Juan Cole already has a run down of some of the things Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei said in response to President Obama’s message on the occasion of Iranian New Year and the press coverage of it. I think Juan’s point about the speech not being a rebuff is on the money, but I do take issue with his characterization of the speech being more like a “grumpy old man response to Obama's call for engagement.”
I say this because I think the translations of the bits and pieces of the speech in the news (even the Persian language Farsnews upon which Juan relies) do not do justice to this carefully crafted response intended to set the parameters of US-Iran talks if they are to happen.
For those who can understand Persian, I recommend that you check Khamenei’s website. The Persian language section of the website - the site has translations in 12 other languages – has both the video of his speech as well as the whole text. The English section also has an abbreviated English translation which is decent but still does not relay the feel you get by watching the whole speech.
The speech was quite long, first dealing with domestic affairs and focusing mostly on the need to curb the consumption of resources. But it gets interesting around minute 40 when he explains why his public support for President Ahmadinejad should not be construed as support for him as a candidate in the next presidential election. This is of course a big issue for Iran’s domestic politics and the fact that the leader himself had to address it was significant since Ahmadinejad supporters are working very hard to give the impression that he is his candidate
The move to the subject of US-Iran talks is abrupt and Khamenei makes clear that this is the only external issue with which he will deal, spending more than 20 minutes on it. It is a powerful speech, calmly delivered, and mostly devoid of usual jargon. He does talk about US policies that have harmed Iran and continue to harm it, including sanctions, freezing of assets, support for opposition and secessionist groups, and Baluchi insurgents - communications of whom with US operatives he says the Iranian government has intercepted.
But he mentions these as reasons why mere conciliatory speeches cannot be considered real change in American policy. More significantly, he mentions them in order to explain why the continuation of these hostile policies has to make Iran wonder whether President Obama’s gestures are of any value: “They say they have extended their hands towards Iran. If the extended hand has a velvet glove but under it is an iron cast hand, then this does not have a good meaning.”
This leads to the point: “They say come and talk, come and establish relations, they change slogans. Well, where is this change? Clarify this for us; what has changed? Have you unfrozen the assets of the Iranian people; have you lifted the oppressive sanctions…? We do not have any experience with the new American government and president; we will look and judge. You change, and we will also change our behavior too.”
He also makes a clever play on the usual way the American policy community talks about Iran, turning it against US and saying “I don’t know who really makes policy in the US – the president, Congress or behind the scene players.” But no matter who makes decisions in the US, Iran makes decision "rationally and not based on emotions." The bottom line is: “Our nation dislikes it when you again proclaim ‘talks with pressure’; we talk to Iran while we pressure them as well – threat and inducement. You cannot talk to our nation this way."
Juan Cole interprets this complaint about US foreign policy as “Iran’s initial bargaining position which include everything but the kitchen sink.” I don’t.
Khamenei’s speech actually shows how attuned he is to debates in Washington. He makes no calls for U.S. apology for past actions. His focus is today. No doubt he wants sanctions to be lifted, assets unfrozen, and attempts to undermine the Iranian government ended at some point as a result of talks with the U.S.
But his concern now is the argument forwarded by powerful circles in Washington that negotiations with Iran should be combined with increased pressure to make sure that Iran will give in at the end. It is this type of what he calls “condescending language, arrogant approach, and patronizing moves” that he rejects.
Clearly from his view, engagement in talks must be accompanied with some concrete steps that show Iran that the United States is interested in a process and give and take and not a process based on “either deception or intimidation.” Deception because the objective remains the same while the softer language is a mere tactical change. Intimidation because talks are combined with further squeeze of Iran.
He leaves no doubt that further squeezing of Iran leading up to talks and during the talks will be seen as a sign that President Obama’s rhetoric of change is a farce. As such the speech should really be seen as a carefully calibrated attempt to shape the debate in Washington on how to go about talking to Iran.
While most of the media is moving on from Friday's message by Barack Obama and the Iranian response, there is still a disturbing whiff of "Tehran rejects US" in today's stories. For example, Katherine Butler of The Independent of London bluntly asks, "Why has Iran apparently dismissed Barack Obama's call for 'a new beginning?"
