GBI ACEH (Pdt Niko Tarigan) diserang dan dihancurkan massa saat puji2an ibadah ke dua berlangsung jam 10.30 wib. Minggu, 17 Juni 12 Ratusan massa menyerang dan menghancurkan slrh peralatan ibadah, musik, sound dll.
Tidak ada jemaat yg terluka mrk berhasil selamat melalui pintu belakang, anak2 sekolah minggu yg sdng ibadah di ruang belakang juga berhasil diselamatkan. Namun kini 12 orang jemaat GBI+Pdt Niko Tarigan di tahan di polres Aceh.
Seminggu sebelumnya memang sdh terdengar berita bhw akan ada razia trhadap grj2 yg tdk punya ijin. Hari ini u sementara ibadah sore ditiadakan. Doakan agar 12 anak2 Tuhan tsb segera di bebaskan.
Sebelumnya Roy Tyson Kelbulan (24) dan Ribur Manullang (31), babak belur dipukuli massa karena dituduh mengkristen orang Aceh.
Dan akan mmbaptis orang Aceh pdhal berita ini tdk benar. Saat ini dgn hukum Syariat islam kebencian trhdp kekristenan semakin menjadi2 di Aceh. Gereja/Rumah orang kristen disamakan dgn tempat maksiat:'(
Mari doakan sore ini juga u pembebasan 12 orng yg ditahan di polres, dmikian juga dgn Roy Tyson Kelbulan (24) dan Ribur Manullang (31), yg babak belur dan msh dalam tahanan.
Doakan juga rcn klmpok islam garis keras di Aceh yg akan menyerang semua grj2 yg tdk punya ijin di Aceh.
Sabtu, 21 Januari 2012 |
Oleh Ella Syafputri
Pagi itu, puluhan remaja tampak asyik duduk teratur membentuk antrean. Mereka bercakap-cakap seru demi membunuh waktu, berharap bisa dapat posisi paling dekat dengan panggung konser nanti malam.
Dengan sempurna si juru kamera merekam aktivitas para penggemar Katy “Lollipop” Perry tersebut dan disiarkan lewat berita televisi nasional.
Sebagian besar dari calon penonton konser adalah perempuan, usianya tak lebih dari 20 tahun. Mereka rela duduk sejak pagi walaupun konser baru bakal dimulai nanti malam pukul sembilan.
“Iya … saya sebenarnya bolos sekolah nih!” ujar salah seorang remaja putri yang disodori pertanyaan oleh wartawan dan tanpa malu-malu lagi si gadis memilih untuk “nongkrong” di depan pintu masuk tempat konser daripada pergi bersekolah.
Berdasarkan narasi pembawa berita di televisi, para pembeli tiket konser Katy Perry “The California Dreams Tour 2012” ini rela merogoh kocek dalam-dalam untuk menyaksikan aksi panggung idolanya.
Harga tiket paling murah adalah Rp650.000, lalu meningkat ke Rp850.000, Rp1,25 juta, Rp1,7 juta, Rp1,9 juta, dan yang paling mahal adalah Rp2,7 juta.
Lalu di manakah para calon penonton yang rela menunggu sejak pagi itu? Mereka adalah pemegang tiket “pink” yang akan berdiri dan paling dekat dengan panggung. Harga tiketnya adalah Rp1,9 juta. Ya … 1,9 juta rupiah!
“Abis udah ngefans banget sih … harga enggak masalah,” itu komentar salah seorang penonton Katy Perry, kalau-kalau ada pertanyaan mengapa orang rela menghabiskan demikian banyak uang untuk menonton sebuah konser.
Harga mungkin bukan masalah bila hati sudah terlanjur kepincut. Toh mahal dan murah adalah relatif, itu kata mereka.
Tapi tidakkah terasa kecut bila pada hari yang bersamaan dengan konsernya penyanyi Amerika itu, ada berita soal jembatan putus di Kabupaten Lebak dan Garut.
