The Latest from Iran (26 July): Four Days to The Green Movement's Next Wave

The Latest from Iran (25 July): A President Retreats

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

2115 GMT: Meanwhile, Rafsanjani Plays It Cool. Amidst the Government chaos, the former President is playing down talk of a serious rift within the regime. According to Mehr News Agency, Rafsanjani praised the Supreme Leader, "He is a progressive and forward-looking thinker in different subjects. The propaganda by the foreign media who try to suggest that there is a power struggle in the top level of the regime is unfair injustice to the Islamic revolution."

The statement appears to be a continuation of Rafsanjani's strategy to show allegiance to Ayatollah Khamenei while manoeuvring against a weakened President: "I have hope in the supreme leader to solve the current problems based on his knowledge and experience and I still stick to the solutions I offered in the Friday prayer."

With these comments, Rafsanjani is also maintaining his position against the "hard-line" members of the Assembly of Experts, who attempted to undermine him in a statement earlier this week.

2100 GMT: Well, This is a Fine Mess. Conflicting reports all night over the state of the Ahmadinejad Cabinet. Some accounts now say that the President fired only Minister of Intelligence Ejeie and has not dismissed the other three (Culture, Health, and Labour); Ahmadinejad apparently realised he would face a vote of confidence in Parliament if all four ministers were removed from office.

Other accounts say Minister of Culture Saffar-Harandi resigned in protest. Still others say both Ejeie and Saffar-Harandi were sacked.

1700 GMT: Confusion. There are reports that President Ahmadinejad has withdrawn the dismissal of Minister of Culture Saffar-Harandi (and presumably other ministers), as he did not realise that the Cabinet could no longer meet without a vote of confidence from the Iranian Parliament.

1642 GMT: Our correspondent Mani confirms our suspicions (1325 GMT) that Press TV and Fars News misrepresented the statement of Mehdi Karroubi, which supposedly criticised other opposition politicians for supporting Hashemi Rafsanjani. The "genuine" statement of Karroubi is in Etemade Melli.

1638 GMT: Abdolhossein Roohul Amini, the father of Mohsen Ruholamini, who died in detention, has published a statement after the cancellation of his son's funeral. He has thanked all people expressing their sympathies to his family and said the memorial was cancelled to prevent any violence against the public by "oppurtunistic factions".

1635 GMT: Confirming earlier news --- President Ahmadinejad's inauguration has been scheduled for 5 August.

1630 GMT: Darius Ghanbari, a "reformist" Member of Parliament, has said, "Decisions regarding the participation of reformist MPs in the swearing-in ceremonies of Ahmadinejad, in the votes of confidence in Ahmadinejad's cabinet, and on interaction with the overnment has been postponed to the general meeting of the reformist fraction that will convene this Tuesday."

1615 GMT: Ayatollah Hashim Hashim-Zadeh Hareesi, the representative of East Azerbaijan in the Assembly of Experts, has denied that the statement signed by 16 members, which denounced Hashemi Rafsanjani, represented the opinion of the 86 representatives in the Assembly. Hareesi told journalists, "Collecting signatures by telephone, while most members of the Assembly of Experts are scattered in various cities, cannot constitute a statement."

1445 GMT: Ayatollah Yousef Sanei has declared his readiness to attend the 30 July "40th Day" ceremony for those killed by security forces on 20 June.

1430 GMT: Another Iranian official has joined the chorus against television confessions. Mohammad-Javad Larijani, Secretary of the Human Rights Headquarters of Iran's judiciary, said, “I am against the broadcasting of confessions. I think it is the judiciary officials who should explain to the people the issues and violations of election laws by the Reformists.”

The Press TV article is notable, however, for other reasons. Larijani is a possible successor to the current head of Iran's judiciary, Ayatollah Hashemi Shahroudi, and his interview raises other issues about detention: "When asked why some of the detainees have not been allowed to contact their families yet, Larijani stressed that all the rights of the detainees should be respected." And it breaks the silence on suspicions over abuse of prisoners, prompted by the high profile of one death: "At least one of the detainees, named Mohsen Roholamini [son of an ally of Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei], has died in prison."

Larijani is the most possible candidate to replace Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroudi.

1325 GMT: Meanwhile, on Press TV. The state network's website says nothing about the dramatic news of Ministers being fired. Instead, it runs an article trying to break Mehdi Karroubi away from the Green Movement.

The supposed quotes from Karroubi initially portray a leader accepting the election results and working for changes in his party: “Times have changed and there is an urgent need for far-reaching party reforms. We should review the post-election developments and plan our actions accordingly."

There is a hint of Karroubi's wider concerns in his statement, “After all, we are working in an environment that is biased and unfair. Our rivals are well-equipped and we are empty-handed, in the same way we were during the elections," but Press TV then emphasises the difference between Karroubi and other challengers to the Government: "It is most interesting how the very Reformist figures, who had criticized Hashemi-Rafsanjani and had stated that his political heyday is over, are now supporting him. This is not right.”

That attack both on Rafsanjani and other opposition leaders overshadows the final sentences of the article: "Karroubi asserted that he would continue his challenge to the legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad government: 'I will not step down from my complaints to the election results for as long as I live.'"

1305 GMT: The Government Breaks Apart. Now Tabnak reports that Minister of Intelligence Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejeie has been dismissed. Like Minister of Culture Saffar-Harandi, also fired by the President (see 1255 GMT), Ejeie challenged Ahmadinejad in a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday over the selection of the First Vice President.

There are unconfirmed reports that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour have also been removed from office.

1255 GMT: Is the Ahmadinejad Government Imploding? Mehr News reports that the President has fired his Minister of Culture, Mohammad-Hossein Saffar-Harandi. Earlier this week Saffar-Harandi walked out of a Cabinet meeting amidst heated debate over the appointment of the First Vice President, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai.

1245 GMT: Despite its recent setbacks, the Government seems intent on provoking a fight. It is being reported that the funeral of Mohsen Roohul Amini, the son of Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei's campaign manager, has been cancelled because of pressure from the authorities. Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi had announced they would attend the funeral of Roohul Amini, who died in detention (see 0640 GMT).

0800 GMT: In our first update just over an hour ago, we asked our Big Question: after the successes of the last week, what will be the next steps for the opposition?

Our correspondent Mani has just given us the Big Answer. Mir Hossein Mousavi Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi have sent the following request to the Minister of the Interior:

We take the oppurtunity to inform you that we intend to hold a memorial service to commemorate fellow citizens of our country who lost their lives due to to the recent horrific events. We request permission to hold this memorial service on mordad 8 1388 [30 July 2009], the 40th day after the starting of these events, at the grand prayer centre of Tehran. We would like to mention that this service will not include any speeches and will only involve listening to recitations from the Holy Koran. We will also request that the participants show their respects to the departed by maintaining silence.

Significantly, this Thursday, 30 July, is not the 40th day after the 12 June election or after the first mass demonstrations (and first deaths of protestors) on 15 June. Instead it is the 40th day after 20 June, when dozens of demonstrators, including Neda Agha Soltan, were killed by Iranian security forces.

(Agence France Press now has the story, which originally appeared in the Iranian Students News Agency.)

0750 GMT: After recent reports, including footage on BBC Persian, indicating that its members have been working with Iranian security forces, Lebanon's Hezbollah has denied any involvement: these are rumours "spreading sedition and division between the two brother nations of Lebanon and Iran".