It's an easy, sometimes lazy interpretation which fits the pre-conception of hard-line, intransigent Iranian leaders, and in this case, it's flat-out wrong. As our colleague Seyed Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran says in a more sensible Reuters analysis, "Iran sets terms for U.S. ties", "I think they [the Iranian leadership] are quite willing to have better relations if the Americans are serious." Khamenei's website offers a summary, "Supreme Leader Demands Genuine Change in US policies".
So here, courtesy of Juan Cole, is the US Government's translation of the speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini on Friday. And, in a separate entry, Farideh Farhi offers an incisive analysis of the possibilities in the Iranian response.
AYATOLLAH KHAMENEI: Regarding the foreign affairs of our country, I would like to mention one point, and that is the issue between us and the United States. One of the main challenges for the Revolution, right from the beginning, was the same issue. Right from the first day of the Revolution's victory, a phase was opened for the Iranian nation, as a major test in its relations and interactions with the government of the United States of America. This major and important test continued for the past 30 years. The US Government faced this Revolution with an angry and frowning face, and opposed us from the beginning. Of course, they had the right to do so, considering their own calculations.
Before the Revolution, Iran was in the hands of the United States, its vital resources were in the hands of the United States, its political decision-making centers were in the hands of the United States, decisions to appoint and depose its vital centers were in the hands of the United States, and it (Iran) was like a field for the United States, the US military, and others on which to graze. Well, this was taken away from them. They could have expressed their opposition in not such an aggressive manner. But from the beginning of the Revolution, both their Republican presidents, and the Democrats, did not behave well toward the Islamic Republic. This is not secret from anyone.
(People chant: "Death to America")
Pay attention, the first measure taken by the United States was to provoke the scattered opposition groups of the Islamic Republic, and to support terrorism and disintegration in the country. They started this right from the beginning. In any parts of the country, where there were grounds for disintegration, the United States had a hand, we noticed their money, and at times their agents. This cost our people much. Unfortunately, this continues. The bandits in the Iran-Pakistan border areas, we know that some of them -- as we have their voices (as received) -- are in touch with Americans.
They have wireless communications, and take orders from them. Bandits, terrorists, murderers, are in touch with US officers in a neighboring country. Unfortunately, this still goes on. This was the beginning of what they started. Then it was the confiscation of property and goods belonging to Iran. The former regime gave a large amount of money to the United States to buy airplanes, helicopters, and weapons from them. Some of them over there were prepared, and when the Revolution took place, they did not deliver them. They did not give back the money, which amounted to millions of dollars. And the strange point is that they kept these goods in a store, and considered storage charges for it, which they claimed from the Algeria Agreement. To take away some goods from a nation, confiscate them, and fail to deliver them, and then claim storage charges for it! This is the kind of behavior started then, which continues. Our possessions are still there. They belong to the Iranian nation. They are in the United States and also some European countries. We referred to them over the past years, and asked them to give us what belongs to us and what we paid for. They said that since they are under the license of the United States, the United States does not allow them to do so; they cannot return them to us, and they are still there.
They showed Saddam (late Iraqi president) a green light. This was another plan by the US Government to attack Iran. If Saddam did not have the green light from the United States, he would have not attacked our borders. They imposed eight years of war on our country. About 300,000 of our young people, our people, were martyred in this eight-year war. In these eight years (Iran-Iraq war), particularly in the last few years of it, the United States constantly supported Saddam and helped him financially, with ammunition, and political advice. They provided him with satellite information. They had information facilities. They recorded the movements of our forces by satellite, and transferred this information the very same day to Saddam's HQ to use against our young people and forces.
They (the United States) closed their eyes to Saddam's crimes. The Halabcheh (southern Iranian town bordering Iraq) incident took place, hitting various towns of our country with missiles. They destroyed houses, they used chemical bombs on the frontlines, they still closed their eyes. They did not object at all. They helped Saddam. This was another one of the acts of this government over the years toward our country and our nation.
(People chant)
Then, please pay attention; there is a lot of time for chanting. Toward the end of the war, a US officer hit our airplane on the Persian Gulf with a missile from a warship. Some 290, about 300, passengers were in this plane, and they were all killed. And then, instead of punishing that officer, the US President of that time awarded that officer and gave him a medal. Now, should our nation forget this? Can it forget? They supported criminal terrorists who killed men, women, people, great scholars, even little children in our country. They (the United States) allowed them (terrorists) to be active in their country. They constantly released aggressive propaganda against our country. Constantly!
