinejad's speech on Monday to a conference of the Iranian diaspora, offering this interpretation: "The Iranian political libido is going berserk."

Video & Analysis: Obama "Iraq Withdrawal" Speech Covers Up Shift on Afghanistan

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOkayW8BG0U[/youtube]

LATEST Iraq Video and Transcript: President Obama Declares End of US Combat Mission (31 August)

The headline from Barack Obama's speech on Monday to a war veterans' organisation is that he reaffirmed the commitment to "withdrawal" from Iraq: "I made it clear that by Aug. 31, 2010, America’s combat mission in Iraq would end. And that is exactly what we are doing, as promised and on schedule.” The official US troop level will be 50,000, compared to 144,000 in January 2009.

Afghanistan: Deeper into Stalemate? (Randall/Owen)

On the surface, the President's statement is a reassurance that he will stick to his campaign promise to get the US out of its ill-advised "war of choice". A more cynical assessment would be that his Administration is also carrying out a double sleight-of-hand.

One of the manoeuvres is to take attention away from an American military presence which will persist in Iraq. Obama's statement did not deal with the 50,000 troops who stay on in US bases that were constructed not for a short-term conflict but for a long-term "projection of power". And, as Jeremy Scahill has pointed, the number of "private" US contractors and support units in the country is increasing.

Even more importantly and immediately, Obama's re-affirmation on Iraq tucks away a major change in US policy on Afghanistan. The recent commitment of NATO countries to maintain military forces until 2014 --- despite the pullout by some participants such as Holland --- was also an effective, though unstated, move by the US to set aside its mid-2011 "deadline" for withdrawal of combat forces.

The New York Times points to this linkage in its report but gets the Obama strategy all wrong: "President Obama on Monday opened a monthlong drive to mark the end of the combat mission in Iraq and, by extension, to blunt growing public frustration with the war in Afghanistan by arguing that he can also bring that conflict to a conclusion." In fact, "conclusion" in Iraq is being used to mask what is a longer-term, if not open-ended, commitment to Afghanistan.

The President did not ignore Afghanistan and Pakistan in his speech. To the contrary, he repeatedly used his now-standard invocation of "extremists" and "Al Qa'eda" --- even though there are few "Al Qa'eda" in Afghanistan --- who will plot and carry out another attack on the United States. He assured that the US was going on the offensive against the enemy and he restated the declaration --- increasingly thread-bare --- of a civilian front in which good governance would be achieved and corruption would be defeated. But he never moved from this general portrayal to define what this means on the ground, not just next year but beyond.

Some will argue that this was Obama's promise all along, with the campaign statement of trading in Iraq's "bad" war for the "good" fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan against "extremists".

Wrong. This was a President who said, as he stepped into the White House, that US fighting units would be out of both conflicts by 2011. The sleight-of-hand in this speech is that this commitment has now been erased.

Video & Transcript: US Military Chief Mike Mullen on Wikileaks, Afghanistan-Pakistan, & Iran

We've posted an analysis of the Iran section of this interview in a separate entry:

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

Iran Analysis: Hyping the War Chatter — US Military Chief Mike Mullen Speaks
Afghanistan: Deeper into Stalemate? (Randall/Owen)

MR. GREGORY: Good morning. July is now the deadliest month for U.S. troops in the nearly nine-year war in Afghanistan. With us, our lead newsmaker interview this morning, the president's principal military adviser, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen.

Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

ADM. MULLEN: Good morning, David.

MR. GREGORY: We just played for our viewers very strong comments by you this week about these leaks. You indicated those who are responsible for making these secret documents public may already have blood on their hands, a strong statement. What specifically do you mean?

ADM. MULLEN: These --- the, the, the scope and the volume of these leaks are unprecedented, and, and the specifics of them, and I've been through some of them, but we've still got a lot of work to do to, to really put the details together. But I think the, the leaks themselves don't look clearly at the war that we're in. There is an ability to put this kind of information together in the world that we're living in and the potential for costing us lives, I think, is significant. I said, when it first occurred, I was appalled --- I remain appalled --- and that the potential for the loss of lives of American soldiers or coalition soldiers or Afghan citizens is clearly there.

MR. GREGORY: But how can that happen based on this?

ADM. MULLEN: Well, I would speak to--actually the Taliban spokesman has come out in the last day or so and said that they're looking at the names, and I think that's evidence of what that potential is. So...