0740 GMT: The "Power Overload" Protest. Remember the recent attempts to black out Iranian cities, at the start of the 9 p.m. national news, by turning on all applicances to overload the electrical grid?

The Revolutionary Guard certainly does. General Seyed Mohammad Hejazi has announced, "The plugging in of irons at 9 pm every night is an act of subversive sabotage."


0735 GMT: More Cabinet Difficulties. The Ministry of Industry, Ali Akbar Mehrabian, has been found guilty of fraudulently trying to register an invention of another researcher as his own. Last year, the Minister of Science was forced to resign when he falsely claimed to hold a Ph.D. from Oxford University.

0725 GMT: Larijani Breaks Ranks? The Speaker of the Parliament, Ali Larijani, is resigning his position as Majority Whip. Officially, the reason is that he "understands that there is a conflict of interest" between the two roles. Given that the conflict is pretty obvious, it is more likely that Larijani is distancing himself from pro-Ahmadinejad MPs. Larijani has never sat comfortable alongside the President's supporters, and relations were further strained after the election when the Speaker called for investigations of security forces' raids on Tehran University and criticised the Guardian Council.

0715 GMT: Two weeks ago, we reported on the protest of Mohammad Reza Shajarian, the leading Iranian classical singer, against President Ahmadinejad's portrayal of his opposition as "dust". Shajarian has refused to allow Iranian state media to broadcast any of his music.

Etemade Melli has the latest on the dispute, with Shajarian promising to use all legal means to prevent any airplay.

0705 GMT: I Didn't Give In....Really. President Ahmadinejad may have been forced to dismiss the First Vice President, but he is still trying to save some face in the showdown. He has put Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai in charge of his office staff.

0640 GMT: Another boost for the Green Movement yesterday with the impressive show of support in "United4Iran" gatherings across the world. As news came in of more than 2000 people in New York, the "green scroll" from the Eiffel Tower in Paris, and other demonstrations from Amsterdam to Dubai, there was a notable lifting of spirits amongst Iran activists.

Now, however, the opposition has to think through its next steps. Today "reformists" will decide whether to attend next week's inauguration of President Ahmadinejad. In an act of great political as well as humanitarian significance, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi have announced they will attend the funeral of Mohsen Roohul Amini. Roohul Amini was the son of the campaign manager of Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei; he died in prison after he was detained on 9 July.


Meanwhile, the regime is trying to repair internal relations. The Kayhan newspaper, having played a significant role in the pressure on President Ahmadinejad to get rid of his First Vice President, offered a limited apology to restore the image of Ahmadinejad acting in line with the Supreme Leader (see yesterday's updates). Ayatollah Khamenei, speaking to the participants in the 26th Koran competition, said:

The meaning of unity is that we must agree on fundamentals. Although we may disagree on less important issues this must not lead to disunity....Absolute ostracizing of others over these less important issues is not good [for the establishment] everyone must help in rebuilding the country....[The issues of the last few days] must not increase divisions, and one should not defame an individual and subsequently reject all of his capabilities based on a single issue....The Islamic republic allows people [that believe in the establishment] to have different viewpoints.

There was, however, a possible rebuke to Ahmadinejad in the Supreme Leader's warning, "These differences should not be mixed with sinful personal ambitions.

Video and Transcript: Hillary Clinton on "Meet the Press" (26 July)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

DAVID GREGORY: Here she is, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Thank you, David. It's great to be here with you.

MR. GREGORY: Glad to have you. And you're here for the full hour, so we have a lot to get to.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, with your preview into it, there's a lot to talk about in the world today.

MR. GREGORY: Absolutely. So let's get right to it and talk about some of the hot spots around the globe that you're dealing with. First up is North Korea, and got tense this week. Here was the big headline: "Clinton and North Korea Engage in Tense Exchange." It actually began on Monday during an interview that you gave to ABC. Let's watch a portion of that.

(Videotape, Monday)

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, what we've seen in this constant demand for attention. And maybe it's the mother in me or the experience that I've had with small children and unruly teenagers and people who are demanding attention, don't give it to them. They don't deserve it. They are acting out, in a way, to send a message that is not a message we're interested in receiving.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Now, the North Korean reaction was rather personal, and The Washington Post wrote about it on Friday. We'll put that up on the screen. "The war of words between North Korea and the United States escalated with North Korea's Foreign Ministry lashing out at Secretary of State Clinton in unusually personal terms for `vulgar remarks' that it said demonstrated `she is by no means intelligent...We cannot but regard Mrs. Clinton as a funny lady...Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl.'" What were they thinking?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, David, I think what's important here is the clear message that we're sending to North Korea, and it's one that is now unanimous. The Security Council Resolution 1874 made official that North Korea must change their behavior and we have to get back to moving toward verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. Now, as you know and as you've reported, they've engaged in a lot of provocative actions in the last months. But what we, China, Russia, South Korea, Japan and literally the unanimous international community have said is it's not going to work this time. We're imposing the most stringent sanctions we ever have. We have great cooperation from the world community. China and we are working closely together to enforce these sanctions. We still want North Korea to come back to the negotiating table, to be part of an international effort that will lead to denuclearization. But we're not going to reward them for doing what they said they would do in 2005 and 6. We're not going to reward them for half measures. They now know what we in the world community expect.

MR. GREGORY: But it's interesting; if the posture of this administration was more engagement, even negotiations with our adversaries, it struck me this week that this was a ratcheting up of the rhetoric against North Korea.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, we want to make clear to North Korea that their behavior is not going to be rewarded. In the past they believe that they have acted out, done things which really went against the norms of the international community and somehow then were rewarded. Those days are over. We believe that the six-party talk framework which had everybody included is the appropriate way to engage with North Korea.

MR. GREGORY: But they say--if I can just stop you, they say we're not playing in that group anymore.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, that's what they say. And I think they are very isolated now. I saw that when I was at the ASEAN meeting, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. I was in the same room with a representative from North Korea who launched a broadside attack on the United States, blaming us for literally everything that has ever gone wrong in North Korea going back decades. I listened; everyone else just didn't even look at him. I was struck by the body language. They don't have any friends left. And what we've seen even Burma saying that they're going to enforce the resolution of sanctions. And when the North Korean representative finished, I just very calmly said North Korea knows what it must do and what we are expecting from it. I talked with my counterparts from Russia, China, Japan, South Korea at length during the time I was in Thailand. We are all on the same page and we are all committed to the same goal.

MR. GREGORY: Can we say at this point--since it's so difficult to deal with North Korea, going back to President Clinton, who said that he would stop them from getting a nuclear bomb--after these missile tests, after the belief that they have seven or eight nuclear bombs, that an effort to keep them from going nuclear has failed?

SEC'Y CLINTON: No, I don't think so, because their program is still at the beginning stages, and there are several important factors here that has led to the unanimity of the international community. It's not only that North Korea has, against the international norms, IAEA and other requirements, proceeded with this effort, but they also are a proliferator. We know that for a fact. So it's not only the threat they pose to their neighbors and eventually beyond, but the fact that they're trying to arm others. And then there is the reaction in the region. I mean, if you're sitting in South Korea and Japan, who are two of our strongest allies with whom we have very clear defense responsibilities, and you see North Korea proceeding, then you're going to be thinking, "Well, what do I need to do to protect myself?" So it is destabilizing for Northeast Asia, which is why I think you'll see a continuing pressure which we think will eventually result in some changes in their behavior.