In the past years, US Presidents, particularly during the eight years of the former president (referring to President George W. Bush), whenever he said something against the Iranian nation, against our country, against our officials, against the Islamic Republic system, he said something absurd and nonsensical. He did not respect the Iranian nation. It was always like this over the years. They disturbed the security and peace in our region, security in the Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They brought massive quantities of weapons to the regional countries, in order to stand against the Islamic Republic, in fact to fill the pockets of armaments factories.
They unconditionally supported Israel, the cruel Zionist regime. You witnessed one example of its (Israel's) cruelty in Gaza in the past two, three months. What a disaster they created. How many children they killed, how many men and women they killed. In 22 days they killed 5,000 people in Gaza with bombardments, missiles, and direct shootings. In the meanwhile they supported it. The US Government supported it until the very last moment. Whenever the Security Council wanted to issue a resolution against the Zionist regime, the United States stepped forward and defended (Israel), and did not let it happen. It (the United States) threatened our country on any occasion. It constantly said that it will attack us. They said that they had a military plan ready on the desk, they will do this, and they will do that.
They constantly talked against our country and threatened our nation. Of course, these threats did not affect our nation, but they showed their enmity by doing so. They insulted the Iranian nation, the Iranian government, and the Iranian president, over and over again. Some years ago, an American said that the Iranian nation must be eradicated. In the past few years, a US official said that a nice and moderate Iranian is one that was killed, who is dead. They insulted this great and honorable nation, the nation whose only fault is to defend its identity and independence in such ways.
They imposed sanctions on our country for 30 years. Of course, these sanctions were in our benefit. With this regard, we must thank the United States.
If they had not imposed sanctions on us, we would have not reached this level of science and progress. Sanctions constantly made us aware, made us think about ourselves, and be innovative. But they did not mean to serve us like this. They wanted to be antagonist. This is how they treated the Iranian nation for 30 years, and now the new US Government says that they would like to negotiate with Iran, that we should forget the past. They say that they extended their arm towards Iran. What kind of a hand? If it is an iron hand covered with a velvet glove, then it will not make any good sense. They congratulate the Iranian nation on the occasion of the New Year (Iranian New Year started 20 March 2009), but in the same message call the Iranian nation supporters of terrorism, who seek nuclear weapons, and accuse it of such things.
I would like to say that I do not know who makes decisions for the United States, the President, the Congress, elements behind the scenes? But I would like to say that we have logic. Since the beginning, the Iranian nation moved with logic. Regarding our vital issues, we are not sentimental. We do not make decisions based on emotion. We make decisions through calculation. They tell us to negotiate, to start relations. They have the slogan of change.
Where is the change? What has changed? Clarify this to us. What changed? Has your enmity toward the Iranian nation changed? What signs are there to support this? Have you released the possessions of the Iranian nation? Have you removed the cruel sanctions? Have you stopped the insults, accusations, and negative propaganda against this great nation and its officials? Have you stopped your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? What has changed? They talk of change, but there are no changes in actions. We have not seen any changes. Even the literature has not changed. The new US President, from the very moment of his official appointment as President, made a speech, and insulted Iran and the Islamic government. Why? If you tell the truth, and there are changes, where are these changes? Why can we see nothing? I would like to say this to everyone. US officials should also know that the Iranian nation cannot be fooled, or scared.
(People chant)
First of all... (Interrupted by chanting)
Changes in words are not adequate; although we have not seen much of a change there either. Change must be real. I would like to say this to US officials, that this change that you talk about is a real necessity; you have no other choice, you must change. If you do not change, then divine traditions will change you, the world will change you. You must change, but this change cannot be in words only. It should not come with unhealthy intentions. You may say that you want to change policies, but not your aims, that you will change tactics. This is not change. This is deceit.
There can be true change, which should be seen in action. I advise US officials, whoever is the decision-maker in the United States, whether the President, Congress, or others, that the US Government has not worked to the benefit of the American people. Today, you are hated in the world. You should know this, if you do not already. Nations set fire to your flag. Muslim nations across the world chant "Death to America."
(People chant: "Death to America")
What is the reason behind this hatred? Have you ever studied this? Analyzed it? Have you learnt from it? The reason is, that you treat the world like a pupil, you talk snobbishly, you want to impose your own will on the world, you interfere in the affairs of other countries, and you implement double-sided criteria. When a young Palestinian is forced to perform some act of martyrdom, because of the pressure he is under, you bombard him with a mass of propaganda, and on the other hand you ignore the crimes of the Zionist regime, while it creates such a disaster in Gaza for 22 days. You call that young man a terrorist, and you say that you are committed towards the security of such a terrorist regime. These are the reasons that they hate you around the world.
