US-Turkey Analysis & Transcript: The Significance of the Obama-Erdogan Meeting from Israel to Afghanistan

On Monday, Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was in the Oval Office meeting President Barack Obama. The leaders talked about  bilateral economic relations, Turkey's Kurdish opening, Turkish-Armenian relationship, the "energy corridor", Turkey's PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) problem, Iran's nuclear energy programme and Washington's war in Afghanistan.

Having underlined the concept of "Model Partnership", in which it was agreed to develop bilateral economic and trade relations, Washington expressed satisfaction with Ankara's role in the Nabucco energy pipeline project and encouraged Turkey to step forward both in democratization and in advancing relations with Armenia.

As for the PKK problem, after a "terrorist" attack killing 7 Turkish soldiers, Obama reiterated Washington's "common ground" in the "war on terror" and called PKK aa "terrorist organization". This, along with Washington's encouragement for further democratic improvements, is considered by the Turkish pubic as a commitment to disband PKK in northern Iraq.

On the Iranian nuclear energy programme and further sanctions, Washington was again satisfied with placing Ankara's current role in maintaining relations with Tehran ahead of any discussions on tougher sanctions. Although it is still unclear how Ankara will react to any UN Security Council vote on sanctions, Turkey's "dialogue first" approach with Tehran is not only indispensable to Ankara's "zero-problem with neighbours" agenda but is also a very effective bridge between Washington and Tehran.

The second half of this "Model Partnership", applying it to the "war on terror",  was on military-intelligence cooperation. Ankara is allegedly going to receive three Hebron unmanned aerial vehicles from Washington after Israel held up delivery of the aircraft.

So does this have political implication, with the US siding with Ankara's harsh statements on Tel Aviv  to put more pressure on Israel? After the meeting in Washington, Ankara's criticism continued in an Erdogan speech at the John Hopkins University. He stated that Israel had killed children with phosphorous bombs and even hit hospitals, and he called Gaza as an open-air prison.

Beyond the Middle East, Ankara has already increased its force in Afghanistan from 900 to 1,700, but it is wary of where they will be posted.  Turkish soldiers are not to be used in the fight against Taliban forces but to be used in reconstructing the government and helping Afghan people develop their institutions. Despite the claim that Obama is demanding fighting forces from Turkey, the increase outside the mission area is likely to be acceptable given the symbolism of Turkey as a "Muslim" ally of the US.

Full Transcript:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I want to extend the warmest of welcomes to Prime Minister Erdogan. I'm glad that I, personally, and the American people have a chance to reciprocate the wonderful hospitality that was extended to me when I visited Turkey in April.



As I said when I had the great honor of addressing the Turkish Parliament in Ankara, I am strongly committed to creating the best possible relationship between Turkey and the United States.

Turkey is a NATO ally, which means that we are pledged to defend each other. There are strong ties between our countries as a consequence of the Turkish American community that has been established here. We have had the opportunity to work together during this recent financial crisis, given Turkey's role as a member of the G20. And given Turkey's history as a secular democratic state that respects the rule of law, but is also a majority Muslim nation, it plays a critical role I think in helping to shape mutual understanding and stability and peace not only in its neighborhood but around the world.

During the course of our discussions here, we've had the opportunity to survey a wide range of issues that both the United States and Turkey are concerned about. I thanked Prime Minister Erdogan and the Turkish people for their outstanding contributions to stabilizing Afghanistan. We discussed our joint role in helping Iraq achieve the kind of independence and prosperity that I think has been advanced as a consequence of the election law finally being passed over the weekend.

We discussed issues of regional peace, and I indicated to the Prime Minister how important it is to resolve the issue of Iran's nuclear capacity in a way that allows Iran to pursue peaceful nuclear energy but provides assurances that it will abide by international rules and norms, and I believe that Turkey can be an important player in trying to move Iran in that direction.

And we discussed the continuing role that we can play as NATO allies in strengthening Turkey's profile within NATO and coordinating more effectively on critical issues like missile defense.

I also congratulated the Prime Minister on some courageous steps that he has taken around the issue of normalizing Turkish/Armenian relations, and encouraged him to continue to move forward along this path.

We reaffirmed the shared commitment to defeat terrorist activity regardless of where it occurs. I expressed condolences to the Prime Minister and the Turkish people for the recent terrorist attack that was taken there and pledged U.S. support in trying to bring the perpetrators of this violence to justice.

And finally, I complimented the Prime Minister for the steps that he's taken, often very difficult steps, in reintegrating religious minorities and ethnic minorities within Turkey into the democratic and political process, and indicated to him that we want to be as supportive as possible in further steps that he can take, for example, assuring the continuation of the Halki Seminary and addressing the vital needs of continuing the ecumenical patriarchy within Turkey.

Over all, just to summarize, I am incredibly optimistic about the prospect of stronger and stronger ties between the United States and Turkey that will be based not only on our NATO relationship, our military-to-military relationship, our strategic relationship, but also increasing economic ties.

And one of the concrete outcomes of this trip is to follow through on discussions that I had with both Prime Minister Erdogan and President Gul in Turkey to stand up a strategic working group around economic issues and improving commercial ties. That will be launched with the participation of Secretary of Commerce Locke and our U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Ron Kirk, along with Turkish counterparts. And we think that there is enormous potential for us to grow trade and commercial ties between the two countries.

Turkey is a great country. It is growing in influence around the world. And I am pleased that America can call Turkey a friend, and I'm pleased that I'm able to call Prime Minister Erdogan personally a friend. I'm grateful for his trip here and look forward to many years of collaboration with him to observe both the prosperity of the American people and the Turkish people.

Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER ERDOGAN: (As translated.) Thank you very much. I'm very grateful for the hospitality that both myself and my delegation have been shown since our arrival here. And I would like to once again express my thanks for that hospitality.

The fact that the President visited Turkey on his first overseas trip and that he described and characterized Turkish-U.S. relations as a model partnership has been very important for us politically and in the process that we all look forward to in the future as well. And important steps are now being taken in order to continue to build on our bilateral relations so as to give greater meaning to the term "model partnership."
Of course, there are many sides to the development of this relationship -- be it in the economic area, in the areas of science, art, technology, political areas and military areas.

