It's Morning in America: The Day After The Inauguration

Related Post: Your Obama on Top of the World Updates
Related Post: Welcome to the World, Mr President - Afghanistan and Pakistan
Related Post: Obama Orders Suspension of Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay

5:30 p.m. Thanks for joining us today. It's a bit early for a Day 1 Assessment, as there may be developments in the next few hours while we have some downtime. As expected, Obama made the high-profile announcement of Guantanamo's closure, although the impact was limited by the 12-month timeframe (a concession to the political and legal obstacles to shifting the detainees). He made the first symbolic step of US re-entry into the Israel-Palestine arena with calls to Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas --- the expected appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy is still awaited. On the bureaucratic front, Hillary Clinton's confirmation as Secretary of State came through.

The most significant event, however, was the National Security Council meeting with top military commanders over Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, as I type this, still no news --- no spin, no leaks, no hints --- of what steps will be confirmed. Similarly, the re-affirmation of a 16-month timetable for US combat troops from Iraq still hasn't been made.

Back for Day 2 tomorrow morning....



5:05 p.m. Hillary Clinton has been confirmed by the Senate as Secretary of State 94-2. The two Republican spoilsports? David Vitter of Louisiana and Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

5 p.m. The War on Terror - The Obama Legacy Begins: Taking a leaf from the America-Will-Love-Bush-One-Day crew who have been frantically spinning this week, a reader notes, "I would like to point out that there have been no terrorist attacks under President Obama."

3:15 p.m. Immunity Now, Immunity Forever. Senate Republicans have stalled the confirmation of Eric Holder, the nominee for Attorney General, for one week to get an assurance that there will be no prosecutions of anyone involved in torture.

2:05 p.m. Desperate Republican Comment of the Day (2): After the attempt to turn a Carter-Clinton non-feud into the downfall of the Democrats, GOP bloggers are going after the size of the crowd on the Mall yesterday: "An ASU journalism professor using satellite images calculated that 800,000 people attended President Barack Obama’s inauguration ceremony."

Oh, my, "only" 800,000. That's a pathetic turnout compared to, say, the massive 400,000 who showed up for George W. Bush in 2005.

(Desperate Republican Comment of the Day (1) is at 2:55 a.m.)

1:55 p.m. Reuters has now obtained a draft copy, although it does not reprint it, of Obama's order to close Camp X-Ray by January 2010. There will be an immediate review of how to deal with all remaining detainees. AP has a copy and prints a few extracts covering the main points: the closure "would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice".

12:17 p.m. Unconfirmed reports that Obama has order closure of Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year.

12:15 p.m. Obama has called Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as well as Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas.

10:55 a.m. Confirmation that Obama called the head of the Palestinian Authority on Wednesday: "Obama reiterated that he and his administration will work in full partnership with President [Mahmoud] Abbas to achieve peace in the region," Saeb Erekat, the PA's chief negotiator, said.

No word on whether Obama calls the leaders of Hamas. (cross-posted from The Israeli Invasion of Gaza: Updates)

10:40 a.m. Obama's initial meeting today on Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to members of his National Security Council such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, will include the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, General David Petraeus of US Central Command, and, by videoconference, General David McKiernan, the top commander in Afghanistan, and General Ray Odierno, the top commander in Iraq.

9:40 a.m. What's Happening inIraq: a bomb has killed four people in Baghdad. The target was a university dean who is also a member of the Sunni Islamic Party. Another bomb near Tikrit has killed five policemen and wounded three.

On the up side, US and Iraqi authorities have opened a water-treatment plant in Sadr City, a poor section of Baghdad, only 3 1/2 years after it was begun.

9:30 a.m. In case you think our earlier reference to the intense discussion of Michelle Obama's dress and designer Jason Wu was just a cultural blip in America's priorities: The Washington Post covers Page One with a story on Michelle's entire wardrobe:

For the historic moment when she became this country's first African American first lady, Obama chose a lemon-grass yellow, metallic sheath with a matching coat by the Cuban-born designer Isabel Toledo. The dress followed her curves -- paying special attention to the hips -- and announced that the era of first lady-as-rectangle had ended.

8:55 a.m. A judge has just approved Obama's order suspending military commissions at Guantanamo Bay for 120 days.

8:45 a.m. There's something disconcerting about watching four Americans discuss Obama's Inaugural Speech and politics...on Iran's Press TV. They are generally "disappointed" in the speech and are now having a detailed --- and interesting --- discussion of Obama's approach to Israel, Palestine, and Gaza.