This is advice to you. For your own benefit, for your own good, for the future of your country, restrain from your snobbish attitude, hegemony, and your lecturing attitude. Do not interfere in the affairs of other nations. Be happy with your own rights. Do not define benefits for yourself in various parts of the world. You will see that the United States will gradually lose its hated image in the world. These deed have made you hated.
Listen to these words. This is my advice to US officials, the President, and others. Listen well to these words, and have them translated for you. Of course, do not give it to the Zionists to translate for you. Consult healthy people, and seek their opinions.
If the US Government continues its same behavior, method, course, policies against us, as in the past 30 years, we are the same people, the same nation that we were for the past 30 years.
(People chant)
Please pay attention. If you go on with the slogan of discussion and pressure, saying that you will negotiate with Iran, and at the same time impose pressure, threats, and changes, then our nation will not like such words. We do not have any experience with the new US President and Government. We shall see and judge. You change, and we shall change as well. If you do not change, our people became more and more experienced, stronger, and more patient in the past 30 years.
Update (23 March): President Zardari has responded to the political manoeuvres with his own call for reconciliation. In an address on Pakistan Day, he asked "everyone to work in the spirit of tolerance, mutual accommodation and respect for dissent and invite everyone to participate in the national effort for ... reconciliation and healing the wounds".
I'm not sure if this development will be noticed in the British and American press, but it could be the sign of a political arrangement for a new coalition Government and the political demise of President Asif Ali Zardari.
Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) responded in kind, saying it has no objection to a coalition government with the PPP in Punjab. Presumably this would include the restoration of Shahbaz Sharif as Chief Minister of the province.
And the striking absence in the Dawn story? Not a word from President Zardari.
More importantly, Meshaal made clear that Hamas is ready to take a relationship with the Obama Administration to the next level, notably the hand-holding and chats that would come with Washington's recognition of the Palestinian organisation:
The challenge for everybody is for this to be the prelude for a genuine change in US and European policies. Regarding an official opening toward Hamas, it's a matter of time.
The analysis of La Republicca was that Meshaal was riding the wave of Obama's Friday message to Iran; however, the Hamas leader made no reference to that US initiative. Instead, his comments should be read in light of Gaza. They are a signal that Hamas has not only survived the Israeli onslaught of December but has emerged politically stronger, and it is a clear challenge to Washington to recognise that "reality":
The great powers need us in order to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Our weight in the Palestinian problem comes from us being rooted in the society, in the population, which voted for us and will do it again.
Frustratingly, CBS News has not yet posted a transcript of last night's broadcast interview with President Obama. However, it has posted a lengthy summary, which we've posted below the two-part video. Unsurprisingly, the discussion was dominated by the US economy; however, in the second half (before puff-piece questioning about Obama's daily routine, life in the White House, etc.), the conversation moved to Afghanistan. We'll have more on that later today, but you might also enjoy the President's point-scoring against former Vice President Dick Cheney:
"Were you surprised by the intensity of the reaction, and the hostility from the AIG bonus debacle?" 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft asked.
"I wasn't surprised by it. Our team wasn't surprised by it. The one thing that I've tried to emphasize, though, throughout this week, and will continue to try to emphasize during the course of the next several months as we dig ourselves out of this economic hole that we're in, we can't govern outta anger. We've got to try to make good decisions based on the facts in order to put people back to work, to get credit flowing again. And I'm not gonna be distracted by what's happening day to day. I've gotta stay focused on making sure that we're getting this economy moving again," President Obama replied.
The president ordered Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to use every legal means to recover the bonus money from AIG. If it is not repaid, it will be deducted from the company's next bailout payment. The House decided to extract its own revenge by passing a bill that would impose a tax of up to 90 percent on the AIG bonuses and on the bonuses of anyone making more than $250,000 a year who works for a financial institution receiving more than $5 billion in bailout funds.
"I mean you're a constitutional law professor," Kroft remarked. "You think this bill's constitutional?"