We have also appointed two people from our side to act as counterparts in order to liaise with their American counterparts to continue on this process. Those two people are the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Ali Babacan; and the Minister of State responsible for economic affairs, Mr. Zafer Caglayan on the Turkish side. I do believe that this group is going to work to take the Turkish-American relations forward, not just in the economic area, but in all areas in general.

We, of course, have -- we take joint steps on regional issues. This is in the Middle East, in Iraq, with respect to the Iranian nuclear program. We continue to have joint activity in Afghanistan, and the Turkish armed forces have taken over the command of the forces there for a third time with the additional support that we have sent to Afghanistan in the last couple of months. And there are steps that we have taken with respect to training activity and other activities in the context of provisional reconstruction teams, and we continue on that. We've had an opportunity to continue discussing those issues during our visit here.

Another important area, of course, is energy. Turkey is a transit country for energy issues. And the agreement has been signed for Nabucco and we are ready to take some important steps with respect to Nabucco.

We continue to talk with Azerbaijan. I do believe that positive progress will be made in this area. In addition to Azerbaijan, of course, there is the importance of companies like Statoil, Total, and British Petroleum and others.

We have also discussed relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, which is of great importance. This is important in the context of Turkish-Armenian relations. We have discussed the Minsk Group and what the Minsk Group can do -- the United States, Russia, and France -- to add more impetus to that process. I can say that to have more impetus in the Minsk process is going to have a very positive impact on the overall process, because the normalization process between Turkey and Armenia is very much related to these issues. As the administration in Turkey, we are determined to move forward in this area.

Another important issue with respect for us in Turkey is the fight against terrorism. And there was a statement that was made in this very room on the 5th of November 2007, which was very important in that context, because at the time we had declared the separatist terrorist organization as the common enemy of the United States, Turkey, and Iraq, because terrorism is the enemy of all mankind.

Our sensitivity and response to terrorism is what we have displayed when the twin towers were hit here in the United States. Wherever a terrorist attack takes place our reaction is always the same, because terrorism does not have a religion -- a homeland. They have no homeland, no religion whatsoever.

We have also had opportunity to discuss what we can do jointly in the region with regard to nuclear programs. We as Turkey stand ready to do whatever we can to ensure a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue in our region. And we stand ready as Turkey to do whatever we can do with respect to relations between Israel and the Palestinians, and Israel and Syria, because I do believe that, first and foremost, the United States, too, has important responsibility in trying to achieve global peace.

And we, too, must lend all kinds of support that we can in our regions and -- in our respective regions and in the world in general in trying to achieve global peace, because this is not the time to make enemies, it's the time to make friends. And I believe that we must move hand in hand towards a bright future.

Thank you once again.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you.

All right, where's Ben Feller? There you are.

Q Thank you sir. I'd like to ask you briefly about a domestic issue, that being the economy, heading to your speech tomorrow. Do you support the use of federal bailout money to fund job creation programs? Is that an appropriate use of that money? Is that something that you plan to support tomorrow?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, Ben, it would be a mistake for me to step on my speech tomorrow by giving you the headline today.

Q Not that big a mistake. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: But let me speak generally about what we've seen. On Friday we got the best jobs report that we've gotten in a very long time. And it significantly beat expectations. At minimum, it showed that for all practical purposes, we've stopped losing jobs. And that's consistent with the fact that in the third quarter we saw the economy grow.

My first job when I came into office was to make sure that we got the financial crisis under control and that we tried to limit the devastating effects that it was having on the real economy. We have had a very tough year, and we've lost millions of jobs. But at least now we are moving in the right direction.

What my speech tomorrow will focus on is the fact that having gotten the financial crisis under control. Having finally moved into positive territory when it comes to economic growth, our biggest challenge now is making sure that job growth matches up with economic growth. And what we've seen is, is that companies shed jobs very quickly, partly induced by the panic of what was happening on Wall Street, and they are still tentative about hiring back all those people who were laid off. Also what we're seeing is some long-term trends where companies are becoming so efficient in terms of productivity that they may feel that they can produce the same amount of goods or services without as many employees.

So those present some particular challenges, given the fact that we lost over 3 million jobs just in the first quarter of this year before any of the steps we took had a chance to take effect.

With respect to TARP specifically, I think you saw stories today and you've seen stories over the last several weeks that TARP has turned out to be much cheaper than we had expected, although not cheap. It means that some of that money can be devoted to deficit reduction. And the question is are there selective approaches that are consistent with the original goals of TARP -- for example, making sure that small businesses are still getting lending -- that would be appropriate in accelerating job growth?

And I will be addressing that tomorrow. But I do think that, although we've stabilized the financial system, one of the problems that we're still seeing all the time -- and I heard about it when it was in Allentown just this past week -- was the fact that small businesses and some medium-sized businesses are still feeling a huge credit crunch. They cannot get the loans that they need to make capital investments that would allow them to then expand employment. And so that's a particular area where we might be able to make a difference.

Is there somebody in the Turkish delegation that wants to call on a reporter?

Q Mr. President, is there any new and concrete U.S. action plan for disarmament and the elimination of the PKK terror organization in northern Iraq? Thank you, sir.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, what the Prime Minister and I have discussed is coordinating closely in dealing with the problem of the PKK. We have stated before and I have reaffirmed since I came into office that the United States considers PKK a terrorist organization, and that the threat that it poses not only in Turkey but also in Iraq is one that is of deep concern. And as NATO allies, we are bound to help each other defend our territories. More broadly, I think that it is important for us to have a consistent position with respect to terrorism wherever it takes place.

So we discussed how we can coordinate militarily. I will tell you that with respect to the issue of the PKK, I think that the steps that the Prime Minister has taken in being inclusive towards the Kurdish community in Turkey is very helpful, because one of the things we understand is, is that terrorism cannot just be dealt with militarily; there is also social and political components to it that have to be recognized.

With respect to Iraq, I think the degree to which the Kurdish population within Iraq feels effectively represented within the central government in Baghdad, to the extent that we can resolve some long-term pressing issues like Kirkuk, the more I think that Kurds will recognize that their interests are not in supporting any kind of military activity but rather in working through conflicts politically, in a way that allows everybody to be prosperous. And that's the kind of process that we would encourage.

