The Latest from Iran (30 September): Confusion

NEW Iran: Mousavi Meeting with Reformists (30 September)
Iran: Karroubi Letter to Rafsanjani (27 September)
NEW Video/Transcript: “Will Israel Attack Iran?”
Iran Top-Secret: The President’s Gmail Account
Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Obama Backs Himself into a Corner
UPDATED Iran: So What’s This “National Unity Plan”?


The Latest from Iran (29 September): The Forthcoming Test?

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

2040 GMT: We now have an English translation of the Mousavi meeting with the reformists, posted in a separate entry.

1910 GMT: Parleman News has updated and extended its summary of the Mousavi meeting with reformist faction Imam Khomeini Line. The story reiterates the significant shift in Mousavi's approach that we have noted (1240 GMT, 1615 GMT, 1800 GMT).

1900 GMT: Overseas Mystery of Night. Why is Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Washington? I presume it's to visit the Smithsonian Institution and maybe the National Art Gallery, since the State Department denies he is seeing US officials.

The party line is that Mottaki, having been in New York for the United Nations meeting, is visiting the Iranian Interests Section at the Pakistan Embassy. No explanation, however, of what he has been doing in the several days after the UN gathering. (AP has an English summary.)

1815 GMT: Another Clue to the Plan? From Mehr News:

Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi has called for the establishment of a committee comprised of MPs and other prominent national figures that would be tasked with attempting to end the political disputes in society.

“A committee comprised of MPs and certain elite people outside the Majlis should… create friendship between political groupings so that these disputes end. The continuation of these deputes is not in our country’s interests,” he told seminary students and religious figures at meeting in Qom on Wednesday.

1800 GMT: This.  Could. Be. Huge. Consider this extract from Mir Hossein Mousavi's statement to reformists, posted on the Facebook page linked to him: "Forming a new party cannot add to countries existing capacities, while strengthening the cores of the social movement will create new capacities and improve the movement."

Throughout the summer, Mousavi talked of forming a new political movement (he didn't call it a "party", since that would have to be licensed by Iranian authorities). Even in his recent promulgation of The Green Path of Hope as a "social movement", he implied that it would have a political role challenging the Ahmadinejad Government.

Now he has abandoned that approach, one presumes, because he has chosen to work with the Plan promoted by institutions within the system that he was challenging up to this week.

1615 GMT: Quiet afternoon but this further summary of Mousavi's message to reformists sets off a bell: "Today, national unity is of outmost importance."

Now, of course, all politicians are going to make calls for unity but does this mean that, whether or not a National Unity Plan has been agreed, Mousavi is going to work with an "establisment" committee for a political accommodation?

1300 GMT: The reformist Imam Khomeini Line, which met Mir Hossein Mousavi yesterday (see 1240 GMT), will also be meeting Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami. (But what about Karroubi?)

1254 GMT: The Movement Cannot Be Silenced. A reader kindly directs us to a blog by Persian Umpire on the spread of information inside Iran. Amidst interesting notes such as "BBC Persian is...gobbling up the Voice of America audience because of superior programming and better news coverage", the author sets out this important observation:

We see your tweets, pics, posts, leaks, walls, rumors, articles, flames, trolls, messages of support, slogans, comments, funnies, videos, and everything else you produce. Let us take Twitter which is actually an important source for us, especially for breaking news even if it is happening in Iran. Case in point: this week’s student protests. For those who do not have accounts, there are websites that broadcast the public tweets from any hashtag. Surprisingly some of these sites are not yet filtered. In cases where filtering is in place, we use proxies to get to this information. Also, there are RSS feed readers that we can use to get to your messages through web-based mail services and thus bypassing the filters in a different way. There is no way to block us in, other than cutting the internet altogether, and the government cannot do that easily as some of the crucial internal communications, such as banking, depends on it. If they ever decide to do this, it will take a campaign of outlawing and phasing out residential connections. Even in this case we still have internet at work, and in the end, long-distance dial-up. If I have to pay a $200 phone bill per month to read what you write, so be it.