MR. GREGORY: Is North Korea a threat to the United States?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, at this time, you know, our military experts and others say that in real terms, what they could do to us, that's unlikely. We have missile defenses that we can deploy. But they are a threat to our friends and allies, particularly Japan and South Korea. So therefore, they trigger a response from us to protect our allies and to make clear to the North Koreans that they cannot behave in this way. And I want to just underscore that China has been extremely positive and productive in respect to North Korea. The big issue in previous times was well, how do we get China to really be working to change North Korean behavior? I will be starting, along with Secretary Geithner, an intensive two days with Chinese high-level representatives tomorrow and Tuesday. But on North Korea, we have been extremely gratified by their forward-leaning commitment to sanctions and the private messages that they have conveyed to the North Koreans.

MR. GREGORY: Finally on this, two U.S. captives, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, two journalists in captivity now; is there a feeling that some of the tough talk that you had with the North Koreans this week, this sort of exchange of insults, does it make their situation more dangerous?

SEC'Y CLINTON: We believe that this is on a separate track. This is an issue that should be resolved by the North Koreans granting amnesty and allowing these two young women to come home as quickly as possible.

MR. GREGORY: Are you making progress?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, we have--are certainly pursuing every lead we have. The messages that we've received from the young women both through our protecting power, the Swedish ambassador, and through the messages and phone calls they've had with their families are that they're being treated well, that they have been given the supplies that they need. But obviously, they want to resolve this, as we do, and we work on it literally every day.

MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to another hot spot, and that is Iran. A big headline this week, again, with your words: "Clinton's `Defense Umbrella' Stirs Tensions." The headlines goes on, "Suggests U.S. Will Have to Protect Allies From Nuclear-Armed Iran." You were in Bangkok on Wednesday, and this is what you said that got this started.

(Videotape, Wednesday)

SEC'Y CLINTON: We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment, that if the United States extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it's unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer, because they won't be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Did you mean to suggest that the U.S. is considering a nuclear umbrella that would say to nations in the Arab world that an attack on you, just like NATO or Japan is an attack on the United States, and the United States would retaliate?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I think it's clear that we're trying to affect the internal calculus of the Iranian regime. You know, the Iranian government, which is facing its own challenges of legitimacy from its people, has to know that that a pursuit of nuclear weapons, something that our country along with our allies stand strongly against. We believe as a matter of policy it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. The G-8 came out with a very strong statement to that effect coming from Italy. So we are united in our continuing commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions that if you're pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we're not going to let that happen. First, we're going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran--nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed, it is something that we view with great concern, and that's why we're doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening.

MR. GREGORY: All right, but let's be specific. Are you talking about a nuclear umbrella?

SEC'Y CLINTON: We, we are, we are not talking in specifics, David, because, you know, that would come later, if at all. You know, my view is you hope for the best, you plan for the worst. Our hope is--that's why we're engaged in the president's policy of engagement toward Iran--is that Iran will understand why it is in their interest to go along with the consensus of the international community, which very clearly says you have rights and responsibilities. You have a right to pursue the peaceful use of civil nuclear power. You do not have a right to obtain a nuclear weapon. You do not have the right to have the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle under your control. But there's a lot that we can do with Iran if Iran accepts what is the international consensus.

MR. GREGORY: One of the big challenges here is preventing Israel from acting first; if they feel there's an existential threat, would they strike out at Iran to take out a nuclear program. And there's been various positions taken within the administration about that. Vice President Biden just a couple of weeks ago said this on ABC: "We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination, that they are existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country." Meantime, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said, "Well, I have been for some time concerned about any strike on Iran [by Israel]. I worry about it being very destabilizing, not just in and of itself, but the unintended consequences of a strike like that." Where do you fall on the spectrum of the administration views about the impact of a strike by Israel?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, let me say that I personally don't see the contradiction here. The vice president was stating a fact. Israel is a sovereign nation. Any sovereign nation facing what it considers to be an existential threat, as successive Israeli governments have characterized the possibility of Iran having a nuclear weapon would mean to them, is not going to listen to other nations, I mean, if they believe that they are acting in the furtherance of their survival. However, as Admiral Mullen said, you know, we continue to believe that very intensive diplomacy, bringing the international community together, making clear to the Iranians what the costs of their pursuit of nuclear weapons might be is the preferable route. So clearly, we have a, a long, durable relationship with Israel. We believe strongly that Israel's security must be protected. But we also believe that pursuing this path with Iran that we're on right now, that frankly we're bringing more and more people to see it our way--I thought the G-8 statement was quite remarkable in that sense--is the better approach for us to take. So we will continue to work with all of our allies, and most particularly Israel, to determine the best way forward to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state.

MR. GREGORY: Defense Secretary Gates is on his way to Israel this week. Is the message to the Israelis, "You got to hang tight here"?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, also, General Jones will be there. We have a full panoply of a lot of our national security team that will be meeting with comparable Israeli officials. And our message is as it has been: The United States stand with you, the United States believes that Israel has a right to security. We believe, however, that this approach we're taking holds out the promise of realizing our common objective. And we want to brief the Israelis, we want to listen to the Israelis and we want to enlist the support of all of our allies and friends in moving forward on this policy.

MR. GREGORY: Is Iran an illegitimate regime?

SEC'Y CLINTON: You know, that's really for the people of Iran to decide. I have been moved by the, just the cries for freedom and, and the clear appeal to the Iranian government that this really significant country with a people that go back millennia that has such a great culture and history deserves better than what they're getting.

MR. GREGORY: But if the United States decides to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program, as has been the stated policy of the willingness to engage, are you not betraying this democratic movement trying to overthrow that regime?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I don't think so, David, because you can go back in history--and not, you know, very long back--where we have negotiated with many governments who we did not believe represented the will of their people. Look at all the negotiations that went on with the Soviet Union. Look at the breakthrough and subsequent negotiations with communist China. That's what you do in diplomacy. You don't get to choose the people; that's up to the internal dynamics within a society. But clearly, we would hope better for the Iranian people. We would hope that there is more openness, that peaceful demonstrations are respected, that press freedom is respected. Yet, we also know that whoever is in charge in Iran is going to be making decisions that will affect the security of the region and the world.

MR. GREGORY: Let me talk about another difficult area, and that's Russia, where there has been an attempt by the president to say, "We're going to reset this relationship." Vice President Biden, who was just traveling in the region, talked to the Wall Street Journal, and his comments raised some eyebrows. This is what he said: "The reality is the Russians are where they are. They have a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years, they're in a situation where the world is changing before them and they're clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable." Is he speaking for the president, and is the message essentiality that the U.S. now has the upper hand when it's dealing with Russia?

SEC'Y CLINTON: No, and I don't think that's at all what the vice president meant. I mean, remember, the vice president was the first person in the administration, in an important speech which he gave in Munich, Germany, shortly after President Obama's inauguration, that we wanted to reset our relationship with Russia. And we know that that's not easily done. It takes time, it takes trust building. And we want what the president called for during his recent Moscow summit. We want a strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia.