7:25 a.m. Before flying to Washington, General David Petraeus meets Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. Karzai office issues neutral statement, "During this visit, they discussed and exchanged views on their common relations, how to effectively combat regional terrorism and the way to prevent civilian casualties and gain the trust of the people."

Karzai had told the Afghan Parliament earlier inthe day that civilian deaths at the hands of foreign troops was an important source of instability in Afghanistan. Up to 25 civilians reportedly died in an American attack on Tuesday.

7:15 a.m. Vice Premier Haim Ramon to Israel radio: "Let's not fear President Obama. I am convinced that President Obama and his team want to achieve what is essential to Israel -- two states for two peoples." (cross-posted from The Israel Invasion of Gaza: Updates)

6:15 a.m. Uh-oh, a Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey rebuff for Obama. In advance of the President's meeting with General Petraeus (see separate post), French Defence Minister Herve Morin has ruled out any additional French troops for Afghanistan: "We have made the necessary effort. Considering additional reinforcements is out of the question for now."

5:40 a.m. Juan Cole also offers a cold shower of reality this morning, noting the killing of seven and wounding of 22, including two US soldiers, in Iraq yesterday. Cole also offers a necessary and timely analysis of the upcoming Iraqi elections on 31 January.

And, just to cast some light of hope, Cole refers to an emotional and telling Inaugural moment when "US troops in Iraq shed tears of joy for Obama" --- light years away from the narrative of the US military's rejection of the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton.

4 a.m. Press TV of Iran's top stories: 1) Iran wants Israeli leaders to stand trial for war crimes; 2) Israel withdraws from Gaza; 3) Obama promises "better relations" with Muslim world. Al Jazeera focuses on Obama's likely appointment of former Senator George Mitchell as his Middle East envoy.

3:30 a.m. But Not Quite A New Morning in China, as the BBC reports:

China has censored parts of the new US president's inauguration speech that have appeared on a number of websites. Live footage of the event on state television also cut away from Barack Obama when communism was mentioned. China's leaders appear to have been upset by references to facing down communism and silencing dissent.

3 a.m. Definitely One to Watch: General David Petraeus, the commander of the US military's Central Command with responsibility for the Persian Gulf and Central Asia, returns to Washington today to brief Obama. Yesterday Petraeus had extensive discussions with Pakistani political and military leaders.

2:55 a.m. Desperate Republican Comment of the Day. Don Irvine, the head of Accuracy in Media (accuracy as in "We Won Vietnam", "Last Eight Years Fantastic", "ABC News Flunks Race Test"), sees the downfall of the Democratic Party at the Inauguration:

As [Jimmy] Carter passed fellow Democrats Bill and Hillary Clinton, the two men did not appear to acknowledge each others presence at all. A total snub. This could be a very interesting four years indeed.

2:50 a.m. One more comparison for the record: while the Obama Inaugural celebrations ranged from Pete Seeger to Bruce Springsteen to Aretha Franklin, former President George W Bush's return to Midland, Texas was welcomed by "country music performers Rodney Atkins, the Gatlin Brothers and Lee Greenwood".

2:40 a.m. Israeli officials are busily telling the press that "Barack Obama is a 'true friend of Israel' who identifies emotionally not only with the state, but also with the people of Israel". (cross-posted from The Israeli Invasion of Gaza: Updates)

1:59 a.m. And just to bring out our previous point, Alive in Gaza has posted an audio interview with photojournalist Sameh Hameeb on his perceptions of what Obama's inauguration means for Gaza: "Obama neglected the Palestinians."

1:45 a.m. Global Contrasts: There has been a sharp division, as soon as Obama's image ended, in broadcast coverage between US channels and those overseas.

While US outlets such as Fox and CNN focused on the parade, the parties, and the first formal signing of documents by President Obama, the BBC and Al Jazeera have been all over the question, "What Next?" The best and most detailed analysis and questions have come from Al Jazeera, who had incisive panel discussions on Guantanamo Bay, Israel-Palestine-Gaza, Iraq, Iran, and the US Economy last evening.

This morning, while CNN concentrates on Michelle Obama's Inaugural Gown and Fox has a "presidential historian" burbling over "the peaceful transfer of power...Bush and Obama got along so well", Al Jazeera is focusing on Obama's promise of "mutual respect" for the Muslim world. This is unsurprising, of course, given Al Jazeera's core location and audience, but it still points to the immediate scrutiny that President Obama will face on his first full day in office.