MR. GREGORY: These are Afghans that they're looking at?

ADM. MULLEN: These are --- there are Afghan names that are, that are listed in the documents and specifically the Taliban spokesman said that they're going to look at that. I think people that aren't...
MR. GREGORY: They could be killed is the point.

ADM. MULLEN: They --- exactly. And people that aren't in, in a fight like this, that don't do this for a living, don't understand what the potential is for something like this in terms of the kinds of information. And a piece of information may seem very innocent in and of itself, and a lot of this is old information, but being able to net it together is--there's potential there that it could have a much bigger impact than just as is evident on the face of, of a piece of information.

MR. GREGORY: What endangers you as troops?

ADM. MULLEN: The, the fact that they would look at what our tactics are, how we report, where we're fighting, who's involved, the, the kinds of things that we do. And, and yet, there's --- the volume is such that we really haven't put it all together to be able to say this is exactly what the potential is in terms of that.

MR. GREGORY: You are looking at a suspect, a private who you believe may be responsible for obtaining this information, ultimately leaking it. What should happen to those responsible?

ADM. MULLEN: I think anybody in our --- in the, in the national security apparatus has, has got to take full cognizance of their responsibility for the safeguarding of classified information. I mean, I wouldn't go into the specific details of this investigation or of the case, the case of this private...

MR. GREGORY: But is it treason?

ADM. MULLEN: Again, I'll let the investigation run its course, and we'll see where it goes, specifically. But the concern, obviously, is for the leaking of classified information that is going to endanger people, operations and, potentially, depending on how serious it is, outcomes.

MR. GREGORY: There, there are some who have argued that the fixation about the leak perhaps is a distraction from the larger point of these documents, and that is that it goes in an unvarnished way to the core question of whether the strategy is actually working. The New York Times, as part of its reporting, made this piece of analysis --- and I'll put it up on the screen --- on Monday: "The documents --- some 92,000 reports spanning parts of two administrations from January 2004 through December 2009 --- illustrate in mosaic detail why, after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001." Don't you think the public gets a look at these documents, and the bigger concern here is, not the leak, but the fact that this war may be a lost cause?

ADM. MULLEN: I don't think that the Taliban being stronger than they've been since 2001 is, is news. I mean, I've been concerned about the growing insurgency there for a number of years. We really are at a time in Afghanistan, after the president's review, where we've got the right strategy, the right leadership, and the right resources. And, and we really are in the second year of that aspect of Afghanistan. I certainly understand it is the ninth year, it is a long time, the sacrifices have been significant, and yet, at the same time, I think the strategy's right. And the release of these documents, best that I can tell, have not affected the strategy. Many of them were very, very old. That said, it's still --- I think we've got to work our way through exactly what the potential impact would be; and I think, from my perspective, we're headed in the right direction.

MR. GREGORY: But the reality is still the same, whether it's news or not, the disillusionment with the --- among the American people about the fact that the Taliban is stronger and not weaker--go back a year ago, nearly, you were on this program, and I asked you about the mission, and here's a portion of what you said.

(Videotape, August 23, 2009)

MR. GREGORY: We're rebuilding this nation?

ADM. MULLEN: To, to a certain degree, there is, there is some of that going on.

MR. GREGORY: Is that what the American people signed up for?

ADM. MULLEN: No, I'm --- right now, the American people signed up, I think, for support of getting at those who threaten us, and, and to the degree that, that the Afghan people's security and the ability to ensure that a safe haven doesn't recur in Afghanistan, there's focus on some degree of making sure security's OK, making sure governance moves in the right direction, and developing an economy which will underpin their future.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: The problem with that a year on is that, again, the Taliban is stronger and there appears no evidence that they're willing to do the core thing, which is to turn their back on al-Qaeda. Isn't that the case?

ADM. MULLEN: Well, I think, again, that is the main mission is to make sure that, that Afghanistan can't become a safe haven again. They are indeed stronger. And yet the president approved additional forces, most of which are there, but there are still additional forces yet to come this year. So we've said for many, many months this would be a very difficult year; you pointed out the, the losses that have occurred in the month of July, the highest ever. We recognize that this is a tough fight, but we think we've got the resources right, the strategy right. There's also a regional piece of this, a lot of effort gone on the Pakistan side, a significant effort on the part of Pakistani leadership, Pakistani mil to address that --- military to address that as well. But we're not there. We're at a point now where, over the course of the next 12 months, it really is going to, I think, tell the tale which, which way this is going to go.