Now, there is an enormous amount of work to be done between the United States and Russia. We're working on reducing our nuclear arsenal. We're going to work on reducing fissile material to make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. We're working to combat the threat of violent extremism. Russia has been very helpful in our United Nations efforts vis-a-vis North Korea. The Russians joined the G-8 statement in Italy talking about the need for Iran to come to the table either in a multilateral forum like the P-5 Plus One that we're part of, or bilaterally with us. And so there is an enormous amount of hard work being done. And we view Russia as a great power. Now, every country faces challenges. You know, we have our challenges, Russia has their challenges. And there are certain issues that Russia has to deal with on its own. And we want to make clear that, as we reset our relationship, we are very clearly not saying that Russia can have a 21st century sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. That is, you know, an, an attitude and a policy we reject.

We also are making it very clear that any nation in Eastern Europe that used to be part of the Soviet Union has a right now, as a free, sovereign and independent nation, to choose whatever alliance they wish to join. So if Ukraine and Georgia someday are eligible for and desire to join NATO, that should be up to them.

So I, I think that, you know, what we're seeing here is the beginning of the resetting of that relationship, which I have been deeply involved in. I will be co-chairing a presidential commission along with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. We'll be following up on what our two presidents said in Moscow. And the Russians know that, you know, we have continuing questions about some of their policies, and they have continuing questions about some of ours.

MR. GREGORY: Before we get to a break I want to get to another hot spot, and that, of course, is Afghanistan. And the headline coming out this week: "U.S. Deaths Hit A Record High In Afghanistan: The Toll of 31 So Far in July Makes For the Deadliest Month of the War." Is--with--given that the president is surging up forces, 17,000 additional troops going to Afghanistan, is this a war of necessity for this president, or has it become his war of choice?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I think the president has been very firm in stating that the policy that was followed in Afghanistan was not working. He said it throughout the campaign, he made that clear upon becoming president. And we know that the threat to the United States and, in fact, those who plotted and carried out the horrific attack on 9/11 against our country have not yet been brought to justice, killed or captured. So the president's goal is to dismantle and destroy and eventually defeat al-Qaeda.

MR. GREGORY: And yet, if I can just stop you, the real focus now is fighting the Taliban, which is an insurgent movement. And Thomas Friedman wrote this on Wednesday, I'd like you to respond to it: "American has just adopted Afghanistan as our new baby. The troop surge that President Obama ordered [in Afghanistan] early in his tenure has taken this mission from a limited intervention, with limited results, to a full nation-building project that will take a long time to succeed--if ever. We came [to Afghanistan] to destroy al-Qaeda, now we're in a long war with the Taliban. Is that really a good use of American power?"

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, David, we had an intensive strategic review upon taking office. And we not only brought the entire United States government together, but we reached out to friends and allies, people with stakes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And as you know, the result of that strategic review was to conclude that al-Qaeda is supported by and uses its extremist allies like elements within the Taliban and other violent extremist groups in the region as well as worldwide to extend its reach, to be proxies for a lot of its attacks on Jakarta, Indonesia, and elsewhere. So that in order to really go after al-Qaeda, to uproot it and destroy it, we had to take on those who were giving the al-Qaeda leadership safe haven.

Now, as you know, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is permeable. There are movements back and forth across it. I think our new strategy, which has been endorsed by a very large number of nations, some of whom don't agree with us on a lot of other things, is aimed at achieving our primary goal. And we also learned from Iraq, which were hard lessons, that in order to have our military intervention be effective, when they go in and try to clear areas of the extremists, we have to follow in to build up the capacity of the local community to defend itself and to be able to realize the benefits of those changes. This is a new strategy. It's just beginning. I think the president believed that it was not only the right strategy but, facing what he faced, to withdraw our presence or to keep it on the low level limited effectiveness that had been demonstrated, would have sent a message to al-Qaeda and their allies that the United States was willing to leave the field to them. And in addition, importantly, we've seen the Pakistani government and military really step up, which had not happened to the extent it has now. So the Taliban, which is as, I believe strongly, part of a kind of terrorist syndicate with al-Qaeda at the center...

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...is now under tremendous pressure, and I think that's in America's national interest.

Now, I have to add, nobody is more saddened than the president and I by the loss of life of our young men and women, and no one is more impatient than we are to see the results of this sacrifice bear fruit. We have the most extraordinary military in the world. They have leadership now we think is totally on point in terms of what we are attempting to accomplish. And, and I think that we'll see benefits come from that.

MR. GREGORY: All right, we're going to leave it there for a moment. We're going to take a short break here and we'll have much more with Secretary of State Clinton, including a question that keeps popping up around the world.

(Videotape)

Unidentified Woman #1: Will we ever get to see you as president of the United States?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Wow, that's not...

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: All coming up on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: More of our conversation with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after this brief commercial break.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: And we're back with the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.

How is your elbow?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Oh, it's getting better. It's about 80 percent of the way back. You know, there are certain moves that I can make, but there are others that are, are still kind of painful. But I'm doing my physical therapy. That's what everybody told me I had to do. And...

MR. GREGORY: Because hand shaking is a little hard.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Yes. I try to...

MR. GREGORY: Which is hard for a diplomat.

SEC'Y CLINTON: It is. I tried to do the hand shaking when I was in India and Thailand, and my arm was really sore at the end. So I'm either putting out my left hand or--I love the Thais.

MR. GREGORY: Yes.

SEC'Y CLINTON: You know, I was going around like this to everybody. (Bows)

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

SEC'Y CLINTON: That, that helped me out a lot.

MR. GREGORY: It's doing that in Germany that's confusing. That's just a little hard.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Yeah. Well, probably it has to be culturally appropriate.

MR. GREGORY: Let's take a step back and look at the larger vision for the president's foreign policy. This is what the president said during his inaugural address, which was something of a mission statement. Let's watch.

(Videotape, January 20, 2009)

PRES. BARACK OBAMA: To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: And yet isn't the problem, six months in, that there may be a willingness to change the tone, there may be more engagement, but nobody's unclenching their fist yet?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Oh, David, that's not the way I read it at all. I think six months in, look at what we've done. We have begun to fulfill our obligation to withdraw from Iraq, so that now when I meet with Prime Minister Maliki and 10 members of his government and about 12 of ours we're talking about educational exchanges, we're talking about agriculture. We have a very clear policy on nonproliferation, which the president has stated, and we're back in the business of trying to move the world in a, in a very careful but consistent way toward lowering the threat of nuclear weapons. We've already talked about bringing the world together, which we have, around a joint response to North Korea and increasingly to Iran. We are sending a message to governments and peoples alike, as the president did in his very important Cairo speech, as he just did in Ghana, that we want government and particularly democracies that deliver for people. I mean, I could go on and on.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: We are really back.

MR. GREGORY: But is...

SEC'Y CLINTON: And that was my message when I went to Asia: The United States is back and we're ready to lead.

MR. GREGORY: But what did you mean by that?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, what I meant was that in, in many parts of the world the priorities that were pursued the last eight years did not seem to include them. So just going, for example, to Asia--as I did on my first trip, as I just did--was viewed as a very positive statement of participation. We're building on some of the good work that's been done in a bipartisan way with India starting with my husband and, in fact, in this case continuing with President Bush with India. So we have now announced the most comprehensive engagement we've ever had with that country.