Okay? Thank you very much, everybody. Happy holidays.

Afghanistan-Pakistan Video & Transcript: Clinton & Gates on NBC News (6 December)

This interview is not as useful as that on ABC News, which we posted and analysed earlier. There's very little beyond the Administration spin. (The duo were also interviewed on CBS News, but frankly I can't be bothered to post the same rhetoric thrice over.)

It's what is missing that is most interesting. How many words in this transcript concern non-military measures?

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

DAVID GREGORY: Welcome, both of you, back to MEET THE PRESS.

SEC'Y ROBERT GATES: Thank you.

SEC'Y HILLARY CLINTON: Thank you.

MR. GREGORY: So much of the heat of this debate this week was not about the going in, but about the getting out. This is what the president said about the scope of this mission.

(Videotape, December 1, 2009)

PRES. OBAMA: These additional Americans and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Secretary Gates, is this a deadline?

SEC'Y GATES: It's the beginning of a process. In July 2011, our generals are confident that they will know whether our strategy is working, and the plan is to begin transferring areas of responsibility for security over to the Afghan security forces with us remaining in a tactical and then strategic overwatch position, sort of the cavalry over the hill. But we will begin to thin our forces and begin to bring them home. But the pace of that, of bringing them home, and where we will bring them home from will depend on the circumstances on the ground, and those judgments will be made by our commanders in the field.

MR. GREGORY: Regardless of the circumstances, though, what you're saying is that withdrawal will take place at that point.

SEC'Y GATES: It will begin in July of 2011. But how, how quickly it goes will very much depend on the conditions on the ground. We will have a significant number of forces in there...

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC'Y GATES: ...for some considerable period of time after that.

MR. GREGORY: You both, of course, this week have taken tough questions about this issue of a deadline and whether that's a bad thing to signal up front. Three years ago, Secretary Gates, you were asked on Capitol Hill about another war, another debate, another timeline. That was about Iraq. And, Secretary Clinton, you were asked as senator back in 2005 the same question about Iraq and timelines for withdrawal. This is what you both said back then.

(Videotape, December 5, 2006)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Do you believe if we set timetables or a policy to withdraw at a date certain, it would be seen by the extremists as a sign of weakness, the moderates would be disheartened and it would create a tremendous impediment to the moderate forces coming forward in Iraq?

SEC'Y GATES: I think a specific timetable would give--would essentially tell them how long they have to wait until we're gone.

(End videotape)

(Videotape, February 20, 2005)

SEC'Y CLINTON: We don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists, that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain. I think that would be like a green light to go ahead and just bide your time.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: That was about Iraq. Why are your views different when it comes to Afghanistan?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Because we're not talking about an exit strategy or a drop-dead deadline. What we're talking about is an assessment that in January 2011 we can begin a transition, a transition to hand off responsibility to the Afghan forces. That is what eventually happened in Iraq. You know, we're going to be out of Iraq. We have a firm deadline, because the Iraqis believe that they can assume and will assume responsibility for their own future. We want the Afghans to feel the same sense of urgency. We want them to actually make good on what President Karzai said in his inaugural speech, which is that by five years from now they'll have total control for their defense.

MR. GREGORY: But this is a time [which is] certain. Secretary Gates, you just said that the withdrawal will begin regardless of conditions, the pace of withdrawal could be affected. This is a date [which is] certain. And when it came to Iraq, you thought that was a bad idea.

SEC'Y GATES: I was opposed to a deadline in Iraq and, if you'd listen to what I said, that that was a date certain to have all of our forces out of Iraq. I'm opposed to that in Afghanistan as well. But I believe that there is an important element here of balancing, sending a signal of resolve, but also giving the Afghan government a sense of urgency that they need to get their young men recruited, trained and into the field partnering with our forces and then on their own. And so I think that the beginning of this process in July 2011 makes a lot of sense, because the other side of it is open.

MR. GREGORY: What kind of casualties should Americans be prepared to suffer in Afghanistan with this new strategy?

SEC'Y GATES: Well, the tragedy is that the casualties will, will probably continue to grow, at least for a time being. This is what we saw in the surge in Iraq. But it's because they're going into places where the Taliban essentially have controlled the territory and upsetting the apple cart, if you will. And what, what, what happened in Iraq is what we anticipate will happen here; we'll have an increase in casualties at the front end of this process, but over time it will actually lead to fewer casualties.

MR. GREGORY: Secretary Clinton, what happens if the strategy isn't working in 18 months' time?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, first, David, we obviously believe that it will work. We've spent a lot of time testing all the assumptions, our commanders have a, a lot of confidence that it will work. But the president has said, and we agree, that we will take stock of where we are every month. We're not going to wait, we're going to be looking to see what's happening. Now, we've had the Marines that were sent in--remember, this president inherited a situation where we had basically lost ground to the Taliban. The war in Afghanistan, unfortunately, was lost in the fog of the war in Iraq. And the president put in troops when he first got there and then said, "But let's make sure we know kind of where we're headed and how to get there." And so we're going to continue to evaluate as we go. But the Marines went into Helmand province last July and, you know, Bob can tell you that the reports are that they're making real headway. So we have confidence in this strategy.

MR. GREGORY: The, the issue of what was inherited came up this week. The president very pointedly said, Secretary Gates, that reinforcements that were requested of the Bush administration on your watch were not provided, and that he provided them when he came into office. Is that true?

SEC'Y GATES: There was, there was, throughout my, my time as secretary of Defense under President Bush, an outstanding request from General McKiernan. And as Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified repeatedly, we just--because of the commitment of forces in Iraq, we did not have the, the ability to meet the resource needs in Afghanistan.

MR. GREGORY: So you don't have any problem with that statement?

SEC'Y GATES: I--no, there was an outstanding troop request, and on my watch.

MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about the mission, and I want to chart a little bit of the evolution of the president's public statements about this. Going back to July of 2008, during the campaign, when he talked about America's commitment to Afghanistan. Watch this.