Akibat jembatan yang kini cuma didukung oleh satu tali itu, anak-anak sekolah terpaksa harus bertaruh nyawa untuk pergi belajar. Mereka tampak mirip sekali dengan aksi “outbond” hanya bedanya ini benar-benar tanpa tali pengaman apalagi pelindung kepala.
Antusiasme penonton Indonesia untuk menyaksikan konser artis asing memang luar biasa.
Histeria mereka bukan cuma melibas kata mahal untuk bandrol harga tiket, tapi juga menghapuskan kelelahan hingga rela mengantri dan mengantri.
Untuk konser Katy “Lolipop” Perry, penjualan 5.000 lembar tiket konser yang dibuka 27 November tahun lalu membuat orang menyerbu bahkan rela mengantre semalaman di salah satu pusat perbelanjaan di Jakarta.
Atau coba tengok para “Belieber” yang semangatnya untuk menonton konser tidak bisa lagi dideskripsikan dengan kata antusias. Mereka bukan hanya rela antre tiket, antre masuk ruang konser, tapi tatkala ruas jalan tol menuju Sentul macet total pun mereka rela berjalan kaki untuk sampai ke tempat tujuan.
Yang berjalan kaki menyusuri jalan tol ini mungkin terpaksa demikian, karena sudah terlanjur beli tiket mahal dan sudah dandan habis-habisan, siapa tau!
Mendadak Indonesia jadi lokasi “bintang jatuh”. Apapun aliran musiknya, pasti manggung di Indonesia dan nyaris tidak pernah tidak habis tiketnya di pasaran.
Persetan dengan umur, tak jarang penonton konser adalah mereka yang belum lagi puber pertama tapi sudah amat fasih menyanyikan lagu-lagu sang idola.
Padahal beberapa tahun lalu Indonesia jelas tidak dilirik oleh management artis asing.
Tahun 80-an, 90-an, jarang sekali penyanyi yang benar-benar kesohor di jagad hiburan internasional sudi “mengamen” di Indonesia. Alasan mereka mungkin tak lepas dari anggapan bahwa Indonesia tidak aman, kebanyakan orang di Indonesia miskin, dan banyak lagi faktor lain.
Tapi sekarang sudah beda ceritanya. Artis-artis yang di negerinya sudah tidak laku pun tetap sold out tiket konsernya di Indonesia.
Bahkan artis yang belum benar-benar kesohor juga sukses mendulang banyak uang karena berkonser di Indonesia.
Jadilah Indonesia “mesin uang” buat siapa saja yang membuat konser-konser itu terselenggara. Mulai dari agen si artis, promotor, penjual tiket, penyedia wahana, dan daftarnya terus memanjang.
Patut untuk diakui, kinclongnya pasar hiburan konser di Indonesia terlalu menggoda, sampai-sampai muncul celetukan, “Artis yang di negerinya sudah tidak laku, ngamennya di sini deh! Pasti laku.”
Mungkin harus dibuatkan riset tentang kenapa Indonesia jadi lokasi konser demikian banyak artis asing. Apakah karena Indonesia sudah dianggap aman dari aksi teroris, atau karena kelas ekonomi menengah atas sudah berlipat-lipat jumlahnya, atau entah apa?
Benarkah di negeri Paman Sam yang nyaris bangkrut itu para artis sudah kesulitan mendulang rejeki? Atau mungkin memang populasi dan daya beli di Indonesia yang terlalu menggiurkan sehingga para artis pun bergiliran “merengguk” untung dari para fans mereka di sini?
Terlepas dari jawaban atas pertanyaan-pertanyaan di atas, tetap perlu kiranya publik untuk melihat kritis dua kejadian ini: 5.000 orang membeli tiket konser mahal dan dua jembatan penghubung desa yang nyaris putus. Jembatan belum diperbaiki karena hambatan dana.
Kabupaten Lebak dan Garut jaraknya tidak begitu jauh dari Jakarta. Tidak begitu jauh dari Sentul tempat konser yang sempat dipadati oleh fans si gadis “lollipop”.
Jembatan penghubung antar desa rusak akibat diterjang luapan air sungai. Walaupun satu dari dua talinya putus, jembatan tetap jadi andalan karena warga enggan mengambil rute memutar yang membuat jarak tempuh 5 kilometer lebih jauh.