MR. GREGORY: But, but if, if you look at it, the Bush administration policy in Asia and now the Obama administration policy in Asia is not that different. You, you, too, are distracted by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

SEC'Y CLINTON: I, I--no, I--see, I disagree...

MR. GREGORY: So, so I don't see what's really changed.

SEC'Y CLINTON: I disagree with that. I mean, part of what we have done is to organize ourselves so that we can concentrate on many important issues at the same time. I know that, for example, people have raised questions about why I pushed so hard to have special envoys appointed. It's because I think it would be diplomatic malpractice not to have people of stature and experience handling some of our most difficult problems on a day-to-day basis. I'm the chief diplomat; I'm responsible at the end for advising the president, for executing the policy that we agree upon. But it is to our advantage to have George Mitchell in the Middle East today, to have Richard Holbrook in Afghanistan.

MR. GREGORY: Hm.

SEC'Y CLINTON: To have retired General Scott Gration coming back from probably his sixth or seventh trip to Sudan, having Todd Stern leading our efforts on climate change. I could not possibly have given the attention that we need, in the in-depth way that is required, to all of this. And I think the feeling on the part of much of the world was that the prior administration, for understandable reasons, focused so much on some of the specific issues like Iraq, etc., that really grabbed it and required a lot of attention, that much of the rest of the world felt, you know, that they were kind of second tier. When I went to the ASEAN meeting, it hadn't been for sometime that we'd had a secretary of state pay continuing attention. We announced a, an exciting new relationship with the lower Mekong countries--Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand. We are working everywhere we can to make clear that, you know, the United States cannot solve all the problems of the world alone, but the world cannot solve them without the United States.

MR. GREGORY: But you raised the--your role in the administration. Here was a recent headline that got a lot of attention, not surprisingly, in the Los Angeles Times: "Clinton Seems Overshadowed by Her Boss, Some Analysts Say." You responded with a pretty sharp retort, saying, "I broke my elbow, not my larynx."

SEC'Y CLINTON: That's right.

MR. GREGORY: But seriously, has, at times, this been a struggle?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Not at all; I mean, maybe because I understand the functioning of the United States government. The president is the president, and the president is responsible for setting policy. Now, we have a great relationship. I see him usually several times a week, at least once one-on-one, and I'm ready to offer my advice. We have an, an incredibly candid and open exchange. In fact, the whole team does. And I really welcome that.

MR. GREGORY: But this is kind of interesting, I mean, the whole team of rivals idea. Do you have a close working relationship? Are you the voice on foreign policy, the adviser in his ear on foreign policy?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I, I am the chief adviser on foreign policy, but the president makes the decisions. You know, I have a picture of former Secretary of State Seward in my office. He was a New York senator who went on to serve President Lincoln, which is part of what created this concept of team of rivals. He became one of Lincoln's closest and strongest advisers. Why? Because he understood, as I do, that the election is over. The president has to lead our country both internationally and domestically. I saw this when my husband was president. At the end of the day, it is the president who has to set and articulate policy. I'm privileged to be in a position where I am the chief adviser, I'm the chief diplomat, I'm the chief executor of the policy that the president pursues. But I know very well that a team that works together is going to do a better job for America. And one thing I would add is, you know, I've read a lot of diplomatic history, and I know that very often there become sort of warring camps, you know. It's the Defense Department vs. the State Department, or the National Security Council vs. the State Department. And in fact, we've had administrations where there was just open warfare.

MR. GREGORY: Hm.

SEC'Y CLINTON: You don't see any of that in this administration. And in fact, I've had some of my predecessors say with, you know, some amount of surprise, this administration has no light between it.

MR. GREGORY: Well, and to that point, what has President Obama proved to you as president that you didn't believe about him as a candidate?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I always had a very high respect for him as a colleague. We served in the Senate together. Now, during a campaign you're going to magnify differences. You're trying to convince people to vote for you and, and vote against the other candidate. So I always had a very healthy respect for his intelligence, for his world view, for his understanding of the complexity that we face in the 21st century. Now having worked with him for six months, what I see is his decisiveness, his discipline, his approach to difficult problems. We have a really good process in the NSC that intensely examines problems, brings people to the table, goes outside the usual circle; tries to tee up decisions for what's called the Principle's Committee, which I and the vice president and the secretaries of Defense and our CIA and our DNI and everybody sit around a table in the Situation Room, we take the work that comes from the Deputies Committee that's gone through this very rigorous process and we hash it out. And we do not always agree, and we take positions.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: And at the end, though, we reach a consensus. Either we are at a point where we feel that we know the best thing to suggest to the president, or we suggest a minority and a majority point of view. And then we meet with the president, and the president hears us out. Oftentimes he'll put somebody on the spot and he'll say, "Well, David, what do you really think?"

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Or he'll go and say, "I didn't hear from you yet." And at the end of the day, the president makes the decision. And I've been very impressed by that.

MR. GREGORY: But you--but during the--during the campaign you questioned both his experience and his toughness. Are those issues that you don't feel as strongly anymore?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Oh, I don't feel them at all. I mean, I think that, you know, those were appropriate issues to raise in the campaign. I, I have no problem with having raised those, because he hadn't yet been on the national scene. But look, I'm here to say, as somebody who spent an enormous amount of time and effort running against him, I think his performance in office has been incredible.

MR. GREGORY: You are secretary of state. You are not--I should say, your portfolio does not include domestic matters, domestic political debates. And yet health care is obviously a huge debate right now in this country and for this administration. And this is what you said when you ended your run for the presidency June 7th, 2008. Let's watch.

(Videotape, June 7, 2008)

SEC'Y CLINTON: We all want a healthcare system that is universal, high quality and affordable, so that parents don't have to choose between care for themselves or their children or be stuck in dead-end jobs simply to keep their insurance. This isn't just an issue for me. It is a passion and a cause, and it is a fight I will continue until every single American is insured, no exceptions and no excuses.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: You've always been passionate about this. You're not involved in the current debate. But why is it so hard, do you think?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, David, it's hard because the system that we've seen grow up almost organically since World War II is so dysfunctional. And unfortunately, the incentives are often not in the right places to reward doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals for their outcomes, to really drive quality. And I applaud the president for taking it on right off the bat. You know, there are many problems we're dealing with in our country, and certainly he could have said, "OK, fine, we'll get to that when we get to it." But he's waded right into it. And I am somewhat encouraged by what I see happening in the Congress. You know, I've been there. I know how hard this is.

MR. GREGORY: Is it different than '93?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Oh, it is. It's different in several ways. It's different because I think everybody's now convinced there's a problem. Back in '93 we had to keep making the case over and over again. Well, now we know costs will continue to rise. For everybody who has insurance, there is no safe haven, their costs will go up. We lose insurance for 14,000 people a day. We know that our system, left unchecked, is going to bankrupt not just families and businesses, but our country. So it is a central concern of President Obama and our administration.