Morning update (1:40 a.m. in Washington):

Even as we finally called it a night in Britain, the parties, the enthusiam, and the energy were still going strong in the United States.

I'm just watching a recording of Obama's speech to the Youth Ball, where he gave a possibly impropmptu speech which was better than his prepared one at the Inaugural:

Young people everywhere are in the process of imagining something different than what has come before. Where there is war, they imagine peace. Where there is hunger, they imagine people being able to feed themselves. Where there is disease, they imagine a public health system that can work for everybody. Where they [see] bigotry, they imagine togetherness.

And so he closed, to "Yes We Can" chanting from the crowd, "I promise you that America will get stronger and more united, more prosperous, more secure. You are going to make it happen."

So, hours after reacting to the Inaugural with a mixture of hope and concern, I'm indulging in a bit of hope with a cup of tea. Now to see what the Day After brings.

Comments

[chrisE]

I just wondered if you wanted to spend your evening arguing with me!

Thank you and apologies if you feel I have misrepresented your arguments. I felt a bit agrieved by some of your assumptions about my attitudes to non-westerners.

Good evening and I hope it isn't too cold in Tehran.

[Fatimeh]

As salâm ‘alekum.

Mo, do you think there is any way forward for the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States? Do you set certain preconditions for dialogue (i.e. rejection of Israel?) I appreciate earlier efforts have been rebuffed-'91 with Pico, '95 with the Conoco deal, anything in '98 has to be within this context, and then from 2001-2003 the Khatami gvnt held bilateral talks with U.S. officals in Geneva offering co-operation and this ofcourse led to the Axis of Evil label. I appreciate the past Mo- but what do you see as the future for U.S.-Iranian relations?

Ma’a salama

[Mo]

Sallamun allaykum. I don't think that Iran would ever set such a precondition. That would make dialogue impossible. However, the point is that as long as Israel exists in the Middle East there can be no real and long lasting peace and stability. Regardless of its immoral nature, racism results in perpetual hostility.

the Iranians are ready to make steps towards some sort of rapprochement with the US. However, the problem in the eyes of many Iranians is American exceptionalism along with the ideology of demonization which seems to be too strong in the US at the moment to bring about real change. When Obama says the US is "ready to lead once more", Iranians see that as the source of America's problem with the world and Iran. when he says the the "nation is at war", they recall almost 8 years of needless turmoil and bloodshed which has caused the deaths of perhaps up to a million people in the Middle East.

Many Iranians are concerned that the new administration in Washington will bring about a change in tactics, but not a change in attitude with regards to the Middle East. Many suspect that the US wants to have talks with Iran not so that issues can be resolved, but so that they can state their demands and when the Iranians do not bow down the US can say "we tried" and then have an excuse to increase sanctions and hurt the Iranian people.

When Obama chooses Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton ("totally obliterate Iran"), as well as Robert Gates among others one should not expect Iranians to be optimistic. The US needs to learn to treat Iran (and other countries) as its equal, otherwise it will not get very far. If this doesn't happen one can conclude that most probably major trouble lies ahead.

[Mo]

A must-read:

"Exterminate all the Brutes": Gaza 2009
By Noam Chomsky

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/20316

[MacDuff]

Sorry to jump in late, but I thought I’d throw a few bits in:

Firstly, I find the abundance of cliché’s thrown around a bit off-putting. My all-time favourite is the “barbaric Zionist regime”. This hacks me off a bit as it only really displays a lack of understanding of Israel and Israeli politics. Just like Iran, Israel has a very diverse political culture, with some elements being ardently opposed to the conflict, some being fanatically dedicated to it, and a lot more in between. Simply labelling the whole state as “Zionist” is a pretty weak position (especially as the term “Zionist” is as inflated and unspecific as “Islamist”).

And as for the Shah doing exactly what he was told, one seems to forget Iranian economic policy during the early mid 70s, when he had an agreement to up production to dampen the effect of the oil embargo and then completely abrogated on his commitment to the Americans (and made a lot of money in the process). Like anyone, he was an independent player and did a lot of business with all sides (as you would if you were an oil-rich dictator in a strategic position).

Moreover, earlier on in the string there was a question as who what the public perspective on Iran among Iran’s neighbours. Specifically this one:

“Most of Iran’s regional neighbors did not support the Iraqi invasion of Iran (Pakistan, India, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon,…). Despotic and pro-American Arab regimes supported the war against the wishes of their own people.”