Mungkin karena jembatan adalah fasilitas umum, maka jembatan rusak adalah tanggung jawab pemerintah setempat. Mungkin pula pemerintah kabupaten sudah tinjau jembatan rusak – setelah melihat beritanya di televisi – tapi belum bisa buat jembatan baru karena belum dianggarkan di rencana belanja tahun ini.
Para pejabat jelas tidak memberikan tauladan sensitifitas terhadap kemiskinan, busung lapar, pengangguran, demonstran yang menjadi gila karena suaranya tidak pernah didengar oleh wakilnya di DPR. Mereka asyik sibuk mempernyaman fasilitas-fasilitas atas nama tugas negara yang mereka emban.
Gedung dan kendaraan mewah, gaji dan tunjangan yang melimpah, tidak ada batasnya kecuali langit barangkali.
Tapi tunggu dulu. Yang tidak menunjukkan sensitifitas itu juga masyarakat luas terhadap sesamanya. Anggota masyarakat non-pejabat terhadap sesama anggota masyarakat non-pejabat.
Buktinya, tersedia anggaran berjuta-juta untuk hobi nonton konser artis asing, tapi tidak untuk membantu langsung kesulitan mereka yang miskin atau sakit.
Pejabat dan rakyatnya sama saja.
Yang pejabat nasional berdalih, “Ini kan fasilitas untuk menunjang kinerja”, jadi wajar kalau harga kursi dan mobil dinasnya mahal barangkali. Lalu pejabat lokal bilang, “Belum ada anggaran perbaikan jembatan, tapi akan coba dimasukkan tahun ini.”
Sementara yang rakyat berkecukupan dengan enteng berkata “Konser kan pengalaman seumur hidup sekali. Jadi berapapun harga tiketnya saya beli”.
Kalau sudah begini, siapa yang akan membantu siswa itu pergi ke sekolah dengan aman?
Minggu, 8 Januari 2012 |
Oleh Dahono Fitrianto
KOMPAS.com – Dalam wawancara dengan majalah Rolling Stone (2008), vokalis band rock Coldplay asal Inggris, Chris Martin, mengatakan, warga seluruh dunia harusnya dilibatkan dalam setiap pemilihan presiden Amerika Serikat. Pasalnya, kebijakan presiden AS secara langsung atau tidak langsung akan berpengaruh pada kehidupan semua orang di planet ini.
Martin tentu saja bukan seorang pakar politik, tetapi kegelisahannya itu mewakili kegelisahan banyak orang. Bisa dikatakan, tak ada tempat di dunia ini yang luput dari sentuhan pengaruh Amerika Serikat, satu-satunya negara adidaya yang masih tersisa di dunia.
Itu sebabnya, proses pemilihan presiden AS, seperti yang sedang berlangsung saat ini, selalu menarik untuk diikuti. Dunia perlu tahu sosok seperti apa yang kira-kira akan menjadi presiden AS, dan kebijakan luar negeri apa yang akan ia ambil, yang akan berdampak bagi warga dunia.
Tahun ini, mata dunia terpusat pada enam kandidat calon presiden (capres) yang masih tersisa dari Partai Republik. Salah satu dari mereka akan menjadi penantang Barack Obama dalam pemilu presiden AS, November nanti. Siapa tahu, sang penantang akan menggantikan Obama memimpin AS selama empat tahun ke depan.
Lalu, seperti apa pemikiran para kandidat republiken itu tentang dunia dewasa ini, dan kebijakan apa saja yang akan mereka ambil? Jawaban pertanyaan ini, sayangnya, tak terlalu menjanjikan masa depan yang menyenangkan bagi dunia.
Leslie H Gelb, Presiden Emeritus Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mengatakan, seluruh kandidat capres Republik, kecuali Ron Paul dan Jon Huntsman, terkesan tak mengikuti perkembangan dunia akhir- akhir ini, terutama terkait fakta bahwa kekuatan ekonomi saat ini lebih penting dalam percaturan dunia daripada kekuatan militer semata.