MR. GREGORY: And yet you wrote in your memoir, "Living History," something that was very interesting. You wrote this; "Ultimately, we could never convince the vast majority of Americans who have health insurance that they wouldn't have to give up benefits and medical choices to help the minority of Americans without coverage. Nor could we persuade them that reform would protect them from losing insurance and would make their medical care more affordable in the future." And that's exactly the issue the President Obama is dealing with now. Do you think he's doing a better job getting over that hurdle?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I think he's making a very strong case. And what's important here is that people are always for change in general, and then they begin to worry about the particulars. As our process moves forward--we have legislation in both Houses. We've had the committee I use to serve on, the Health, Education, Labor and Pension, so-called HELP Committee, pass out a comprehensive bill. We're seeing action in the House. Then people will begin to see the particulars and the legislative process will begin to try to, you know, smooth out the rough edges and create the reassurances that people need. But what is so promising for me is that when I wrote that about our experience in the early '90s, there were still a lot of routes that people thought we could go down; "Well, we'll try managed care. We'll get more HMOs. We'll be able to control costs for the people who have insurance." I'm talking now...

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...not about those who are uninsured, which I think is both a moral and an economic imperative, but the people without it--with it and who are wondering, "What's this going to mean for me?" I think people now realize, you know, "I could be uninsured." The, the chances that businesses will continue to pay for insurance over the next five, 10, 15 years are diminishing. I think, if I remember correctly, in '93 and '94, 61 percent of small businesses provided some kind of health insurance for their employees. It's down to 38 percent. So now everybody's worrying. And I think that gives the president a very strong case to make.

MR. GREGORY: Has he sought out your counsel on this?

SEC'Y CLINTON: You know, we talk about everything. You know, I have a rule that I don't ever talk about what I talk about with presidents, whether it's my husband...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...when he was president, or now with President Obama. But, you know...

MR. GREGORY: But even domestic issues, you'll offer some thoughts.

SEC'Y CLINTON: I, I'm available to the president to talk about anything. Now, obviously, we have a pretty big, you know, portfolio...

MR. GREGORY: Right. Portfolio, yeah.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...that we have to deal with on the international stage.

MR. GREGORY: Right. Bottom, bottom line, do you think health care will pass this time?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I do. I think that the time has come. I think this president is committed to it. I think the leadership in Congress understands we have to do something. And I, I think we'll get, we'll get it done.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about another big issue in the news this week, because Henry Louis Gates is also a friend of yours, in addition to being a friend of this president's. Professor Gates arrested, of course--you see the picture there--in his Cambridge home. The president talked about it at a press conference and then showed up unannounced in the, in the briefing room to address it further. What role do you think he plays or should play in sensitive matters like this?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I think the president did an excellent job in addressing it on Friday when he went to the press room. And, and I think his point is very clear. He said, "Look, maybe I should have chosen different words." But he's going to have a beer with Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley, and I think that's, you know, leadership by example. And I really commend him for that.

MR. GREGORY: But, you know, it's interesting, because issues of race obviously played out in the course of the campaign. And I wonder, do you think the president has a, a special responsibility and plays a special role in terms of race relations for the country?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, if something constructive can come out of this latest incident, it will be that people around the country are, are talking about the continuing challenges we face. You know, obviously the fact that the president exemplifies the progress that has been made over generations, the sacrifices of so many who came before, is a powerful statement in and of itself. His experience added to that, I think, is important for the country to, to see and to digest. But the president has said many times, he's the president of all the people in the United States. He's the president who, you know, wants to, you know, bring people together to solve problems and to make progress together.

MR. GREGORY: All right, we're going to take another short break here and continue in our remaining minutes with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after this brief station break.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: And we're back, our remaining moments with the secretary of state.

I want to ask you about something that you deal with all over the world, and that's the topic of women in leadership. Here was a moment from Delhi University in India during your trip when you were asked a question.

(Videotape, Monday)

Unidentified Woman #2: Madam, today and even day before yesterday in one of your speeches you hinted that the progress of women and the growth of women is directly linked with the progress and growth of any and every country. India has had a woman prime minister as early as in the third decade of its post-independence era, while America has been deprived--if I, if I can say so--of the same privilege.

SEC'Y CLINTON: You can say so to me.

Woman #2: And, and on...

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: What's it going to take for a woman to be president?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, it'll take the right woman who can make the case and win the votes and get elected. And I am certainly hoping that happens in my lifetime. But what was so interesting about that exchange, David, is that I have now, as you said in the beginning, traveled more than 100,000 miles. I've been in, I think, 30 countries. I've done a lot of town halls, because, you know, I believe it's not just diplomacy between government officials, it's diplomacy between people. So I've gone out of my way to do town halls, to do events that have significance to the countries in which I'm visiting. I cannot tell you how many times I've been asked about women in leadership, women in elected office, the role of women in development. This is a subject that is on the minds of people literally around the world.

MR. GREGORY: You say the right woman. You know, supporters of yours I've talked to over time say, "You know what, we're so disappointed, because if she couldn't do it, who can?" I mean, all the establishment support, all the money, married to a former president, all of these things that you had established, and yet you couldn't do it. It's very daunting to a lot of people.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, look, I'm not going to pretend that running for president as a woman is not daunting. It is daunting. And it is, you know, probably a path that doesn't appeal to a lot of women even in elective office, because it is so difficult. But I am convinced--and I don't know if she's in elective office right now or if she's preparing to run for office--but there is a woman who I am hoping will be able to achieve that. Now, obviously, that's up to individual women...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...who have to make this decision for themselves.

MR. GREGORY: This was Governor Sarah Palin, who is stepping down as governor of Alaska, and what she said when she was named to the ticket with John McCain last year.

(Videotape, August 29, 2008)

GOV. SARAH PALIN (R-AK): It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America. But it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Now, you probably don't agree with her politically, but do you believe that Governor Palin represents a woman's chance to become president?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I'm not--I'm out of politics. That's one of the things about being secretary of state. And I would wish her well in her private life as she leaves the office.

MR. GREGORY: Does she have what it takes?

SEC'Y CLINTON: That's up to the voters to determine. It's up to the voters to determine with respect to anyone.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC'Y CLINTON: I mean, putting together a presidential campaign is an extremely complicated enterprise. So I'm just going to leave it at that, and I will be an interested observer. I do want to see a woman elected president. I hope it's a Democratic woman who represents the kind of...

MR. GREGORY: So no endorsement for Governor Palin at this stage?

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...of, kind of approach that I happen to favor.

MR. GREGORY: OK. The question, again, that comes up around the world is what you experienced during an interview on Wednesday in Thailand. Let's roll that.

(Videotape, Wednesday)

Woman #1: Will we ever get to see you as president of the United States?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Wow. That's not anything I'm at all thinking about. I've got a very demanding and exciting job right now, and I'm not somebody who looks ahead. You know, I don't know, but I doubt very much that anything like that will ever, ever be part of my life.

Woman #1: So it's wait and see.

SEC'Y CLINTON: No, no, no, no. I...

Unidentified Man: Never say never.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I am saying no...

Woman #1: For now.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...because I have a very committed attitude toward the job that I'm doing now.

Woman #1: Now.

SEC'Y CLINTON: And so that's not anything that is at all on my radar screen.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: So, you know, I guess we don't have to worry about a free press in Thailand. Right? They kept coming at you.

SEC'Y CLINTON: That was a great--it was a great show. It's one of the things that I've been doing around the world, these interview shows.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

SEC'Y CLINTON: But the answer is no. I don't know how many more...

MR. GREGORY: Right. But you didn't, but you didn't say never.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, you know, I say no, never, you know, not at all. I don't know what, what else to say.