I’d like to know how you can come to that position. How can that be verified? If it’s a despotic pro-American regime, no effective opinion polling is possible. I’m not sure the Saudi Central Department of Statistics is given much support for conducting opinion polls on how much its citizens love regional competitors – I imagine not very much and certainly less so in the 80s. Moreover, I would wager there weren't any polling efforts of that kind going on in Pakistan or the Gulf States either.

One last bit I might add - hypothetically, if Iran was a great global power again, who is to say they would act any differently? Would the balance of national and economic interest calculations not compel them down the same process?

[Mo]

The idea of a 'chosen people' is racist. There was a great deal of diversity in apartheid South Africa too, but that doesn't mean it wasn't based upon the idea that one set of people had exceptional rights. The crimes committed against the Lebanese and Palestinians are truly barbaric and I don't think there is any question about that either.

I think if you read the text below you will see that Professor Noam Chomsky goes much further:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/20316

The Shah was installed by the Americans and he relied upon them a great deal until the very end. there are many memoirs out there that have been written and none that I know of deny that the shah always relied heavily on the US. His sister Ashraf said that during the revolution he was constantly fearful that the Americans would withdrawl support and that he would fall from power.

The Revolution in Iran had a lot of support in the region and the Saudis as well as the Iraqi regime were fearful of similar movements in their countries. At that time the Wahhabis were not very influential and there was a lot of support for Iran. At that time this could be seen especially among the large numbers of Hajj pilgrims who would go to the Iranian centers.

I do not know how Iran, Turkey, or India would act, but if they acted like the US does today that would be completely unacceptable. Such a question does not justify US hegemony and aggression.

[ChrisE]

If you actually read what the Shah said whilst in exile, his concerns went beyond America withdrawing its support. The Shah feared that America was actively plotting to bring him down. He felt this for two reasons- One because he felt the Moralpolitikers in the Carter administration always hated him. More importantly, he believed, as Richard Cottam did, that Brzezinski favored a “de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran.” This was part of his wider strategy to develop radical Islam as a bulwark to the Soviet Union (the so called 'green strategy' that Brzezinski is on record of being proud of).

Thus, the Shah said “I did not know it then, perhaps I did not want to know? But it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out"

This seems to suggest that he believed that he was not reliant on US support- instead he was reliant on the US not turning against him and forcing him out. That is a very different proposition.

I am not convinced, however, that the US was trying to force him out- though it did, of course, work very hard to restore an anti-soviet alliance with the post-revolutionary government (even after the hostage crisis).

However, it is still probably more accurate to say that US regional strategy was much more dependent on the Shah's ability to crush dissent than the Shah was dependent on America for his crown. The US was of course in no position to save him, if they had wanted, in 1979.

The US sold the Shah high military technology that made him a regional player- they were not applicable to his dometic control. There is no evidence that the Shah would not have simply used his money to buy the weapons elsewhere had America refused. The Shah had the money to fund his vast security network- it was not American money.

The situation in Vietnam was entirely different- the US put in 100,000s of US troops, billions of dollars in aid, and millions of tons of bombs to try and support the corrupt and despotic Southern government. In Iran, the Shah was strong and rich enough to crush dissent by himself. We see exactly the same thing in Saudi Arabia- the US is not simply propping up the barbaric regime there.

The Iranian Revolution did have some support in Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain and I believe Bahrain (I'd be interested where else). I'd also be interested in your analysis of why it largely failed to export it. In my mind there are four possible explanations:

1. The Revolution had such a strong sense of Iranian nationalism and unique historical trajectory running through it that it was actually quite hard to export to other countries (this is certainly the view of Ervand Abrahamian).

2. Khomeini's doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih was not widely supported by other senior grand Ayatollah's (Sistani, Baqir al-Sadr etc)

3. Khomeini didn't believe Iran should try and actively export the revolution.

4. Other countries were successful in supressing their Shia minorities.

You would probably know more about the validity of these point than I, but I would be interested in your thoughts.

Turkey has massacred a million Armenians and 100,000s of Kurds. The Turks had an extensive empire up until 1918. India has fought a succession of bloody wars in Kashmir. Do these wars not come under your definition of aggression and hegemony?