"Well, I think that as a general proposition, you don't wanna be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals. You wanna pass laws that have some broad applicability. And as a general proposition, I think you certainly don't wanna use the tax code to punish people," the president replied. "I think that you've got an pretty egregious situation here that people are understandably upset about. And so let's see if there are ways of doing this that are both legal, that are constitutional, that upholds our basic principles of fairness, but don't hamper us from getting the banking system back on track."
"You've got a piece of legislation that could affect tens of thousands of people. Some of these people probably had nothing to do with the financial crisis. And some of them probably deserve the bonuses that they got," Kroft said. "I mean is that fair?"
"Well, that's why we're gonna have to take a look at this legislation carefully. Clearly, the AIG folks gettin' those bonuses didn't make sense. And one of the things that I have to do is to communicate to Wall Street that, given the current crisis that we're in, they can't expect help from taxpayers but they enjoy all the benefits that they enjoyed before the crisis happened. You get a sense that, in some institutions, that has not sunk in; that you can't go back to the old way of doing business, certainly not on the taxpayers' dime," Obama said. "Now the flip side is that Main Street has to understand, unless we get these banks moving again, then we can't get this economy to recover. And we don't wanna cut off our nose to spite our face."
"Your Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has been under a lot of pressure this week. And there have been people in Congress calling for his head. …Have there been discussions in the White House about replacing him?" Kroft asked.
"No," Obama said.
Asked if Geithner had volunteered or asked whether to step down, Obama told Kroft, "No. And he shouldn't. And if he were to come to me, I'd say, 'Sorry, Buddy. You've still got the job.' But look, he's got a lot of stuff on his plate. And he is doing a terrific job. And I take responsibility for not, I think, having given him as much help as he needs."
Obama says Geithner is not only responsible for the banks, the bailouts and the automobile industry, he also has to make sure the money is being spent wisely and report to Congress. Yet nearly a dozen high level Treasury department jobs remain unfilled and Geithner still has no deputy. Two people under consideration for the post withdrew their names after going through the vetting process.
"You know, this whole confirmation process, as I mentioned earlier has gotten pretty tough. It's been always tough. It's gotten tougher in the age of 24/7 news cycles. And a lot of people who we think are about to serve in the administration and Treasury suddenly say, 'Well, you know what? I don't wanna go through some of the scrutiny, embarrassment, in addition to taking huge cuts in pay,'" Obama explained.
"Have you offered some of these high level positions [in] the Treasury to people who would have turned them down?" Kroft asked.
"Absolutely. Yeah. And not because people didn't wanna serve. I think that people just felt that, you know, that the process has gotten very onerous," Obama said.
"Your Treasury secretary's plan, Geithner's plan, and your plan really for solving the banking crisis was met with very, very, very tepid response. A lot of people said they didn't understand it. A lot of people said it didn't have any, enough details to solve the problem. I know you're coming out with something next week on this. But these criticisms were coming from people like Warren Buffett, people who had supported you, and you had counted as being your supporters," Kroft said.
"And Warren still does support me. But I think that understand Warren's also a big player in the financial markets who's a major owner of Wells Fargo. And so he's got a perspective from the perspective of somebody who is part-owner of a bank. You've got members of Congress who've got a different perspective. Which is, 'We don't wanna spend any more taxpayer money.' You've got a whole host of players, all of whom may have a completely different solution. Right?" Obama said.
"And you know, one of the challenges that Tim Geithner has had is the same challenge that anybody would have in this situation. People want a lot of contradictory things. You know, the banks would love a lot of taxpayer money with no strings attached. Folks in Congress, as well as the American people, would love to fix the banks without spending any money. And so at a certain point, you know, you've got just a very difficult line to walk."
"You need the financial community to solve this crisis," Kroft remarked. "Do you think that the people on Wall Street and the people in the financial community that you need trust you, believe in you?"
"Part of my job is to communicate to them. Look, I believe in the market. I believe in financial innovation. And I believe in success. I want them to do well. But what I also know is that the financial sector was out of balance. You look at how finance used to operate just 20 years ago, or 25 years ago. People, if you went into investment banking, you were making 20 times what a teacher made. You weren't making 200 times what a teacher made," Obama said.
"There is a perception right now, at least in New York, which is where I live and work. People feel they thought that you were going to be supportive. And now I think there are a lot of people the say, 'Look, we're not gonna be able to keep our best people. They're not gonna stay and work here for $250,000 a year when they can go work for a hedge fund, if they can find one that's still working and make a lot more," Kroft remarked.