He/she adds, "How does a minority crawling the nooks and crannies of the internet, let a majority know about it? Information gathered from websites is first disseminated through chat and email, and then word-of-mouth does what it does best."

1250 GMT: Nice to see that The New York Times hasn't been completely diverted by the nuclear issue. Nazila Fathi writes today about Tuesday's second set of universities protests, in particular the demonstrations at Sharif University.

1245 GMT: Reformist MP Darius Ghanbari has criticised the Parliamentary fact-finding committee for avoiding the issues of Kahrizak Prison and secret burials, as well as the points in Mehdi Karroubi's letter, in their unclassified report.

1240 GMT: The Plan in Action? Parleman News has published an account of a meeting between Mir Hossein Mousavi and the reformist Imam Khomeini Line. Mousavi's message? "Greens are now within the system."

1230 GMT: We've posted the English translation of Mehdi Karroubi's second letter to Hashemi Rafsanjani. To say it's critical is an understatement; Karroubi is calling out the former President for not backing demands for justice and reform.

1050 GMT: It is reported that leading reformist Saeed Hajjarian was released this morning from Evin Prison.

1045 GMT: Police representatives have announced that 10 officers have been arrested in connection with claims of detainee abuse at Kahrizak Prison.

1030 GMT: The intrigue on the "National Unity Plan" (see our separate entry) gets stranger. Fars claimed last night that Assembly of Experts member Ayatollah Haeri-Shirazi had denounced talk of a Plan being brought to the Assembly as a "lie". Haeri-Shirazi's office this morning issues a statement denying any such discussion. Fars News then brings out the transcript and the audio file of the conversation.

1000 GMT: Telling Half the Story. CNN splashes the headline, "IAEA: Iran broke law by not revealing nuclear facility", on an interview with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad El Baradei. He says:

Iran was supposed to inform us on the day it was decided to construct the facility. They have not done that. They are saying that this was meant to be a back-up facility in case we were attacked and so they could not tell us earlier on.

Nonetheless, they have been on the wrong side of the law, you know in so far as informing the agency about the construction and as you have seen it, it has created concern in the international community.

Here, however, is the El Baradei comment that does not get a headline and only
a reference near the bottom of the article:

Whether they have done some weaponization studies as was claimed is still an outstanding issue. But I have not seen any credible evidence to suggest that Iran has an ongoing nuclear program today.

0900 GMT: Confirmation of reports from earlier this week: post-election detainee Alireza Eshraghi has been sentenced to 5 1/2 years in prison for acts against national security by "insulting the Supreme Leader and President" and attending illegal gatherings.

0830 GMT: One other report which emerged last night. The Iranian Government is still considering the temporary closure of universities because of "swine flu".

0820 GMT: A morning to re-assess what has happened in the last 24 hours, especially with the purported "National Unity Plan". Latest indications are that the plan, which emerged last night, is actually an early draft, so it raises more questions than answers. We've got up-to-the-minute analysis in a separate entry.

The other event on the radar is tomorrow's meeting between Iran and the "5+1" powers in Geneva on Tehran's nuclear programme. Media fury continues in the US, but the Obama Administration is now far more cautious in its statements. In particular, it appears that the American attempt to "negotiate from strength" through the sanctions threat is running into difficulties. We've got the latest in another entry.

Finally, for those who prefer the "real" story, Enduring America has gotten access to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Gmail account.

Iran's Nuclear Programme: Obama Backs Himself into a Corner

Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Scott Lucas in La Stampa (English Text)
The Latest from Iran (29 September): The Forthcoming Test?

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

Last week's high tide of politics over the Iranian "secret nuclear plant" still has some unpleasant backwash today, 48 hours before the US and other "5+1" powers meet Iran in Geneva. Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal takes the prize for meaningless swagger with his declaration of a neo-conservative resurgence: "A view of the world that understands that American power still furnishes the margin between freedom and tyranny, and between prosperity and chaos, is starting to look better all the time. Even in France."