MR. GREGORY: But another problem area, in terms of achieving the goal, is indeed Pakistan. I've talked to people who say the strategy, in effect, boils down to this, with General Petraeus on the scene: Bloody the nose of the Taliban to the point that they are willing to turn their back on al-Qaeda, Pakistan can broker a deal where there is some power-sharing in the country where the, the Taliban have a seat at the table and control some part of that geography, and in return, al-Qaeda's out of the picture. That's still a big "if," and here's one of the reasons why: Look at Pakistan's record; start with this Pew Research Center survey poll from this week: "How do Pakistanis view the U.S.?" Nearly six in 10 see the United States as an enemy. We know that the Taliban is operating from within Pakistan, from safe havens, and escalating their attacks. David Cameron, the conservative leader now of the U.K., prime minister said this, as reported by the Financial Times on Wednesday: "The U.K. prime minister used his first public appearance in Bangalore to warn Pakistan to stop `promoting terror' or face isolation in the international community." And these, these documents demonstrate what a lot of people knew, which was the intelligence service for Pakistan was helping the Afghan Taliban. Is Pakistan working against our interests there?

ADM. MULLEN: I've said for a long time, clearly the --- a, a critical key to success in the region is going to be Pakistan and our relationship with Pakistan, which was one that was broken in the late '80s and which we've worked hard to restore. That there are elements of the Pakistani intelligence agency that are connected or have had relationships with extremists is certainly known and that has to change. I just came back from, I think, my 19th trip to Pakistan since I've been in this job, spending time particularly with military leadership, General Kayani. And he has, he has actually directed his military to take on the, the insurgent threat in his own country. We--and he's made great strides. We recognize that part of that is to focus on the Haqqani network and--as well as the other Afghan Taliban.

MR. GREGORY: They operate in that tribal area?

ADM. MULLEN: They do. And they, and they have a safe haven there, and that causes us great problems in Afghanistan as well. That we are anxious to have that addressed is, is well known to him. So this isn't going to turn overnight. And you, you laid out one possible outcome. I think it's a little early to say exactly what the outcome would look like specifically. Suffice it to say, I think we have to be in a stronger position in Afghanistan vis-a-vis the insurgency overall. We have to continue to develop this relationship and evolve this relationship with Pakistan. There's a regional approach here, and certainly India, which is where Prime Minister Cameron spoke from, India is certainly more than just concerned with the overall outcome here.

MR. GREGORY: But true or untrue, the big fear is that Pakistan's working against us and not with us?

ADM. MULLEN: In many ways, Pakistan is working with us. I mean, their, their military, their intelligence agency. I mean, we've got a very strong relationship in the positive sense with, with their intelligence agency. That doesn't mean there aren't some challenges with some aspects of it.

MR. GREGORY: They are actively supporting elements killing U.S. soldiers.

ADM. MULLEN: But they have, they have shared intelligence with us, they've killed as many or more terrorists as anybody, they've captured them. And certainly, the, the focus on changing the strategic shift, if you will, in that agency so that that doesn't happen at all, is a priority for us.

MR. GREGORY: Fair to say that among the outcomes you would look at would be a scenario where the Taliban would have some power in the country?

ADM. MULLEN: I think in any of these kinds of insurgency over history, in the political solution, those who have been insurgents at some point in time have been in a position of political influence at some point down the road. But I think we're way too early to say how--what that looks like or when it might happen.

MR. GREGORY: It --- it's --- it seems to be an important point, if you look at the cover of Time magazine, which has a pretty striking photograph of a young woman whose nose was cut off by the Taliban, a--just one indication of how brutal and horrific these people are. And, and they've done this when they were in power and, indeed, even when they've been out of power. The grim reality, if that's an argument for why the U.S. should not leave, is that our central mission, the central mission of the United States is not to protect the women of Afghanistan. Is that fair?

ADM. MULLEN: I think the central mission in Afghanistan right now is to protect the people, certainly, and that would be inclusive of everybody, and that in a, in an insurgency and a counterinsurgency, that's really the center of gravity.

MR. GREGORY: But you said a year ago our central mission was to get at those who threaten us. Our central mission is not to protect the women, who could still be brutalized if the Taliban comes into power in any fashion.