"I've told them directly, 'cause I've heard some of this. They need to spend a little time outside of New York. Because you know, if you go to North Dakota, or you go to Iowa, or you go to Arkansas, where folks would be thrilled to be making $75,000 a year without a bonus, then I think they'd get a sense of why people are frustrated," Obama said.
"I think we have to understand the severity of the crisis that we're in right now. The fact is that, because of bad bets made on Wall Street, there have been enormous losses. I mean there were a whole bunch of folks who, on paper, if you looked at quarterly reports, were wildly successful, selling derivatives that turned out to be completely worthless," he added.
And they were insuring them.
"Now you know, gosh, I don't think it's me being anti-Wall Street just to point out that the best and the brightest didn't do too well on that front, and that you know, maybe the incentive structures that have been set up have not produced the kinds of long term growth that I think everybody's looking for," Obama said.
Asked if he was surprised at the depth of the recession when he took office, Obama told Kroft, "I don't think that we anticipated how steep the decline would be, particularly in employment. I mean if you look at just, you know, hundreds of thousands - now millions - of jobs being shed over the course of two months or three months, that slope is a lot steeper than anything that we've said we've seen before."
"Now, there's a potential silver lining, which may be that things are so accelerated now, the modern economy is so intertwined and wired, that things happen really fast for ill, but things may recover faster than they have in the past," he added.
"Do you believe that there's still some systemic risk out there? That the financial system could still implode if you had a big failure at AIG or at Citicorp?" Kroft asked.
"Yes," Obama said.
"Citibank?" Kroft asked.
"I think that systemic risks are still out there. And if we did nothing you could still have some big problems. There are certain institutions that are so big that if they fail, they bring a lot of other financial institutions down with them. And if all those financial institutions fail all at the same time, then you could see an even more destructive recession and potentially depression," Obama said. "I'm optimistic about that not happening."
The president said there is a limit to the amount of money the government can spend and print to solve the crisis. Asked if the government is getting close to that limit, Obama said, "The limit is our ability to finance these expenditures through borrowing. And, you know, the United States is fortunate that it has the largest, most stable economic and political system around. And so the dollar is still strong because people are still buying Treasury Bills. They still think that's the safest investment out there."
"If we don't get a handle on this, and also start looking at our long-term deficit projections, at a certain point people will stop buying those Treasury Bills," Obama added.
"Do you have any idea when this might end? Or when things might start getting better?" Kroft asked.
"Well, we're already starting to see flickers of hope out there. Refinancings have significantly increased. Interest rates have never been lower. That promises the possibility at least of the housing market bottoming out and stabilizing. It’s not going to happen equally in every part of the country," Obama said.
On the subject of the ailing automobile industry, the president said he is still committed to helping General Motors and Chrysler avert bankruptcy, but he says they have yet to demonstrate they can remain economically viable. And there are major political obstacles.
"I just wanna say that the only thing less popular than putting money into banks is putting money into the auto industry," Obama said.
"Eighteen percent are in favor," Kroft pointed out. "Seventy-six percent against."
"It's not a high number," Obama acknowledged, with a chuckle.
"You're sitting here. And you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people gonna look at this and say, 'I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about money.' How do you deal with, I mean, explain the…mood and your laughter," Kroft asked. "Are you punch drunk?"
"No, no. There's gotta be a little gallows humor to get you through the day," Obama explained. "You know, sometimes my team talks about the fact that if you had said to us a year ago that the least of my problems would be Iraq, which is still a pretty serious problem, I don't think anybody would have believed it. But we've got a lot on our plate. And a lot of difficult decisions that we're gonna have to make."
One of those difficult decisions is Afghanistan. Asked what that mission should be, Obama said, "Making sure that al Qaeda cannot attack the U.S. homeland and U.S. interests and our allies. That's our number one priority. And in service of that priority there may be a whole host of things that we need to do. We may need to build up economic capacity in Afghanistan. We may need to improve our diplomatic efforts in Pakistan."
"We may need to bring a more regional diplomatic approach to bear. We may need to coordinate more effectively with our allies. But we can't lose sight of what our central mission is. The same mission that we had when we went in after 9/11. And that is these folks can project violence against the United States' citizens. And that is something that we cannot tolerate," Obama said. "But what we can't do is think that just a military approach in Afghanistan is gonna be able to solve our problems. So what we're looking for is a comprehensive strategy. And there's gotta be an exit strategy. There's gotta be a sense that this is not perpetual drift."