Meaningless because, unless Mr Stephens is ready to lead the bombers over Iran, there's precious little he can do to back up the bluster. Far more importantly, the Obama Administration may be finding that it has talked itself into a high-profile corner.

The clue is the latest White House spin to the front-line newspapers. Yesterday's New York Times gives the game away. On the surface, it proclaims, "U.S. Is Seeking a Range of Sanctions Against Iran", but the more you read, the narrower that range becomes. Officials admitted, "The United States was not likely to win support for an embargo on shipments of gasoline or other refined fuel to Iran. The European allies...view this as a 'blunt instrument' that could hurt ordinary Iranians, inflame public opinion and unite the country behind the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

The initial flourish, offered after President Obama's statement last week, that even Moscow was in line with a tough approach has sagged limply: "Administration officials acknowledge it will be difficult to persuade Russia to agree to harsh, long-term sanctions against Iran, whatever the assurances that the Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, gave last week to Mr. Obama. China, these officials say, is even less dependable, given its reliance on Iranian oil and its swelling trade ties with Iran."

So all that's really left in "the range" is the suggestion of barriers to investment in Iran's gas and petroleum industry and more restrictions on Iranian financial institutions, covered by the assurance, "The administration also is seeking to build a broader coalition of partners for sanctions so that it may still be able to act against Iran even if China and Russia were to veto harsher measures proposed in the United Nations Security Council."

And even then promise of multilateral action is further constricted today. The Wall Street Journal reports that the White House will still face numerous challenges matching its rhetoric on sanctions with real international action, said U.S. and European officials involved in the process. That makes "the U.S. Treasury -- and not the United Nations -- the main focus of the West's financial campaign against Iran for now...The Treasury has pursued dozens of unilateral sanctions against Iranian banks, government officials and defense companies in recent years in an attempt to pressure Tehran."

The US Treasury? As far as I can tell, the American effort has gone from a united international front against Iran's threat to a "coalition of one".

There's still some blowing of smokes in places like Tuesday's Washington Post with the declaration, "The Obama administration is laying plans to cut Iran's economic links to the rest of the world if talks this week over the country's nuclear ambitions founder." Once again, however, it only takes a few paragraphs to see through Sanctions' New Clothes: "The administration has limited options in unilaterally targeting Iran, largely because it wants to avoid measures so severe that they would undermine consensus among countries pressing the Iranian government."

When rhetoric finally arrives at the obstacle of action, steps mentioned include making it more difficult for foreign firms to get adequate insurance for investments in Iran. But, surprise, surprise, the US has been pursuing that effort for years, so there is nothing new in the measure. Nor is it clear how much more punishment can be meted out by the suggestion of tightening restrictions on Iranian financial institutions.

And none of this can obscure the inconvenience that, as noted in The New York Times, major investors like Russia and China are likely to keep investing and trading. Credit to Simon Tisdall of The Guardian for stating the blunt facts:

Iran provided 10% of China's crude oil needs last year; its market share is expected to grow. Chinese companies and middlemen are supplying one third of Iran's refined petroleum requirements as western companies back off. Earlier this year the China National Petroleum Corporation signed a $1.7bn investment deal with the National Iranian Oil Company. The overall Chinese energy stake in Iran is said to be worth $100bn.

Speaking before crucial nuclear talks in Geneva, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu urged the US, Britain and other UN security council members to eschew confrontation. "We believe that all sides should take more steps to ease tensions and resolve problems, not the opposite," she said. Beijing's meaning was plain. Even if it supported sanctions in principle (which it does not), it was not disposed to support measures that would harm its national economic self-interest.

It appears that the US plan was to show up at the Geneva talks with a loaded gun. An article in Sunday's Washington Times revealed:

President Obama's decision to confront Iran with evidence of a secret nuclear production site Friday was the culmination of a deliberate strategy over the past nine months to gain maximum impact from the disclosure by building up to it with other steps on the world stage.