(Videotape, July 15, 2008)

PRES. OBAMA: The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: And yet Tuesday when he spoke to the country, he seemed to dismiss the notion of what he called an open-ended commitment or an "enduring commitment" to Afghanistan, saying this.

(Videotape, December 1, 2009)

PRES. OBAMA: Some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort. I reject this course, because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Secretary Clinton, has the president concluded, as president now, that in Afghanistan the war on terrorism needs to be downsized?

SEC'Y CLINTON: No. And, and I think, David, there is no contradiction between the two statements you just played. We will have an enduring commitment to Afghanistan. We're going to be putting in combat troops. We are going to be joined by 42 partners. We just got a commitment of an additional 7,000 troops from our NATO-ISAF allies. And we will most likely be continuing once our combat responsibilities have ended in whatever support for the Afghan security forces in terms of training, logistics, intelligence, that will enable them to do what they need to do. At the same time, we will have an ongoing civilian commitment to Afghanistan. So yes, we don't have an open-ended combat commitment. We think we have a strategy that will create the space and time for the Afghans to stand up their own security forces and take responsibility. But we're not going to be, you know, walking away from Afghanistan again. We, we did that before, it didn't turn out very well. So we will stay involved, we will stay supportive, and I think that's exactly the right approach.

MR. GREGORY: But if you have a situation where you're going to begin the withdrawal of troops regardless of conditions on the ground, some critics see that as weakness and a bad sign to the enemy. One of your former colleagues, the former Vice President Dick Cheney, said this to Politico this week about the president's speech:

Cheney said the average Afghan citizen "sees talk about exit strategies and how soon we can get out, instead of talk about how we win. Those folks ... begin to look for ways to accommodate their enemies," Cheney said. "They're worried the United States isn't going to be there much longer and the bad guys are."

And if you look at some of the response from Pakistan, the very country we need to get to the baddest of the guys who are over in their country with al-Qaeda, there's this, as reported by The New York Times:

Washington's assertion that American troops could begin leaving in 18 months provoked anxiety in Afghanistan and rekindled long-standing fears in Pakistan that America would abruptly withdraw, leaving Pakistan to fend for itself. Both countries face intertwined Taliban insurgencies. "Regarding the new policy of President Obama, we're studying that policy," [Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf] Gillani said. "We need more clarity on it, and when we get more clarity on it we can see what we can implement on that plan."

Is what former Vice President Cheney's warning about, is that already starting to take place in terms of the attitude in Pakistan?

SEC'Y GATES: Well, first of all, we're not talking about an abrupt withdrawal. We're talking about something that will take care--take place over a period of time. We--our commanders think that these additional forces, and one of the reasons for the president's decision to try and accelerate their deployment, is, is the view that the this extended surge has the opportunity to make significant gains in terms of reversing the momentum of the Taliban, denying them control of Afghan territory and degrading their capabilities. Our military thinks we have a real opportunity to do that. And it's not just in the next 18 months, because we will have significant--we will have 100,000 forces, troops there, and they are not leaving in July of 2011. Some, handful, or some small number, or whatever the conditions permit, will begin to withdraw at that time.

The piece of this people need to keep in mind that's different from Iraq is our need to communicate a sense of urgency to the Afghans of their need to begin to accept responsibility. The Iraqis, after it was clear that the surge was working, clearly wanted us out of the country as fast as possible. In the case of the Afghans, there are those--not everybody, and not a lot of the people--but there are those who would love to have the United States Army stay there in this very rough neighborhood indefinitely. And we want to communicate the message we will not provide for their security forever. They have to step up to that responsibility.

MR. GREGORY: The--it seems to be an important point. Beyond July of 2011, there's going to be a significant amount of, of U.S. troops there. There's going to be about 100,000 once this surge is finished. How many more years should Americans expect to have a significant force presence in Afghanistan?

SEC'Y GATES: Well, I think that, you know, again, I don't want to put a deadline on it, OK? But, but I think that just picking up on President Karzai's statements in his inaugural address, he talked about taking over security control in three years of important areas of Afghanistan, and all of Afghanistan in five years. I think that we're in that, we're in that neighborhood.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC'Y GATES: Two to three to four years. But again, during that period we will be, just as we did in Iraq, turning over provinces to Iraq--Afghan security forces, and that will allow us to bring the number of our forces down in a steady but conditions-based circumstance.

MR. GREGORY: We are also, in a more covert way that's not very well kept as a secret, at war in Pakistan as well. The real al-Qaeda figures, Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, the Haqqani network, the baddest of the bad are in Pakistan and not Afghanistan. What are the Pakistanis prepared to do to destroy them?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, David, I think what we've seen over the course of this year is a sea change in attitude by the Pakistanis. If we'd been sitting here a year ago and you'd asked what they were going to do, there wouldn't be much of an answer. Now we can say they're beginning to go after the terrorists who are threatening their very existence as a sovereign nation. They've had two military campaigns in the space of the last eight months, and they are making real progress. What we are discussing and consulting with them over is how all of these groups are now a threat to them. There is a syndicate of terrorism, with al-Qaeda at the head of it. So we're doing everything we can to support them in what is a really life or death struggle. I mean, they just blew up--the terrorists just blew up a mosque in Rawalpindi filled with military officers. These terrorists, with al-Qaeda's funding, encouragement, training, equipping, is going right at the Pakistani government.

MR. GREGORY: Can, can a mission be accomplished without capturing Osama bin Laden?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I, I really believe it's important to capture and/or kill Osama bin Laden, Zawahiri, the others who are part of that leadership team. But certainly, you can make enormous progress absent that.

MR. GREGORY: I want to talk a little bit about history, a history you know well, Secretary Gates, with your work in this region going back decades. This was the editorial in The New York Times days after the Soviet invasion in 1979, I'll put it up on the screen: "Moscow's Backyard Quagmire. By intervening so strongly on behalf of a wobbly Afghan client, the Soviet Union appears to be sinking deeper into a backyard quagmire." A lot of questions about the Afghan client today. You have said, along this process, you were worried about putting more troops in. You said the Soviets had 110,000 committed there and they couldn't win. Why is it different now? Isn't this mission impossible?