”Para serigala republiken itu masih berteriak-teriak soal dunia yang telah berlalu, yang penuh dengan ancaman militer, (atau) dunia yang dihuni hantu-hantu global yang harus ditumpas dengan perang atau (teknik penyiksaan) waterboarding,” tulis Gelb dalam kolomnya di The Daily Beast, 27 November tahun lalu.
Salah satu kandidat, mantan senator Rick Santorum, yang selalu tampil sebagai orang saleh dan taat beragama saat kampanye, tak ragu-ragu menegaskan ia akan mengebom Iran untuk menghentikan program nuklir negara itu. ”Kadang kala, para ilmuwan yang bekerja untuk program nuklir Iran ditemukan telah mati. Saya rasa itu hal yang bagus,” kata Santorum dalam pidato kampanye, Oktober 2011, seperti dikutip ABC News.
Dua calon lain—yakni mantan Gubernur Massachusetts Mitt Romney dan mantan Ketua DPR AS Newt Gingrich—juga terang-terangan mendukung perang terhadap Iran. Dalam pidato kampanyenya, November lalu, Romney bahkan mengatakan, jika Obama terpilih kembali, Iran dipastikan akan memiliki senjata nuklir.
”Ini adalah contoh pernyataan penuh kecurigaan yang pernah membawa kita pada perang di Irak, menggunakan taktik menakut-nakuti dan kebijakan-kebijakan sok jagoan untuk memicu keterlibatan di luar negeri yang tak perlu dan berbiaya besar,” tulis Julia Bunting, peneliti di kelompok antiperang Citizens for Global Solutions, dalam artikel di globalsolutions.org.
Dalam beberapa hal, pernyataan para kandidat mencerminkan pengetahuan minim atau kurangnya pemahaman tentang suatu permasalahan di luar negeri. Gingrich, misalnya, menuai kemarahan para pejabat Palestina setelah menyebut bangsa Palestina adalah ”bangsa rekaan” yang tak punya hak apa pun di tanah bangsa Israel.
”Ingat, tak pernah ada negara Palestina. Mereka dulunya bagian dari Kekaisaran Ottoman. Dan menurut saya, bangsa Palestina itu bangsa rekaan. Mereka aslinya orang Arab, dan secara historis selalu menjadi bagian dari komunitas Arab,” kata Gingrich saat diwawancara kanal televisi Jewish Channel, 9 Desember.
Gingrich juga mengatakan, begitu ia menjadi presiden, ia akan mengeluarkan perintah eksekutif untuk memindahkan kantor Kedutaan Besar AS dari Tel Aviv ke Jerusalem, kota yang menjadi salah satu pusat konflik Palestina-Israel.
Secara umum, para kandidat partai konservatif ini menunjukkan dukungan membuta terhadap Israel dan cenderung mengabaikan kompleksitas masalah Timur Tengah. Romney, yang sampai kini masih menjadi kandidat terkuat, terang-terangan menunjukkan dukungannya kepada Israel dengan berjanji akan menjadikan Israel tujuan kunjungan luar negeri pertamanya apabila ia kelak jadi presiden.
Dalam kolomnya di surat kabar online The Huffington Post, Presiden Arab American Institute James Zogby mengatakan, pernyataan-pernyataan berbahaya dan memalukan dari para kandidat capres Republik itu menunjukkan betapa Partai Republik saat ini telah begitu menjauh dari kebijakan luar negeri berbasis realitas seperti era duet Presiden George HW Bush (Bush senior) dan Menteri Luar Negeri James Baker awal 1990-an.
”Sungguh menakutkan untuk membayangkan ke mana mereka akan membawa kebijakan Timur Tengah-AS jika salah satu dari mereka terpilih nanti,” ujar Zogby.
Lalu, bagaimana mereka memandang Asia?
Secara umum, para kandidat ini tak setuju dan berjanji akan mengubah setiap kebijakan Presiden Obama, termasuk keputusannya memusatkan perhatian ke kawasan Asia Pasifik. ”Presiden Obama sepertinya berpikir kita akan memasuki abad global, abad Asia. Saya yakin kita harus memasuki abad Amerika,” tukas Romney.