A high-ranking administration official [said] that while the White House knew about Iran's construction of a second uranium enrichment plant before Mr. Obama took office in January, it waited to drop the bombshell until U.S. officials had conducted extensive diplomatic advance work.

Even when Iran disrupted the plan by telling the International Atomic Energy Agency of its second enrichment plant, the Administration kept a grip on the holster; indeed, by the time Obama made his statement, he was waving a pair of six-shooters.

Only one thing. If you're going to bring a gun to the table, you best make sure you've got enough bullets. And the Administration is beginning to discover, very late in the day, that it may not have even one in the chamber.

No amount of bluster, not even of Stephens-esque proportion, does not remove that difficulty. Indeed, it only bears out the ill-judged strategy of speaking loudly and carrying a very small stick.

UPDATED Iran's Nuclear Programme: Scott Lucas in La Stampa (English Text)

Non-Proliferation and “Iran’s Nukes”: Chris Emery on Al Jazeera English
The Latest from Iran (28 September): Signals of Power

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

UPDATE 29 September: Many, many thanks to an EA reader who translated the interview.

I had a long chat with Francesca Paci of the Italian newspaper La Stampa on Sunday, starting from the news of Iran's missile tests to consider the "secret nuclear plants" and the politics leading up to Thursday's meeting in Geneva of the "5+1" powers and Iran. Paci's original article is on the La Stampa website.

So Now, Ahmadinejad is Back in the Saddle

Professor Lucas from University of Birmingham: Nuclear Programme Serves to Divert Attention from Domestic Problems in Iran

PACI: What are the aims of the launch of the Zelzal missiles by the Iranian Army on a war footing?

LUCAS: The true goal of these large-scale manoeuvres in Tehran is to reduce Ahmadinejad's internal opposition. While the West responds to the military provocation of Ahmadinejad, he fights a definitive battle for his national legitimacy.

Rockets allow the Iranian leader to credit himself with the power that the June elections have called into question. So does the relaunching of the nuclear threat.

PACI: Let's start with the missiles: Why a bellicose military demonstration just now?

LUCAS: Iran is preparing itself for Thursday's meeting in Geneva [with the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China] and wants to arrive there with the toughest possible stance. When the second uranium enrichment facility was revealed, Ahmadinejad's government said he would consider the visit of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, but 24 hours later he said he had done nothing wrong, and now he launches missiles. Tehran cannot afford to snub the talks but Ahmadinejad wants to meet the 5+1 powers in a strong position.

PACI: Monday the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps tested the Shahab 3, a powerful missile potentially able to reach Israel.

LUCAS: I do not think the launch changes the military situation. The timing is what matters most. Ahmadinejad wants to promote himself, and the West has fallen into the trap.

Iran is not currently violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, according to which the second enrichment plant must be declared six months before receiving uranium. Even the Americans have said the plant will be operational "within a year". The Subsidiary Clause to the NPT, setting tougher conditions for the IAEA to inspect the facilities has never been ratified by the Iranian Parliament, although Iran accepted it on a voluntary basis between 2003 and 2007. No infringement therefore, so far. But in emphasizing the challenge of Ahmadinejad to the United Nations, the media gave him the political stature that the June vote had deprived him.

PACI: The Iranian president speaks to the world so that his own country hears him ?

LUCAS: Yes, and the American media have swallowed the bait. In New York, Ahmadinejad founded everything on the nuclear issue, thus managing to deflect attention from his domestic problems. He gave five interviews that accredited him as a leader, and he achieved an important point in using the nuclear threat to stabilize its legitimacy at home, where the opposition is far from being tamed.

PACI: Is it conceivable that he will succeed in a remobilization of the Iranian people as the country faces possible new sanctions?

LUCAS: Not this time. Two years ago the manoeuvre succeeded, but after the vote in June, national pride is no longer a strong point for Ahmadinejad: after all, all the election's candidates were in favor of nuclear power. Iranian people have realized that the President is using the excuse of endangered sovereignty in order to protect himself.