"Afghanistan has proven to be very hard to govern. This should not come as news to anybody given its history," Kroft said. "As the graveyards of empire. And there are people now who are concerned. We need to be careful what we're getting ourselves into in Afghanistan. Because we have come to be looked upon there by people in Afghanistan, and even people now in Pakistan…as another foreign power coming in, trying to take over the region."
"I'm very mindful of that. And so is my national security team. So is the Pentagon. Afghanistan is not going to be easy in many ways. And this is not my assessment. This is the assessment of commanders on the ground," Obama explained.
"Iraq was actually easier than Afghanistan. It's easier terrain. You've got a much better educated population, infrastructure to build off of. You don't have some of the same destabilizing border issues that you have between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And so this is gonna be a tough nut to crack. But it is not acceptable for us to simply sit back and let safe havens of terrorists plan and plot," he added.
"One question about Dick Cheney and Guantanamo. I'm sure you wanna answer this," Kroft said. "A week ago Vice President Cheney said essentially that your willingness to shut down Guantanamo and to change the way prisoners are treated and interrogated was making America weaker and more vulnerable to another attack. And that the interrogation techniques that were used at Guantanamo were essential in preventing another attack against the United States."
"I fundamentally disagree with Dick Cheney. Not surprisingly. You know, I think that Vice President Cheney has been at the head of a movement whose notion is somehow that we can't reconcile our core values, our Constitution, our belief that we don't torture, with our national security interests. I think he's drawing the wrong lesson from history," Obama said.
"The facts don't bear him out. I think he is, that attitude, that philosophy has done incredible damage to our image and position in the world. I mean, the fact of the matter is after all these years how many convictions actually came out of Guantanamo? How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? It hasn't made us safer. What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment. Which means that there is constant effective recruitment of Arab fighters and Muslim fighters against U.S. interests all around the world," he added.
"Some of it being organized by a few people who were released from Guantanamo," Kroft pointed out.
"Well, there is no doubt that we have not done a particularly effective job in sorting through who are truly dangerous individuals that we've got to make sure are not a threat to us, who are folks that we just swept up. The whole premise of Guantanamo promoted by Vice President Cheney was that somehow the American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists. I fundamentally disagree with that. Now, do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not," Obama said.
Asked what should be done with these people, Obama said, "Well, I think we're gonna have to figure out a mechanism to make sure that they not released and do us harm. But do so in a way that is consistent with both our traditions, sense of due process, international law. But this is the legacy that's been left behind. And, you know, I'm surprised that the vice president is eager to defend a legacy that was unsustainable. Let's assume that we didn't change these practices. How long are we gonna go? Are we gonna just keep on going until you know, the entire Muslim world and Arab world despises us? Do we think that's really gonna make us safer? I don't know a lot of thoughtful thinkers, liberal or conservative, who think that that was the right approach."
Aside from running the Harvard Law Review and directing his own presidential campaign, President Barack Obama entered the White House with no real executive experience.
Now he is grappling with the challenges of running one of the largest enterprises in the world under the most trying circumstances. How is he handling the pressure, what is an average day like and how are his wife Michelle and their young daughters adjusting? The president talked about all of that as he gave 60 Minutes a tour of the White House grounds.
Asked if he's gotten into a routine, Obama told Kroft, "I have. You know, I typically work out in the morning. Michelle's often there with me. We do our little workout, and then after the workout, have breakfast, read the papers, read my morning security briefing. And then I come down here and talk to our National Security team. Then we talk to the economic team. After that, who knows? Anything goes. But typically, between 7:00 and 10:00 I sort of know what I'm doing."
Walking on the White House grounds, Obama pointed up at the living quarters of the executive mansion. "This is the living quarters, up on the second floor. We got a gym right over there, up on the third floor. And the second floor is, our bedroom's on this side, and we got a dining room on that side. And, yeah, pretty nice digs," the president told Kroft.
"How are you finding the job?" Kroft asked.
"It's exhilarating. It's challenging you know, I find that the governance part of it, the decision making part of it, actually comes pretty naturally. I think I've got a great team. I think we're making good decisions. The hardest thing about the job is staying focused. Because there's so many demands and decisions that are pressed upon you," Obama explained.