[Mo]

One of the points that angered Iranians was that the US did not sell the Shah high military technology. They merely sold him weapons that costed the country tens of billions of dollars. In other words, much of Iran's oil wealth went straight back into the US economy. Iranians weren't even allowed to touch many of the purchased weapons systems. For example, only American advisors (there were 40,000 American advisors who were being paid by Iran) were allowed to repair Iranian owned F-4. F-5, and F-14 jets. By the time of the Revolution Iran didn't even produce all of the components of it's own Army's general-issue rifle. In other words, Iran was almost completely dependent on the US for its military needs and it was spending a large amount of it's oil wealth purchasing weapons that it couldn't use independently.

At the time of the Revolution Ayatollah Sistani was an unknown figure and Ayatollahs Sadr and Hakkim supported Ayatollah Khomeini (Sadr's famous letter to Ayatollah Khomeini sent a few months before being arrested and excecuted by Saddam). The concept of Welayat-e Faghih was not Ayatollah Khomeini's doctrine, it goes back more than a thousand years (there are numerous books in Arabic and Farsi on this). Also, many of the groups that supported the Revolution were not (and are not) Shia.

It's obvious that any massacre whether Turkish, Indian, Canadian, Bolivian, Fijian, Iranian, British, Chinese, French, Gambian, Hungarian, German, Malawian, Mexican, Brazilian or American is a crimeagainst humanity and those responsible must be punished.

[ChrisE]

Your point on Iran's lack of military independence is well taken. I have read documents that show fears amongst US policy makers that had the Shah become involved in a regional conflict- the US would essentially become embroiled also because US citizens would have to service his planes etc. On the other hand they acknowledged that this gave them considerable leverage on any decision he would make to enter a major war. The US thus had considerable say on Iran's military, if not necessarily political or economic, policy.

The point remains, however- was the Shah dependent on the US for retaining his domestic control? On this I am much less sure- not least because of America's ultimate inability to save him, but more importantly because the Shah's control did not rest on the kind of technology America was providing. It relied on torture and a large network of Iranian secret police, army and informers. His authority did not, as in Vietnam- the case you raised, rest on American boots or aid on the ground.

What was the extent of the threat to his regime until the 1970s? I don't believe even Ayatollah Khomeini's vocal criticisms of his regime actually called for his overthrow until maybe the late 60s? He stressed that he wanted the shah to reform so that he would not go the same way as his father, namely, into exile (Ruhani, Nahzat-e Imam Khomeini, vol. 1, p. 195)

Again, on this I defer to you.

It also seems fairly clear that the Shah's westernisation programs were not directed by America but based on his own convictions (and that of his father).

Your point that by the time of the revolution Iran was not producing all of its own gun components is interesting. It still doesn't really prove whether America was in the position to use the cessation of these parts to bring about the overthrow of the Shah. Again, I suspect he was a desperate man and would simply have purchased them elsewhere with his considerable wealth. The question is- did America control the Shah's state apparatus?

I raise these points not to undermine the basic immorality of America's support for an immoral dictator. I raise them to question as to whether or not that dictator's sustained ability to persecute his own people rested on American support. The extent of the Shah's domestic reliance on America is an interesting analytical question...

Regarding your point on massacres- I completely agree. I just question why Russia- responsible for massacres, responsible for occupying Iran, responsible for aggression on its borders, which recogises Israel, has a long colonial legacy in the region, supported leftist opposition groups in Iran, is co-responsible for the forced abdication of Reza Shah and indirectly responsible for the deaths of 100,000s of Iranians (arms sales to Iraq). Why then is there not the same viceral animosity towards Russia as there is America?

Are there any lessons in how Iran and Russia overcame history to recognise each other and have at least cordial, and lucrative, relations? Are they of any use to US-Iranian relations?

[Loopin]

Mo- what do you think about the recent story in the Tehran based Baztab online that membes of a parallel intelligence agency inside Iran have been arrested after being caught spying on Tehran Mayor and presidential candidate Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf?

What do you think Ghalibaf's chances are in the next election? What are the differences between Ahmadenijad and him on economic policy? Do you think Larijani's decision not to run will aid his chances? What is Ghalibaf's relationship like with Khamenei? And how much influence will Khamenei have on the next election?

[John Birch]

When will President Obama appoint a special envoy to mediate the conflict in the comment section of this blog entry?