PACI: What do you think of the strategy of President Obama?

LUCAS: The White House already knew about the new installation in Qom. Why do they denounce it now?

Well, Obama was waiting for the right moment to increase pressure on the Iranian government, who must have understood this and spoke before Washington could unmask the "secret plant".

The US Administration is divided. Some sincerely support the diplomatic policy, others consider the dialogue as impossible and push for military action. Obama plays on both sides. His strategy is good, but the tactics suffers from these divisions. Iran is a key actor in the region: if it were to be attacked, the Middle East would be lost. America can not ignore it, not least because of its role in Afghanistan. This is why Richard Holbrooke [Obama's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan] insists on negotiations.

Non-Proliferation and "Iran's Nukes": Chris Emery on Al Jazeera English

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

Enduring America's Chris Emery on Al Jazeera's Inside Story with Stephen Zunes and Andy Martin about President Obama's nuclear non-proliferation initiative and the US approach to Iran's nuclear programme:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJX8hkqAaaU&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Transcript: Secretary of State Clinton on CBS

Iran’s Nukes: Did Gates Just Complicate the Obama Position?

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

HARRY SMITH: Madam Secretary, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us.

CLINTON: Thank you, Harry.

SMITH: The president said, about this secret facility that’s been uncovered in Iran, that it is inconsistent with a peaceful nuclear program. What does the United States think this secret facility is for?

CLINTON: Well, we believe that it is a covert facility designed for uranium enrichment. It has not been disclosed. And therefore it raises additional suspicions about the Iranian intent regarding their nuclear program.

And this week we had several very important developments. First, we had, in this room, a bilateral meeting with President Medvedev and President Obama.

And in a very small setting where I was there, the president, you know, talked with great specificity with President Medvedev about the dual track that we are on regarding the Iranian nuclear program and the upcoming meeting on October 1st, and opened the discussion about the information that we had concerning this facility.

SMITH: So he told President Medvedev?

CLINTON: Yes. Yes. And what we also saw happen today, later that day, was an agreement by all the members of the so-called P-5- plus-1, United States, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Russia and China, all in agreement, saying that we expected answers from Iran in the October 1st meeting and that we were working on what’s called a dual track.

We’re pursuing the answers. We have made it clear to Iran that they have a right to peaceful nuclear energy for civilian purposes under appropriate safeguards and monitoring, but not to a nuclear weapons program.

And if we don’t get the answers that we’re expecting and the changes in behavior that we’re looking for, then we will work with our partners to move toward sanctions.

SMITH: You talked this summer about, if diplomacy failed, you called the sanctions “crippling sanctions” would be in order. What would those be?

CLINTON: Well, harry, we’re exploring how you broaden and deepen sanctions. Now, sanctions are already in place, as you know. But, like many sanction regimes, they’re leaky.

But in the last eight months, since we’ve been dealing with North Korea on a similar set of issues, we have forged an international consensus around very tough sanctions. And that’s given us some additional information about how to proceed on the Iranian front.

But this is a very serious matter. The Russians have come out with a strong statement saying that the burden has now shifted. It has shifted to Iran. They have to come to this meeting on October 1st and present convincing evidence as to the purpose of their nuclear program.

We don’t believe that they can present convincing evidence that it’s only for peaceful purposes. But we are going to put them to the test on October 1st.

SMITH: They’ve managed to hide a nuclear weapons development system for almost 20 years. Do you suspect that this is other than peaceful purposes? Because they have insisted, for the last half dozen a years or so, the only reason they’re interested in enriching uranium is for nuclear power for electricity.

CLINTON: Well, it certainly is hard to accept that at face value.

CLINTON: This latest incident concerning the facility at Qom, it would have been disclosed were it for peaceful purposes. There would have already been IAEA inspections.

We have been following this for several years in cooperation with some of our international partners, watching and assessing what the Iranians were doing. And then when this became known actually through the Iranians beginning to provide some information about it, we disclosed the fact and gave the information we had to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

So I guess one has to ask, if it’s for a peaceful purposes, why was it not public? Why was the fact of it not generally known instead of through our working with partners to discover it?