SEC'Y GATES: It's pretty straightforward. First of all, the Soviets were trying to impose an alien culture and, and political system on, on Afghanistan. But more importantly, they were there terrorizing the Afghans. They killed a million Afghans. They made refugees out of five million Afghans. They were isolated internationally. All of those factors are different for, for us, completely different. We have the sanction of the U.N. We have the sanction of NATO. We have the invitation of the Afghan government itself. We have 42 military partners in Afghanistan. We are supporting and protecting the Afghan people. One of the central themes of General McChrystal's strategy is to reduce and keep civilian casualties low. And, and so it's a, it's a very different situation. And what General McChrystal persuaded me of was that the size of the footprint matters a lot less than what they're doing there. And the new strategy that he's put in place, in terms of how we deal with the Afghans and how we behave, I think will make a big difference.

MR. GREGORY: I want to bring it back home and ask you a very important political question, Secretary Clinton. You have heard the reaction from the Democratic Party; liberals using terms like "echoes of Vietnam," that this is risky, that this is a gamble. Vietnam War protestor Tom Hayden talked about the immorality of fighting for regime like--that is currently in place in Afghanistan. You've been on the campaign trail running for president, you're a former senator, you know the politics of your party well. What is the message of this president to those Democrats who are not on board? And can you effectively prosecute this war without the base of the party behind it?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, David, I think it's clear that anyone who has followed this that President Obama has done what he thinks is right for the country. He is well aware of the political concerns raised that you have just described. I think he deserves a lot of credit for not only delving into this and asking the hard questions, but coming to a decision that has both political and economic costs, but which he has concluded is in our vital national security interest.

I think that we have to look more broadly at what has gone on in Afghanistan. Yes, are there problems with the current government? Of course there are, as there are with, you know, any government. We deal, we deal with a lot of governments that are hardly poster children for, you know, good governance. But look at what has happened. When President Karzai came into office, there were about a million kids in school and they were all boys. There are now seven million and they're 40 percent girls. There's all of a sudden a wheat harvest because of better seeds and fertilizer that is giving people, once again, income from their land. There are so many positive examples of what has changed. Of course there's a lot of work to be done. I mean, good grief, this country was devastated by three decades of the most brutal kind of war. It's recovering. And as Bob as said, you know, they really do want a different future.

MR. GREGORY: But is the, the politics of this, the cost of this, will there have to be a war tax? What will you do to keep the Democrats in line on this?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, the president has said he will make sure that the cost of the war is accounted for in the budget. Of--it is, it is an additional expense. Everybody knows that. And we have so many important demands here at home. We would not be pursuing this strategy if we did not believe it was directly connected to the safety of our people, our interests, our allies around the world. And I just hope that a lot of my friends who are raising questions, Bob and I heard them when we were up there testifying, will really pay attention to, you know, the rationale behind the president doing this.

MR. GREGORY: Secretary Gates, you are a hard-nosed realist about this region and about this struggle, going back decades. Is failure an option in Afghanistan?

SEC'Y GATES: No, I don't think it can be, given the, the nature of the terror network that Secretary Clinton referred to. But we will be monitoring our progress and, and be willing to adjust our strategy if there are, if there are issues. We're not just going to plunge blindly ahead if it, if it becomes clear that what we're doing isn't working. I mean, there are some other alternatives. We, frankly, didn't think that the outcome of the long discussions that we had was that those, those outcomes were probably less likely to work than what we've chosen. We think and recommended to the president a strategy that, that he has decided on, that we believe, all of us--including the uniform military and our commanders in the field--offers the very best chance for our success. And we're--and that's what we're going to count on.

MR. GREGORY: But you say failure's not an option. The president has said, "We will fight this fight and fight it hard only up to a certain point."

SEC'Y GATES: And then we begin to transfer the responsibility to the Afghans.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y GATES: And a lot can happen in 18 months.

MR. GREGORY: You said, when you were last on this program back in March, that you considered it a challenge, the notion that you might stay on for the entire first term as secretary of Defense. What do you say now?

SEC'Y GATES: I'd say that's a challenge.

MR. GREGORY: Will you see this war through, the withdrawal of troops through?

SEC'Y GATES: I, I think that's probably up to the president.

MR. GREGORY: All right, thank you both very much.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Thank you, David.

Afghanistan-Pakistan Transcript/Analysis: Clinton & Gates on ABC News (6 December)

Video of the interview:

Get beyond the headline of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' admission, "I think it has been years" since the US had good intelligence on Osama bin Laden's, and here are the important points from this interview:

1. The Obama approach on Afghanistan, no matter how many times Gates says "transition strategy", is to "kick the can down the road", putting off the deadline for another significant decision to mid-2011.

2. The Obama Administration still has no confidence that it can rely on a political center in Kabul. Look at Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's far-from-ringing endorsement of Afghan President Hamid Karzai: "The proof is in the pudding. We're going to have to wait to see how it unfolds."

A Gut Reaction to Obama’s Afghanistan-Pakistan Speech: The Halfway House of Long War (Part 1)
A Hail Mary Strategy in Pakistan: The Gut Reaction to Obama’s Speech (Part 2)

3. There is not a hint of an approach in Pakistan other than the Pakistani military being told to go and beat up the "Taliban".

4. The Obama Administration has no real idea how to deal with the economic strain of this increased commitment, other than to hope that it goes away sooner rather than later.

5. So how to proceed, given all these obstacles? Repeat: Al Qa'eda, Al Qa'eda, Al Qa'eda.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: And we begin with the cornerstones of President Obama's national security cabinet, the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton; secretary of defense, Robert Gates. Welcome to you both.

This is the first time you're here together on "This Week". Thanks for doing it.

HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: The first time we've been called cornerstones.

(LAUGHTER)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Secretary Gates, let me begin with you, because there has been so much focus since the president's speech on this call to begin an exit strategy in July 2011. I want to show you what Senator McCain said earlier this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: When conditions on the ground have decisively begun to change for the better, that is when our troops should start to return home with honor, not one minute longer, not one minute sooner, and certainly not on some arbitrary date in July 2011.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Just two months ago, you seemed to agree with that sentiment. You called the notion of timelines and exit strategies a strategic mistake. What changed?

ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, first of all, I don't consider this an exit strategy. And I try to avoid using that term. I think this is a transition...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why not?

GATES: This is a transition that's going to take place. And it's not an arbitrary date. It will be two years since the Marines went into southern Helmand and that two years that our military leaders believe will give us time to know that our strategy is working.

They believe that in that time General McChrystal will have the opportunity to demonstrate decisively in certain areas of Afghanistan that the approach we're taking is working. Obviously the transition will begin in the less contested areas of the country.

But it will be the same kind of gradual conditions-based transition province by province, district by district, that we saw in Iraq.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We've heard that phrase a lot...

GATES: But it begins -- but it begins in July 2011.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No, I understand that. But you about this conditions-based decision-making. And I guess that it's fairly vague term. So if the strategy is working, do the troops stay? If it's not working, do they leave? How -- how is the decision-making process going to go?

GATES: Well, from my standpoint, the decision in terms of when a district or a cluster of districts or a province is ready to be turned over to the Afghan security forces is a judgment that will be made by our commanders on the ground, not here in Washington.

And we will do the same thing we did in Iraq, when we transitioned to Afghan security responsibility. We will withdraw first into tactical overwatch, and then a strategic overwatch, if you will, the cavalry over the hill in case they run into trouble.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And this certainly increases the leverage on President Karzai and his government, Secretary Clinton, which brings up questions similar to questions that were raised by a lot of Democrats during -- after the Iraq surge, including President Obama when he was a senator.

He asked Secretary Rice basically what happens if the Maliki government doesn't live up to its promises.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THEN SENATOR: Are there any circumstances that you can articulate in which we would say to the Maliki government that enough is enough, and we are no longer committing our troops.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: A lot of people asking the same exact question today about President Karzai, at what point do we say enough is enough, we're no longer going to commit troops?

CLINTON: Well, George, I understand the desire to ask these questions which are all thrown into the future, they're obviously matters of concern about how we have a good partner as we move forward in Afghanistan.

But I think you have to look at what President Karzai said in his inaugural speech where he said that Afghan security forces would begin to take responsibility for important parts of the country within three years, and that they would be responsible for everything within five years.

And from our perspective, we think we have a strategy that is a good, integrated approach, it's civilian and military. It has been extremely thoroughly analyzed. But we have to begin to implement it with the kind of commitment that we all feel toward it.

I can't predict everything that is going to happen with President Karzai. I came away from my meeting with him around the inauguration heartened by a lot of what he was saying. But you know, the proof is in the pudding. We're going to have to wait to see how it unfolds.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if you're really going to have maximum leverage, doesn't he have to know that if he doesn't live up to the commitment, we're going to go?

CLINTON: Well, I think he knows that we have a commitment to trying to protect our national security. That's why we're there. We do want to assist the people of Afghanistan and to try to improve the capacity of the Afghan government.

But I think it's important to stress that this decision was based on what we believe is best for the United States. And we have to have a realistic view of who we're working with in Afghanistan, and it's not only President Karzai, it's ministers of various agencies that -- some of which are doing quite well and producing good results, provincial and local leaders.

So it's a much more complicated set of players than just one person.

STEPHANOPOULOS: There is also the question of Pakistan, the neighbor, and whether they're living up to their commitments. You got in a little hot water in Pakistan when you suggested that they hadn't been doing enough in the past to go after the Taliban.

And, Secretary Gates, let me turn a question about this to you, it's connected to a report that Senator Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released this week about Osama bin Laden. He suggested that the failure to block his exit from Tora Bora has made the situation there much worse.

In this report, he actually wrote that the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide.

The Pakistani prime minister sort of shrugged off any concerns about that this week, about whether or not he had gone -- done enough to go after Osama bin Laden. He said he doesn't believe Osama is in Pakistan. Is he right? And do you think the Pakistanis have done enough to get him?

GATES: Well, we don't know for a fact where Osama bin Laden is, if we did, we'd go get him. But...

STEPHANOPOULOS: When was the last time we had any good intelligence on where he was?

GATES: I think it has been years.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Years?

GATES: I think so.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So these reports that came out just this week about a detainee saying he might have seen him in Afghanistan earlier this year?

GATES: No, that's...

STEPHANOPOULOS: We can't confirm that.

GATES: No.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So do you believe that one of the reasons we haven't had good enough intelligence is because the Pakistani government has not been cooperating enough?

GATES: No. I think it's because if, as we suspect, he is in North Waziristan, it is an area that the Pakistani government has not had a presence in, in quite some time. The truth of the matter is that we have been very impressed by the Pakistani army's willingness to go into places like Swat in South Waziristan, if one had asked any of us a year or more ago if the Pakistani army would be doing that, we would have said no chance.

And so they are bringing pressure to bear on the Taliban in Pakistan, and particularly those that are attacking the Pakistani government. But frankly, any pressure on the Taliban, whether it's in Pakistan or in Afghanistan is helpful to us because al Qaeda is working with both of them.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You mentioned the actions the Pakistani government has taken. Is Balochistan next? Is that where they have to go next to take out the Taliban?

GATE: Well, I think that the Pakistani government, we sometimes tend to forget that Pakistan, like Afghanistan, is a sovereign country. And Pakistani -- the Pakistani army will go where the Pakistani army thinks the threat is. And if they think that threat is Balochistan, that's where they'll go. If they think it's in North Waziristan, they may go up there. Or they may just winter in where they are right now.

But these are calls that the Pakistanis make. We are sharing information with them. We have had a steadily developing, better relationship between our militaries.

And we will help them in any way we possibly can, but that's their call.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Back to Afghanistan, Secretary Clinton, some have suggested that one of your envoys -- the president's envoy, Richard Holbrooke -- should begin negotiations with those elements of the Taliban who are willing to talk to him.

Do you agree with that?

CLINTON: Well, George, we have said -- and the president made it clear in his speech at West Point -- that, you know, there are two different approaches here.

One is what could be called reintegration. And that is really looking at the lower-level members of the Taliban, who are there through intimidation and coercion, or, frankly, because it's a better living than they can make anywhere else.

We think there's a real opportunity for a number of those to be persuaded to leave the battlefield.