MR. GREGORY: Are you saying you wouldn't entertain another run?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I have absolutely no belief in my mind that that is going to happen, that I have any interest in it happening. You know, as I said, I, I am so focused on what I'm doing. And, you know, I think that the interest in sort of the political dynamics is, you know, obviously fascinating, not just here, but around the world. But, you know, the more common question that I'm asked which I don't think gets enough attention, because it's so important in these emerging democracies, is how could I have run against President Obama all those months, and as hard as I did, and now work with him and work for him?

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: And a lot of countries can't believe that two former competitors could now have made common cause on behalf of our country. Now, I think that's the story. And that, to me, is a message that we're trying to send to the rest of the world that this is the way a democracy works.

MR. GREGORY: Do you still think about the campaign?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Not really. I sometimes, you know, see people who worked so hard for me and who are very committed to electing a woman president someday, and obviously, you know, that provokes emotions in me. But no, I've moved on. I think it's important to move on. I, I'm not somebody--I tell countries all the time, don't get mired in the past. So I'm going to set an example and not do it either.

MR. GREGORY: Any regrets?

SEC'Y CLINTON: No, none at all. I gave it all I had.

MR. GREGORY: Before you go, I want you to react to the ambition of a young woman. This is a young Hillary Rodham writing in sixth grade about ambition.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: "When I grow up, I want to have had the best education I could have possible obtained. If I obtain this, I will probably be able to get a very good job. I want to be either a teacher or a nuclear physics scientist." Now, I have to ask you, has this whole thing--being the senator from New York, running for the presidency--is this all about setting yourself up to be a nuclear physic scientist?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, unfortunately, David, I learned early on that that was not in the cards for me. So, you know, I had to settle for being in public life, which has been a great reward in and of itself.

MR. GREGORY: Is this the story--how the story is playing out is what you expected?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I have to say, you know, I was looking at that. I don't--I think I wrote that in sixth grade. I think it's just a lesson to everybody, you don't know where life may lead you and what your opportunities could be. I did believe, and my mother and father impressed on me the need to get a good education, and I think my family's support and values and the education that I received set me up to be able to take advantage of a lot of these extraordinary opportunities I've been given. I mean, I'm sitting here as a very lucky person, someone who's had a chance to serve the country that I've loved my entire life, that I believe is an exemplar of what is best in human affairs, that I care deeply about our future. So how lucky can you be? I got to serve in the White House when my husband was president, working on issues I care about. I got to represent the greatest state in the country for eight years. And now I get to work with a new president who is so determined to make a better future. I have no complaints at all.

MR. GREGORY: We're going to leave it there. Secretary Clinton, thank you.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Thank you.

MR. GREGORY: Good luck in your important work.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Thank you, David.

The Latest from Iran (25 July): A President Retreats

NEW Iran Video: Zahra Rahnavard on Her Detained Brother
NEW A Turning Point in Iran: The Eclipse of the President
NEW Iran Timeline: How the Supreme Leader Vanquished His President
Iran: How the “New Media” Tore Down the Gates of the “Mainstream”
The Latest from Iran (24 July): Waiting for the Next Move

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis



0630 GMT (26 July): An apology for an exaggeration in the previous entry. The editor of Kayhan did not apologise for the publication of Khamenei's letter; however, he regretted calling First Vice President Rahim-Mashai an "agent of the velvet coup" and claiming that President Ahmadinejad had abandoned the line of the Supreme Leader".

The interpretation, therefore, is not of a Presidential fightback but of a (token) face-saver for Ahmadinejad so he can return to his proper (now very limited) Presidential role in the current political battle.

2120 GMT: A Presidential Fightback? Evening news is dominated by the "United4Iran" demonstrations in 100+ cities across the world, but one intriguing development on the homefront. Ahmadinejad's advisors, through Press Secretary Ali Akbar Javanfekr,  have been criticising the media for publishing the Supreme Leader's letter about Vice President Rahim-Mashai yesterday.

They may have had some effect. This evening. the editor of Kayhan, Hossein Shariatmadari, appeared to apologise for the public attention given to the Khamenei order.


1720 GMT: The Opposition Politicians and Qom. More on the important news of the day, the Khatami-Mousavi-Karroubi letter to Grand Ayatollahs asking them to intervene to free detainees. Keeping the Change has an incisive analysis on both the immediate issue and the wider significance: "Should the Reformists be able to win over a majority of the marjahs [high-ranking clerics], it...would constitute the serious religiously-based challenge to the regime's behavior that the Reformists have been after, but have heretofore been unable to obtain."

1715 GMT: The Confessions Pressure Escalates. Allaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of the Parliamentary commission on national security and foreign policy has also stated his objections to broadcasting the confessions of detainees. Boroujerdi said that, during the meeting of this committee last week with Minister of Intelligence Ejeie, the minister stated "that legal issues make this broadcasting impractical".

1605 GMT: The Next Achilles' Heel? Member of Parliament Ali Motahari has stated: "If the confessions of the detainees are to be broadcast, all instances in which the interrogators have broken the law during the process which sometimes has lead to fatalities must also be investigated".

The statement, echoing the clerical fatwas of Ayatollah Sanei and Bayat-Zanjani, continues, "If these confessions were obtained under normal conditions they would have a useful role in enlightening the public, however, if they are obtained under irregularites they have no use at all....It is possible that the arrests themselves may be legal, but the important issue is whether the detainees have been treated according to islamic regulations, and have they been subjected to mental and physical pressures....We all must uphold the law and try to improve the current situation."

The significance is that Motahari, like Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, is considered a "principlist", the political bloc in Iran distinct from both "conservative" and "reformist" factions. With clerical pressure on the Government increasing, this could be an indication that some outside the Green Movement will be focusing on detentions and interrogations to demand changes in the system.

1600 GMT: Defending the Nation. The lead Iran story on Press TV's website today has been the statement by Revolutionary Guard commander General Mohammad Ali Jafari: "Iranian missiles have the capacity to target Israeli soil if the Zionist regime commits such stupidity including its nuclear sites."

I am sure that the content and timing of Jafari's statement have nothing to do whatsoever with the domestic blows to the Ahmadinejad Presidency, with which the Revolutionary Guard has been closely associated, in the last 48 hours.

1545 GMT: Reports of protests, and action by security forces to break them up, in Vanak and Azadi Squares in Tehran.

1340 GMT: Mir Hossein Mousavi's staff have vigorously denied any contact with foreign embassies over Iran's post-election conflict. The allegation was made on Friday both by Minister of Intelligence Ejeie and Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, the leader of Tehran's prayers.

1330 GMT: Report that Mohammad Reza Yazdan Panah, a journalist and member of the Islamic Iran Participation Front, has been released from detention.

1035 GMT: I am in the midst of an interesting and challenging discussion with Kevin Sullivan of Real Clear World, sparked by a column by Joe Klein of Time. Which should come first: a focus on Iran and the nuclear issue or consideration of the internal political dynamics between the Government and the post-election Green Movement?

0950 GMT: How serious was the argument over the First Vice President? The head of Iran's armed forces, Major General Seyed Hassan Firouzabadi, had written President Ahmadinejad to ask for Rahim-Mashai's dismissal.

0935 GMT: The resignation letter of former First Vice President Rahim-Mashai has been published. Ahmadinejad's response has also appeared: " I had hoped that with the elimination of some negative pressure, you could remain in the First Deputy position."