SMITH: Because the IAEA guidelines basically dictate that if you’re even...

CLINTON: That’s right.

SMITH: ... going to do anything like this, you have to send us your plans to start with.

CLINTON: That’s exactly right. And of course, as you point out rightly, there have been many other actions along the way that raise similar doubts.

Now, the Iranians keep insisting, no, no, this is just for peaceful purposes. Well, I think, as the Russians said in their statement, and as we believe, and what this meeting on October 1st is to test, is, fine, prove it, don’t assert it, prove it.

And we are looking to see what they have to say.

SMITH: You keep talking about the Russians and it’s interesting because President Medvedev almost did cartwheels once the president announced that the radar shields were going to not be constructed in the Czech Republic and the missile systems were going to be constructed in Poland.

Do you really have -- is Russia really in tune with the United States on this? Because they’ve made verbal statements in the past and then when it has come time to have the rubber meet the road, so to speak, they haven’t been there.

Will they really be there this time?

CLINTON: I think Russia has begun to see many more indications that Iran is engaging in threatening behavior, certainly these last incidents seem to confirm that.

And finally the Russians were very supportive of our sanctions against North Korea. President Medvedev said in this room that sanctions may not be preferable, but they may be inevitable.

So I think this is what diplomacy and engagement is about. We are doing what we think is right for the United States. The missile defense decision, the Iranian process, this is in the interest of our people, our security, our safety, and our friends and allies.

But we also believe that in working closely with Russia, sharing information, that they have been quite helpful this past week.

SMITH: Is there anything the Iranians can do in this meeting on October 1st to dissuade you from what you believe they’re up to? What can they say in this meeting to say we’re really -- all we’re trying to do is make electricity?

CLINTON: Well, they can’t say anything, because they’ve said that for years. But they can open up their entire system to the kind of extensive investigation that the facts call for.

SMITH: Is that the only thing the U.S. and the other nations that will be there -- is that the only thing you’ll be satisfied with, if they completely open the doors?

CLINTON: Well, we have to be satisfied. And there may be other approaches short of that. But, you know, I think it’s really essential that we satisfy ourselves and the international community, which has passed numerous resolutions against Iran’s program, pointing out that they’re violating U.N. and IAEA obligations and the Non- Proliferation Treaty.

So words are not enough. They’re going to have to come and demonstrate clearly to the international community what they’re up to.

SMITH: In a region and in a nation that has known some instability over the last couple of months, what do you think this means in light of that as a backdrop?

CLINTON: Well, Harry, that’s a really important question because we know that there has been instability. It’s not only what we see on the television screens, but what is reported to us. But we’re dealing with the government that is there.

We encourage the free expression of ideas and political choices, but this nuclear program really is the core of our concern right now. And we are very urgently pursuing the engagement strategy that the president talked about, while simultaneously working to get the kind of very tough sanctions that, you know, may well have to be imposed.

SMITH: All right. Let’s talk about Afghanistan for a couple of minutes.

General McChrystal made his report to President Obama. One of the things he says is there’s a year window in which the United States has to act in order to ensure that the insurgency doesn’t basically take over the country.

Do you agree with that assessment?

CLINTON: Well, let me just put General McChrystal’s report into the broader context because it doesn’t stand alone. It is part of a process. And let’s look at what we’ve done during the last nine months under President Obama’s leadership.

We inherited a situation. We didn’t reject it out of hand. We didn’t accept it out of hand. We engaged in a very thorough review. We reached some critical decisions, including looking at both Afghanistan and Pakistan together because, of course, the threat goes back and forth across the borders.

We also reaffirmed our commitment to going after Al Qaida, to dismantling, defeating them. We believe, and we’ve seen just this week here in New York; we believe that Al Qaida poses a direct threat to the United States, to friends and allies throughout the world.