Now, the problem, of course, once they leave -- and we have a lot of evidence of this -- they'll get killed if they're not protected. And that's one of the reasons why we're trying to get these secure zones.

STEPHANOPOULOS: In other words, they don't believe we'll stay.

CLINTON: Well, and also, just, we need to secure the population. It's one of General McChrystal's principal objectives.

Then the upper levels of the Taliban -- you know, look. They have to renounce al Qaeda, renounce violence. They have to be willing to abide by the constitution of Afghanistan and live peacefully.

We have no firm information whether any of those leaders would be at all interested in following that kind of a path. In fact, I'm highly skeptical that any of them would.

So, we're going to be consulting with our Afghan partners. It's going to be a multiply-run operation to see who might come off of the battlefield, and who might possibly give up their allegiance to the Taliban and their connection with the...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But high-level negotiations are possible?

CLINTON: We don't know yet. And again, I think that -- we asked Mullah Omar to give up bin Laden before we went into Afghanistan after 9/11, and he wouldn't do it. I don't know why we think he would have changed by now.

GATES: I would just add, I think that the likelihood of the leadership of the Taliban, or seniors leaders, being willing to accept the conditions Secretary Clinton just talked about depends in the first instance on reversing their momentum right now, and putting them in a position where they suddenly begin to realize that they're likely to lose.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How is this offensive in Helmand Province going?

GATES: It's actually going very well. And the Marines have already had -- I think one of the reasons that our military leaders are pretty confident is that they have already begun to see changes where the Marines are present in southern Helmand.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the question of costs, which has been raised by our next guest, Senator Russ Feingold. As you know, he's against the escalation announced by the president.

But he's also gone (ph) and wrote a letter to the president where he raises -- where he says, we request that you not send any additional troops to Afghanistan until Congress has enacted appropriations to pay for the cost of such an increase, and that you propose reductions in spending to pay for the costs of any military operations in Afghanistan -- a concern shared by many of the American people.

Secretary Clinton, shouldn't this war, if we're going to fight it, be paid for?

CLINTON: Well, the president has said that the costs are going to be accounted for, that the Office of Management and Budget, the Defense Department, the State Department, you know, are going to be working to make sure that we give the best projections of costs we can.

I think that we're going to have to address our deficit situation across the board. There's no doubt about that, and I certainly support that.

But I think we have to look at the entire budget, and we have to be very clear about, you know, what the costs are, as Secretary Gates has said a couple of times in our testimony together. We are drawing down from Iraq. There will be savings over the next two to three years coming from there. And the addition of these troops is going to put a burden on us, no doubt about it.

It is manageable, but we have to look at all of our fiscal situation and begin to address this.

STEPHANOPOULOS: There's also the question of the cost-benefit analysis. And a lot of people look at our own U.S. government intelligence estimates, saying there are fewer than 100 active al Qaeda in Afghanistan and say, why is that worth putting $30 billion more this year into Afghanistan?

GATES: It is because in that border area, Afghan-Pakistani border, that is the epicenter of extremist jihad. And al Qaeda has close relationships with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and they have very close relationships with the Taliban in Pakistan.

The Taliban in Pakistan have been attacking Pakistani civilians, Pakistani government officials, military officials, trying to destabilize the government of Pakistan.

Any success by the Taliban in either Afghanistan or Pakistan benefits al Qaeda. And any safe haven on either side of the border creates opportunities for them to recruit, get new funds and do operational planning.

And what's more, the Taliban revival in the safe havens in western Pakistan is a lesson to al Qaeda that they can come back, if they are provided the kind of safe haven that the Taliban were.

This is the place where the jihadists defeated the Soviet Union, one superpower. And they believe -- their narrative is that it helped create the collapse of the Soviet Union. If they -- they believe that if they can defeat us in Afghanistan, that they then have the opportunity to defeat a second superpower.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you look at that...

GATES: And it creates huge opportunities for them in that area, as well as around the world.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were the deputy director of the CIA back in 1985, when Gorbachev made the decision to expand. Eighteen months later, he was pulling out.

What's to prevent that from happening again?

GATES: Well, what he did was agree with his generals to make one last push.

But the parallel just doesn't work. The reality is, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. They killed a million Afghans. They made five million refugees out of Afghanis.

They were isolated in the world in terms of what they were doing there.

We are part of an alliance of 42 countries with us, in addition to us, that are contributing troops. We have a U.N. mandate. We have a mandate from NATO.

So, you have broad international support for what's going on in Afghanistan. And the situation is just completely different than was the case with the Soviet Union.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We're just about out of time.

Secretary Clinton, I want to ask you about the case of Amanda Knox, the American college student, who was convicted of murder in Italy, just on Friday.

Senator Cantwell of Washington has expressed a lot of concerns about this conviction. She said she wants to talk to you about it. Here's what she said.

I have serious questions about the Italian justice system and whether anti-Americanism tainted this trial. The prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Knox was guilty. Italian jurors were not sequestered, and were allowed to view highly negative news coverage about Ms. Knox.

She goes on to lay out several of the concerns she had with the trial. She did say, as I said, she's going to be in contact with you, so you can express the concerns to the Italian government.

Do you share her concerns about this trial?

CLINTON: George, I honestly haven't had time to even examine that. I've been immersed in what we're doing in Afghanistan.

Of course, I'll meet with Senator Cantwell, or anyone who has a concern, but I can't offer any opinion about that at this time.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you have not expressed any concerns to the Italian government?

CLINTON: I have not, no.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, thank you both very much.

GATES: Thank you.

Why We Know Obama is A Muslim (Clue 437: The Charlie Brown Christmas Special)

Another one for our Sunday Funnies section....

Alongside the most important encyclopedia ever, Conservapedia ("The [Non-Liberal] Truth Shall Set You Free"), we have carefully tracked the dangers of secret Muslim infiltration of the non-Muslim United States through the 44th President, Barack Hussein Obama. We have documented the "evidence" of Conservapedia and other intrepid websites, covered the scandal of Obama's bow to the Saudi King (and to a small child, who may or may not be Muslim) and we have examined the evidence of a YouTube investigator that Obama Is Osama.