ADM. MULLEN: Well, the Taliban are incredibly unpopular with the Afghan people, even as we speak, and they have--as they have been for a long period of time. The mission --- the overall mission is to dismantle and defeat and disrupt al-Qaeda. But we have to make sure there's not a safe haven that returns in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has to be stable enough, has to have enough governance, have to --- has to create enough jobs, have an economy that's good enough so that the Taliban cannot return to the brutality of the kind of regime that you just showed.

MR. GREGORY: However, the United States could still withdraw and, and do so having achieved the mission, and yet women like, like those on the cover of that magazine could still be in danger.
ADM. MULLEN: Certainly, the, the, the long-term goal is to make sure that the --- with respect to the population in Afghanistan, that there's a governant --- governance structure that treats its people well. And I --- but to say exactly how that's going to look and what specifics would be involved, I think it's just way too early.

MR. GREGORY: I just want to ask you a couple of questions about Iran, another threat that this administration is facing. The consequences of Iran developing a nuclear weapon are vast, and something that the administration certainly wants to prevent. This is what you said back in April of 2010, I'll put it up on the screen, at Columbia University: "I think Iran having a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. I think attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome." Keen analysis, but my question is, which is worse?

ADM. MULLEN: Actually, when I speak to that, I talk to unintended consequences of either outcome. And it's those unintended consequences that are difficult to predict in what is a, an incredibly unstable part of the world that I worry about the most. What I try to do when I talk about that is, is identify the space between those two outcomes, which is pretty narrow, in which I think the diplomacy, the kind of sanctions, the kind of international pressure that, that is being applied, I am hopeful works. I, I, I recognize that there isn't that much space there. But, quite frankly, I am extremely concerned about both of those outcomes.

MR. GREGORY: But leaders have to make a decision. You're a leader, the president's a leader. Which is worse, Iran with a nuclear weapon or what could happen if the United States attacks?

ADM. MULLEN: Well, certainly for our country, the president would be the one making those decisions, and I wouldn't be one that would, would pick one or the other along those lines. I think they both have great downside, potentially.

MR. GREGORY: The president has said he is determined to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. He doesn't just say it's unacceptable, he says he's determined to stop it. Is force against Iran by the United States on the table in a way that it has not been even in our recent history, past six months, a year?

ADM. MULLEN: No, I, I think the military actions have been on the table and remain on the table, and certainly in that regard it's, it's one of the options that the president has. Again, I hope we don't get to that. But it's an important option, and it's one that's well understood.

MR. GREGORY: There was a concern among Israelis, among Americans, that there weren't very many good options when it came to attacking Iran, should it come to that. Is that still the case?

ADM. MULLEN: I think that's the case.

MR. GREGORY: There aren't very many good options.

ADM. MULLEN: No, no. I mean, there aren't --- it depends on what you mean by that. None of them are good in a sense that it's certainly an outcome that I don't seek, or that, that we wouldn't seek. At the same time, and for what I talked about before, is, is not just the consequences of the action itself, but the things that could result after the fact.

MR. GREGORY: But the military has a plan, should it come to that?

ADM. MULLEN: We do.

MR. GREGORY: Admiral Mullen, one final question of something I'm sure deeply troubles you, and that is the rate of suicides in the military. And the concern is not just that they have been increasing, but that commanders in the field have not been attentive enough to the, the problems that are leading to the suicides. What should be done about that?

ADM. MULLEN: Well, I, I think it was addressed this week very well by General Chiarelli, specifically. I mean, the purpose of the review, which was widely reported on, was to understand as much as we could about what the problem was. It is not a problem that exists just in the Army, because the suicide rate is up in all our services. And we don't have the answers. I'm one who believes that the pressure of these wars and the repeated deployments is a significant factor, but there's a significant population that have committed suicide that have not deployed. So it's a, it's an incredibly complex, vexing problem. I think what General Chiarelli did was, was correctly focus on leaders to be all-attentive to this in every single way and know that we certainly, we're not even close to solving it. It's an enormously complex problem nationally for us, and certainly we are a microcosm of that. But our rates now exceed the norm in the country, and it's something we absolutely have to continue to focus on.

MR. GREGORY: Admiral Mullen, thank you very much.

ADM. MULLEN: Thank you, David.