So we are very clear about our mission. Our mission is to protect the United States and protect our friends and allies, and to go after the scourge of Al Qaida and related extremist groups.

Now, the decision that was made to add troops in the spring has not even been fully implemented yet. You know, you don’t get up and just deploy the 82nd Airborne and they get there the next day. We are only now reaching the end of the deployment cycle.

We also know that, going hand in hand with our military strategy was our civilian strategy, a much more focused effort, a much more accountable one, dealing with the government of Afghanistan. So we not only saw the change of commanders in the military, we saw a change in our ambassador and a beefing up of the embassy in Kabul.

At the same time, Afghanistan is going through an election. This is not like an election, you know, in Western Europe or in the United States. To carry out an election under these circumstances was going to be difficult under any conditions.

It’s not over yet. We have to wait until it is resolved -- hopefully, very soon, then make a new commitment about how we’re going to meet our strategic goals. And it’s going to be up to the president to determine how best to achieve that.

So, you know, General McChrystal, the new commander, was asked for his assessment. There’s other input that’s coming throughout the government that the president will take on board. But I think we ought to look at it in context.

SMITH: There’s growing, sort of, discontent with sending more troops into Afghanistan. And one of the issues is the Karzai government, which is corrupt, at least, and may, in fact, have tried to steal this most recent election.

Is it worth American blood and treasure to help support a regime like that?

CLINTON: Well, with all respect, we’re doing this for the United States. We’re doing this because we think that a return to a safe haven in Afghanistan with Al Qaida, with Taliban elements associated with Al Qaida, with the same purpose, to basically run a syndicate of terror out of either Afghanistan or the border region, is something we cannot tolerate.

And, you know, we have to recognize that this was always going to be a challenge.

Now, having said that, does the Karzai government or whoever is the next president have to do more to fulfill the needs of the Afghan people to understand what is expected from the rule of law, transparency and accountability? Absolutely.

But, again, we inherited a situation with a set of expectations and behaviors that we have gone about attempting to influence and change. And one of my highest priorities is, once this election is finalized, to work with our entire civilian team, with Special Representative Holbrooke, with Ambassador Eikenberry and everyone else, to really impress upon the new government what is expected of them.

But let’s not forget, Harry, this is about us sitting right here in New York. This is about making sure that we’ve got the intelligence and the capacity to interrupt potential attacks, that we try to continue our effort to destroy and defeat Al Qaida, which are unfortunately still, to this day, attempting to kill and destroy Americans and others.

SMITH: Najibullah Zazi went to Pakistan...

CLINTON: That’s right.

SMITH: ... to the border areas, in order to get bomb training. Is Pakistan doing enough to clean up its own house?

CLINTON: Well, look at -- again, what has happened in the last nine months? Pakistan has increased its commitment in the fight against the Taliban.

SMITH: They were successful in the Swat Valley.

CLINTON: Absolutely successful. A lot of people thought that would never happen. I believe that, if we engaged very intensively with our Pakistani friends -- and we did, through meetings in Washington and in Islamabad -- if we shared information, we listened to each other, that there would be a decision by the civilian and military leadership that the threat was directed at them, that it could undermine their government, in fact, you know, would lead to very dangerous consequences in terms of the survivability of the state in many parts of the country. So, yes, have they taken action? Absolutely.

SMITH: “Have they done enough?” was the question.

CLINTON: Well, you know, we are always working for more. I mean, as I just finished saying, we’re -- we’re not satisfied with anything. This is not, you know, a check-box kind of experience where, “Oh, we’re done with that. We’re done with that.”

But look at what has been accomplished. And I think that we will continue to see a very close coordination. But it is important for Americans to understand that focusing on Al Qaida and the Taliban -- who are largely, but not exclusively, now in Pakistan -- cannot be done if we allow them to return to a safe haven in Afghanistan. So this has to be viewed as part of the overall strategy.

SMITH: Madam Secretary, we thank you so much for your time.

CLINTON: Thank you, Harry. It’s always good to talk to you.