Asked what the hardest decisions has been that he's had to make in the last 60 days, Obama said, "Well, I would say that the decision to send more troops into Afghanistan. You know, I think it's the right thing to do. But it's a weighty decision because we actually had to make the decision prior to the completion of strategic review that we were conducting. When I make a decision to send 17,000 young Americans to Afghanistan, you can understand that intellectually - but understanding what that means for those families, for those young people when you end up sitting at your desk, signing a condolence letter to one of the family members of a fallen hero, you're reminded each and every day at every moment that the decisions you make count."
"What is the most frustrating part of the job?" Kroft asked.
"The fact that you are often confronted with bad choices that flow from less than optimal decisions made a year ago, two years ago, five years ago, when you weren't here," Obama said. "A lot of times, when things land at my desk it's a choice between bad and worse. And as somebody pointed out to me, the only things that land on my desk are tough decisions. Because, if they were easy decisions, somebody down the food chain's already made them."
The president told Kroft he has to make lots of decisions daily - too many to count.
"Every time somebody walks in your office," Kroft remarked.
"There's a decision. Otherwise, they don't get a meeting," Obama said.
For meetings and decisions, Obama said he's always briefed before it happens. "I spend a lot of time reading. People keep on asking me, 'Well, what are you reading these days?' Well, mostly briefing books. You know, you get a little time to read history or you know, policy books that are of interest. But there's a huge amount of information that has to be digested, especially right now. Because the complexities of Afghanistan are matched, maybe even dwarfed, by the complexities of the economic situation. And there are a lot of moving parts to all of that."
Asked if he ever takes a day off, Obama told Kroft, "I do. It's never a full day, but typically Saturdays and Sundays. I'll wander down to the Oval Office I will do some work, but I'll still have time for the kids.
On most days, the president says he and the first lady are able to have a family dinner with their children. And he usually sees his two daughters in the afternoon when they come home from school and pay him a visit in the West Wing. He can look out the window of the Oval Office, and watch them play on their new swing set.
"This is a pretty spectacular swing set," Obama said. "I have to say that I was not the purchaser of this. The admiral, our chief usher, Admiral Steve Rochon, took great interest when we said that we should get a swing set, and found what I assume must be the Rolls Royce of swing sets."
"You didn't have one of these when you were a kid?" Kroft asked.
"I sure did not. I thought we were gonna get like two swings. But they went all out," Obama replied with a chuckle.
The Obamas' daughters have had kids over at the White House after school. "And they've tested this out," Obama said of the swing set. "And it got a thumbs up."
Asked if they're liking it in the White House, Obama said, "You know, they are adapting remarkably in ways that I just would not have expected."
"What's interesting is actually how unimpressed they are with it," the president said. "I mean they're going to school. They are unchanged. They're the same sweet, engaging, happy unpretentious kids that they were"
"And they're having fun," Kroft said.
"They do seem to be have fun. And Michelle is thriving as well. I mean she just started a vegetable garden out here," Obama said. "All the chefs from the White House staff went down there with her. And they started diggin' ground. And they're gonna be planting stuff. And this is part of the message that she wants to send about good nutrition."
Michelle Obama had broken ground for the vegetable garden a few hours earlier on the South Lawn, with the help of some Washington school children; it's just a small patch of land on the sprawling White House grounds that cover 18 acres. As for the 55,000 square foot house, the first family is still exploring the 132 rooms and 35 bathrooms.
The president admitted he has gotten lost in the executive mansion - repeatedly.
"Harry Truman called the White House 'The Great White Jail.' Clinton said he couldn't make up his mind whether it was the finest public housing in America or the jewel of the prison system," Kroft said.
"The bubble that the White House represents is tough," Obama acknowledged. "And one of the things that I am constantly struggling with is how to break out of it. And I've taken to the practice of reading ten letters selected from the 40,000 that we get every night, just to hear from voices outside of my staff. But the inability to just go, and you know, sit at a corner coffee shop and have a chat with people, or just listen to what folks are saying at the next table, that I think, is something that, as president, you've gotta constantly fight against."
Monday, March 23, 2009 at 12:08 
Reprinted from Informed Comment:
While most of the media is moving on from Friday's message by Barack Obama and the Iranian response, there is still a disturbing whiff of "Tehran rejects US" in today's stories. For example, 
Update (23 March): President Zardari has responded to the political manoeuvres with his own call for reconciliation. 
Barack Obama has a new admirer.