0900 GMT: Our correspondent Mani sends in important news:

In an open letter, a number of reformist politicians led by Mohammad Khatami, Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi have asked the Grand Ayatollahs of Qom to remind "relevant segments of the establishment" of "the dire consequences" of their "anti-legal methodologies". The letter asks the Grand Ayatollahs to intervene to free the current post-election detainees.

The reformist politicians, stating that arrests have been done with "no legal justification" and have "blackened the name of the Islamic Republic both within Iran and abroad", declare, "The only solution to this situation would include the following: A clear and serious effort to stop the post-election atmosphere of fear and coercion caused by the increased presence of security forces, freeing all detainees, and restoration of the mechanisms by which the accusations of election irregulariites can be legally addressed."

They add, "The families of the detainees have been stonewalled by officials when they have tried to obtain legal recourse; this has caused many problems for these families". The "disturbing news" regarding the physical and mental well-being of the prisoners has exacerbated the level of anxiety already felt by these families.

The authors also challenge state media, calling Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting "the propaganda machine of the coerced confessions project". IRIB, "by broadcasting staged confessions, is attempting to prove spurious charges that have been made against a popular movement".

0725 GMT: Protests are being held in more than 100 cities across the world today in support of the Green Movement. Information is available on the United4Iran website.

0720 GMT: Amidst the uncertainty over how many of the 86 members of the Assembly of Experts have turned against Hashemi Rafsanjani (see 0645 GMT), one has made his position clear. Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Akbar Qoreyshi has written an open letter criticising Rafsanjani for not separating himself from the post-election opposition: “After the Leader’s strong defense [of you] in his Friday Prayers sermon, I told you in a letter that the leader’s defense had solved everything and it would be best that you apologize to him and tell the nation that you have nothing to do with your child or children’s actions....Unfortunately my letter was ignored.”

0710 GMT: More on Karroubi and Iran's Security Forces (see 0645 GMT). Mehdi Karroubi has criticized the treatment of detainees by the security forces in an open letter to Minister of Information Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejeie. Karroubi said recent information from reliable sources caused him deep concern about the conditions of confinement and demanded that Ejeie, carrying out his responsibilities, identify all parties responsible for recent horrific events and asserts that this is the minister's responsibility.

Karroubi, adidng that the withholding of information from the families of detainees is also a cause for great concern, concluded that it is a sorry state of affairs that citizens are treated so poorly by an Islamic Government.

0645 GMT: A relatively quiet Friday sprang into life during the afternoon with the emerging opposition, not only from the Supreme Leader but from across "conservative" ranks, to President Ahmadinejad over the Vice-Presidential appointment of Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai. Ahmadinejad's capitulation last night is so significant that we've covered it in a separate analysis.

Meanwhile, Ayatollah Yousef Sanei has extended his public support of the protest movement with a fatwa moving religious blame from the detainee to the Iranian authorities:

1) If you are under arrest, coerced and put under extreme pressure and forced to make a false confession to stop torture, your false confession is not a sin. However, those responsible for such methods have committed a sin;
2) Confessions that are obtained under duress and torture have absolutely no validity in an Islamic court;
3) Under Islamic and Shia law, interminable interrogations, especially those done arround midnight, are absolutely forbidden.

Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri has issued a fatwa condemning the behaviour of the security forces towards Mehdi Karroubi as he arrived at Friday prayers in Tehran last week. In an incident picked up in widely-distributed photographs, Iranian police jostled Karroubi, knocking off his turban.

Covering the other side of the clerical debate, Keeping the Change digs into this week's supposed declaration of the 86-member Assembly of Experts reaffirming support of the Supreme Leader and, more importantly, seeking the dismissal of Hashemi Rafsanjani as head of the Assembly. The analysis notes the discrepancy between only 16 signatures and state media's claim that 50 clerics (in other words, a majority) support the declaration. In contrast to our own interpretation that this is a power-play by an important pro-regime minority on the Assembly, Keeping the Change concludes:

Many of the Assembly's members owe their positions to Khamanei and have deep loyalties to the Supreme Leader. For them to support the letter, while withholding their names, may be a compromise position that suits both their political passivity and their fidelity to Khamanei.

Latest Iran Video: Zahra Rahnavard, Vanak Square Protests

The Latest from Iran (26 July): United in Protest?
The Latest from Iran (25 July): A President Retreats

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

25 July: Tehran Demonstrations at Night

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sK4VXaOSPI[/youtube]

25 July: Tehran "Down with the Dictator!"

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

25 July: Vanak Square, Tehran

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpuvx7kGoQ8[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/user/IranYouth#play/all/uploads-all/1/O0FFgsgoWso[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/user/IranYouth#play/all/uploads-all/0/KhyXp_I3gQQ[/youtube]

24 July: Zahra Rahnavard, wife of Mir Hossein Mosavi, on Detained Brother (in Farsi)


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cvwwtu0pow[/youtube]

A Turning Point in Iran: The Eclipse of the President

Iran Timeline: How the Supreme Leader Vanquished His President
The Latest from Iran (25 July): A President Retreats

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now President of the Islamic Republic of Iran in little more than name. Last night's dramatic turn of events, with the First Vice President Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai "resigning", was the most public of humiliations for Ahmadinejad, even if many in the non-Iranian media were slow to figure out what had occurred.

We were saying as early as 16 June that the President was a relatively weak actor in the post-election play. His position was almost completely dependent on the Supreme Leader's decision to declare his electoral "victory", and after his far too-bold declaration of triumph over the "dust" of his opposition on 13-14 June, he quickly disappeared from the central stage. There were halting attempts to regain some authority,  such as a national television address and an appearance in Mashaad, but these turned from serious political drama into farce. (In retrospect, the moment when a Giant Mysterious Bug defeated Ahmadinejad during his TV speech may be the symbolic moment when the President was put in his place, although the YouTube video of Mahmoud and his Multi-Coloured Charts should not be missed, either.)

Many in the media, however, especially in the "West", relied upon the simple formula of Supreme Leader + President = Regime, thus missing the reality of Ahmadinejad's parlous situation. Thus, it was only yesterday, when many journalists belatedly noticed Ayatollah Khamenei's opposition to the Rahim-Mashai appointment, that the President's weakness was exposed. This was not just a case of a Supreme Leader slapdown; Ahmadinejad had alienated a large number of his political and religious supporters. "Conservative" politicians, members of parliaments, senior clerices, and even students in the Basiji movement were publicly insisting that the Vice President be dismissed as soon as possible.

So exit Stage Right, Mahmoud, for your loss is our gain. With the apparent resolution of this dispute within the regime, the battlefront again becomes the extent of the opposition's challenge to the regime. Does the Green Movement and powerful figures like Hashemi Rafsanjani concentrate on the continued pounding of Ahmadinejad into "dust" or do they go further, calling for institutional change to reduce the Presidency to near-vassal status? I doubt that will be the case (no least because one Hashemi Rafsanjani may still have Presidential ambitions, either for himself or a close ally, as does one Mir Hossein Mousavi).

So how do the opposition leaders re-position the Presidency in relation to the Supreme Leader? And will the activists in the Movement, both behind the scenes and on the street, accept the extent of the reform?

Put bluntly, will the weakening of the President now lead to the prospect of the weakening of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?