Dalam soal China, para kandidat juga berlomba-lomba mengeluarkan pernyataan keras. Romney berjanji akan langsung mengeluarkan perintah untuk menyatakan China sebagai ”manipulator mata uang” begitu ia jadi presiden.
Gubernur Texas Rick Perry bahkan meramalkan nasib pemerintahan komunis China akan sama dengan Uni Soviet. ”Saya kebetulan berpikir, pemerintah komunis China akan berakhir di tumpukan abu sejarah,” ucap Perry.
Direktur Studi Asia CFR Elizabeth C Economy mencatat omong besar Perry itu tak sesuai praktik di lapangan. Sebagai Gubernur Texas, Perry mengizinkan perusahaan telekomunikasi asal China, Huawei, membuka kantor di Plano, Texas.
Padahal, pemerintah federal AS sudah tiga kali menolak masuknya raksasa industri telekomunikasi China itu ke AS dengan alasan keamanan terkait usaha spionase dan hubungan Huawei dengan Tentara Pembebasan Rakyat China.
Cheng Li, peneliti senior di Brookings Institution, memperingatkan pernyataan-pernyataan keras para calon pemimpin AS itu terhadap China bisa jadi bumerang. ”Retorika semacam itu bisa dimanfaatkan oleh kelompok nasionalis dan sayap konservatif di pemerintahan China. Dan memperkuat kelompok garis keras seperti itu bisa berujung pada lebih dari sekadar ketegangan ekonomi, tetapi juga konfrontasi militer,” tegas Cheng kepada The New York Times, November lalu.
Para kandidat ini memang selalu menjauh dari bayang-bayang pendahulu mereka, Presiden George W Bush, selama menjalankan kampanyenya. Namun, menurut Gelb, sejatinya mereka masih mengusung pola pikir yang sama dengan trio George W Bush-Dick Cheney-Donald Rumsfeld yang telah membuat AS terjebak dalam dua perang, terbelit utang dan krisis keuangan, dan menjadi negara bercitra buruk di mata dunia.
Akankah era Bush yunior tersebut terulang di tangan para republiken ini?
AFRIKAANS gelukkige nuwejaar
ALBANIAN Gëzuar vitin e ri
ALSATIAN e glëckliches nëies / güets nëies johr
ARABIC aam saiid / sana saiida
ARMENIAN shnorhavor nor tari
AZERI yeni iliniz mubarek
BAMBARA bonne année
BASQUE urte berri on
BELARUSIAN З новым годам (Z novym hodam)
BENGALI subho nababarsho
BERBER asgwas amegas
BETI mbembe mbu
BOBO bonne année
BOSNIAN sretna nova godina
BRETON bloavezh mat / bloavez mad
BULGARIAN честита нова година (chestita nova godina)
BURMESE hnit thit ku mingalar pa
CANTONESE kung hé fat tsoi
CATALAN bon any nou
CHINESE xin nian kuai le / xin nian hao
CORSICAN pace e salute
CROATIAN sretna nova godina
CZECH šťastný nový rok
DANISH godt nytår
DUTCH gelukkig Nieuwjaar
ESPERANTO felicxan novan jaron
feliæan novan jaron (Times SudEuro font)
ESTONIAN head uut aastat
FAROESE gott nýggjár
FINNISH onnellista uutta vuotta
FLEMISH gelukkig Nieuwjaar
FRENCH bonne année
FRISIAN lokkich neijier
FRIULAN bon an
GALICIAN feliz aninovo
GEORGIAN გილოცავთ ახალ წელს (gilocavt akhal tsels)
GERMAN ein gutes neues Jahr / prost Neujahr
GREEK kali chronia / kali xronia
eutichismenos o kainourgios chronos (we wish you a happy new year) GUJARATI sal mubarak
GUARANÍ rogüerohory año nuévo-re
HAITIAN CREOLE bònn ané
HAWAIIAN hauoli makahiki hou