[ChrisE]

Are you offering? :)

[Mo]

ChrisE- The Iranian military (like SAVAK agents) were trained by Americans and often in the US. Iran's dependency was extensive. He, his family, and the pro-Shah elite spent a great deal of time in the US and Europe. They all kept large amounts of money in western banks and the Shah had numerous estates in the US. He was far too attached to the US and the west to change direction or to become independent.

Iranian Soviet relations were very poor throughout the 80s, even though their support for Saddam decreased over time and Saddam turned more and more to the US and Europe. Iran supported the armed Afghani resistance against Soviet occupation and it arrested members of the pro-Soviet Tudeh party who were caught spying for the USSR (they subsequently banned the party). Basically, what changed the relationship was the collapse of the Soviet Union (pehaps the fall of the US empire could help improve relations!).

Loopin- I check Baztab every day and I haven't seen such a report. I doubt that it is true, because it would be big news over here if Baztab Online or any other credible news source reported it. What sort of parallel intelligence agency would be behind such an act? Can you send me the link to the specific story?

At the moment, it seems that Ahmadinejad has the best chance of winning the election, but it is really far too early to tell. He is still quite popular and many people like his leftist policies.

Ghalibaf has been a successful mayor and he is a war hero (that is why most senior members of the Revolutionary Guards and military supported him in the previous presidential election). He is also a professor at the University of Tehran. However, his popularity is limited to Tehran and his home city Mashhad. Outside of Tehran, I don't think he is all that well known. Larijani has already said that he will not run and so far President Khatami has not yet made a final decision (it would not look good for Khatami if he loses).

Personally, I think that Ghalibaf has a better chance of beating Ahmadinejad than anyone else, but time is not on his side. I think he is waiting to see what Khatami will do. If Khatami enters the race, Ghalibaf will not oppose Ahmadinejad even though they do not have the best of relations. The longer Khatami takes to decide the harder it becomes for a Ghalibaf candidacy, because he will need time to campaign. Ayatollah Khamenei will not take sides and he has good relations with all of the potential candidates that I've mentioned.

[Loopin]

Here is the page: http://baztabonline.com/fa/pages/?cid=19842
Let me know what you think. Thanks for your thoughts on Ghalibaf- do you know any good resources where I can find out more about him? Im partic interested in his domestic and economic policies and how they are different to Ahmad? Thanks

[ChrisE]

Mo- Thanks for a facinating insight into the election. If Khatami doesn't stand, who would be the reformist candidate- Mousavi? What would his chances be? I assume from you not mentioning him, negligible...

Would you argue that the Shah was always reliant on the US for his domestic position- or only following the Nixon doctrine and his increasing unpopularity? Also, what would you say his point of no return was for him?

Re Iran-Soviet relations in the 1980s- undoubtedly very poor (despite their considerable overtures- esp through the NVOI in early stage of revolution). They did at least have relations! Do you think that the Iranian government, at any point 1979-early 1980s, felt a potential military threat from the Soviets?

Thank you

[Mo]

Loopin- I should have been more careful. Baztab, which has changed it's name to Tabnak (www.tabnak.ir), is the most popular news website in the country and not http://baztabonline.com. Baztab Online is just using the name Baztab because the name is famous. To be honest, I had never seen the website before this morning and since this news hasn't been reported on any well known website, it is probably not true.

I checked Ghalibaf's website, but it is no longer active. The most popular newspaper in Iran called Hamshahri belongs to the city of Tehran and is for obvious reasons close to Ghalibaf (www.hamshahrionline.ir). This may also help a bit: http://www.tehran.ir/Default.aspx?alias=www.tehran.ir/en

ChrisE- I think Prime Minister Mousavi has a chance, because most people aged 40 and above remember him as a good prime minister at a time of crisis. However, younger people don't know him and name recognition is very important. Either President Khatami, Mr. Mousavi, or Aref will run on behalf of some 'reformists', while Karrubi will be backed by others. If Mr. Mousavi runs, many 'principalists' will possibly back him too. However, according to polls, Ahmadinejad is well ahead of all of them at the moment. Still there are over 5 months left until election day.

No. I don't think Iran ever felt a potential military threat from the Soviets (but they were concerned about the activities of the Tudeh Party). They were stuck in Afghanistan and Iranians felt that the Soviets would even have to pull out of Kabul sooner or later.

The Shah was installed by the British when he was only 21 (I think) and he returned to power after the Americans overthrew Mossadegh. In addition, despite being a despot, he always had a weak personality. Therefore, he really didn't have the potential to be really independent.