But now the conclusive proof: Barack Obama's speech on Afghanistan and Pakistan last Tuesday replaced the annual US television special, "A Charlie Brown Christmas".

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the highlights of American culture, Charlie Brown is a character is a comic strip called Peanuts, which has run for about 375 years even though it was funny for about three. Sometime in the 19th century (or maybe 1965), CBS Television produced a half-hour programme which appears on US screens every December.

Except apparently, it got bumped from the schedule last Tuesday. The mayor of Arlington, Tennessee, Russell Wiseman, takes up the story:

Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch "The Charlie Brown Christmas Special" and our muslim president is there, what a load.....try to convince me that wasn't done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation about it....when the answer should simply be "yes".

The mayor, added in defense of Christianity and Charlie Brown, "You obama people need to move to a muslim country…oh wait, that’s America….pitiful.”

(And preferably, Christians who own big homes: Wiseman noted, “You know, our forefathers had it written in the original Constitution that ONLY property owners could vote, if that has stayed in there, things would be different……..”)

Next week: some politician in some US state claims Obama replaces "It's a Wonderful Life" with an Osama bin Laden video.

The Latest from Iran (5 November): Fun with the Regime

1910 GMT: Top Reformist Back in Jail. Behzad Nabavi, a senior member of the Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution party, has gone back to Evin Prison after a 10-day temporary release. Nabavi, who is appealing a six-year jail sentence, refused to renounce political activity and was thus denied freedom until his case was resolved. He has been seriously ill and was in hospital during his release.

1740 GMT: Confirming the Disruption. It's not surprising that the regime has moving to choke off Monday's demonstrations by cutting off Internet services today. It does take me aback that "sources" in the regime have confirmed "the decision of the authorities" (to expose the activities of the Government? to intimidate the opposition?).

1710 GMT: Arresting the Mothers of Martyrs. Regular EA readers may recall that each Saturday mothers of those killed and detained in post-election conflict, joined by sympathisers, march in Tehran's Laleh Park. We've been watching reports of clashes at today's demonstration but have not waited for confirmation before posting. This is the latest from a reliable Iranian activist:

Before 5 p.m. today unmarked vans parked along side all streets around Laleh Park with 3-4 agents inside. Around Abnama Square there were police cars...and unmarked vans with tinted windows. Five or six younger women were arrested and taken by the unmarked vans to an undisclosed location. Fifteen or sixteen other women were arrested. Also three men were arrested & taken away.

1405 GMT: Josh Shahryar's Green Brief 74, covering the last 24 hours of developments in Iran, is now out.

NEW Iran: Will Israel Get An International Embargo?
NEW Iran Document: Mehdi Karroubi on The Response to Extremism
Iran: Routes and Information for 16 Azar (7 December)
Iran’s Critical Moment: Two Days to Go
The Latest from Iran (4 December): The Weekend Before

1400 GMT: Disrupting 16 Azar. Activists report that the Internet, and services like Google Mail, are running very slowly inside Iran.

1120 GMT: Pick a Number, Any Number. Maybe the Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Akhbar Salehi, looked at the statements from other Iranian and US officials (see 0940 GMT) and thought that he should raise his game. So he has declared that even the 10 new enrichment plants declared by the Cabinet last week aren't enough: "To provide fuel for our nuclear power plants, we need to have 20 uranium enrichment plants."

0940 GMT: Nuclear Postures. Meanwhile, both Iran and the US are talking tough in the suspended nuclear engagement. Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani continues to use the issue to boost his profile, telling reporters Friday night: "Why does the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) continue to make such a fuss over Iran's enrichment activities despite knowing its peaceful purposes? The answer is quite simple really; all they want and seek to do is to deceive Iran and force it to readily accept whatever offer they put forward."

In Washington, the faction of the Obama Administration that favours a move towards sanctions found their own willing reporters, saying that they would move in early January for a new round of United Nations sanctions. Significantly, the leaking official said that the package might not only consist of "smart" sanctions aimed at the Revolutionary Guard, but also restrictions on Iran's petroleum industry. At the same time, the official betrayed an Administration caught between those in Congress pressing for sweeping sanctions and the difficulties of getting other countries to agree: "We are looking to find what everyone can agree will be most effective and have the least impact on the Iranian people."

0855 GMT: We've posted the latest statement of Mehdi Karroubi, issued yesterday, calling for a response to extremism.

0645 GMT: A distinct feeling of lull before "How Big a Storm?". Preparations for the demonstrations of  16 Azar (7 December) continue to circulate, but there is little open movement coming out of the Iranian weekend.

For now the space is filled by tales of President Ahmadinejad and other regime actors, tales meant to be very, very serious but somehow prompting a smile. There was Ayatollah Jannati on Friday effectively admitting, even as the Tehran Revolutionary Guard commander was saying "Nothing to worry about here", that the Government was fretting about the numbers who might hit the streets on Monday. Make no mistake, Jannati warned, you are betraying Islam and working for the Americans --- even as only a few Americans inside and outside the Government were figuring out that something might be happening on Monday.

Then there was the President laying it down to the West/Israel:

Despite pressure, sanctions and threats, Iran is…quiet, victorious and dear. All thought that pressure of bullying powers will lead to the defeat of the Iranian nation. During the post-election events, certain powers unanimously claimed that they can extract concessions from Iranians.

However, the Iranian nation proved that, in reality, enemies can do nothing....If the Zionist regime and its masters join forces, still they cannot do a damn thing....Even if bullying powers stay in the region for another 50 years, they will have no option but to leave the region with humiliation and in vain.

It is obvious that Ahmadinejad is going out of his way to make no reference whatsoever to the opposition within, as opposed to outside, his country. Still the temptation grows, just like when you're watching a horror film or a British pantomime, to shout out, "Mr President, Look Behind You".

Maybe the best tale moving around the Internet, however, concerns Ahmadinejad's speech earlier this week in Isfahan. Even though the crowd was smaller than expected, the President apparently laid it on thick about his valiant defense against the enemy of Washington. He even revealed the true intention of US foreign policy for the last 30 years.

Let it be known that, from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, the US Government has been dedicated to preventing the return of the 12th Imam of Shi'a Islam.