HEBREW shana tova
HINDI nav varsh ki subhkamna
HMONG nyob zoo xyoo tshiab
HUNGARIAN boldog új évet
ICELANDIC farsælt komandi ár
INDONESIAN selamat tahun baru
IRISH GAELIC ath bhliain faoi mhaise
ITALIAN felice anno nuovo, buon anno
JAVANESE sugeng warsa enggal
JAPANESE akemashite omedetô
KANNADA hosa varshada shubhaashayagalu
KAZAKH zhana zhiliniz kutti bolsin
KHMER sur sdei chhnam thmei
KIRUNDI umwaka mwiza
KOREAN seh heh bok mani bat uh seyo
KURDE sala we ya nû pîroz be
LAO sabai di pi mai
LATIN felix sit annus novus
LATVIAN laimīgu Jauno gadu
LIGURIAN feliçe annu nœvu / feliçe anno nêuvo
LINGALA bonana / mbula ya sika elamu na tonbeli yo
LITHUANIAN laimingų Naujųjų Metų
LOW SAXON gelükkig nyjaar
LUXEMBOURGEOIS e gudd neit Joër
MACEDONIAN srekna nova godina
MALAGASY arahaba tratry ny taona
MALAY selamat tahun baru
MALTESE is-sena t-tajba
MAORI kia hari te tau hou
MARATHI navin varshaachya hardik shubbheccha
MONGOLIAN shine jiliin bayariin mend hurgeye (Шинэ жилийн баярын мэнд хvргэе) MORÉ wênd na kô-d yuum-songo
NORWEGIAN godt nyttår
OCCITAN bon annada
PERSIAN sâle no mobârak
POLISH szczęśliwego nowego roku
PORTUGUESE feliz ano novo
ROMANCHE bun di bun onn
ROMANI bangi vasilica baxt
ROMANIAN un an nou fericit / la mulţi ani
RUSSIAN С Новым Годом (S novim godom)
SAMOAN ia manuia le tausaga fou
SANGO nzoni fini ngou
SARDINIAN bonu annu nou
SCOTTISH GAELIC bliadhna mhath ur
SERBIAN srećna nova godina
SHIMAORE mwaha mwema
SHONA goredzwa rakanaka
SINDHI nain saal joon wadhayoon
SINHALA suba aluth avuruddak vewa
SLOVAK stastlivy novy rok
SLOVENIAN srečno novo leto
SOBOTA dobir leto
SPANISH feliz año nuevo
SRANAN wan bun nyun yari
SWAHILI mwaka mzuri / heri ya mwaka mpya
SWEDISH gott nytt år
SWISS-GERMAN es guets Nöis
TAGALOG manigong bagong taon
TAHITIAN ia orana i te matahiti api
TAMIL iniya puthandu nalVazhthukkal
TATAR yaña yıl belän
TELUGU nuthana samvathsara subhakankshalu
THAI สวัสดีปีใหม่ (sawatdii pimaï)
TIBETAN tashi délek
TURKISH yeni yiliniz kutlu olsun
UDMURT Vyľ Aren
UKRAINIAN Z novym rokom
URDU naya saal mubarik
UZBEK yangi yilingiz qutlug’ bo’lsin
VIETNAMESE Chúc Mừng Nǎm Mới / Cung Chúc Tân Niên / Cung Chúc Tân Xuân WALOON (“betchfessîs” spelling) bone annéye / bone annéye èt bone santéye WELSH blwyddyn newydd dda
WEST INDIAN CREOLE bon lanné
YIDDISH a gut yohr
FAREED ZAKARIA GPS
Aired August 2, 2009 – 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I’m Fareed Zakaria.
We’ve got a great show for you today — the next president of Afghanistan, then the CIA’s role in Iran, and the secrets to a global economic recovery.
First, Afghanistan. Is it spiraling downward badly?
July was by far the deadliest month for the international coalition since the war in Afghanistan began in 2001. More than 60 American and British troops were killed.
So, the question for the commanders is: How do we staunch the blood flow?
Talking to the Taliban, reconciling with moderate elements, even buying them over to our side, is something we have discussed on this show. It’s something I have long been a proponent of.
This week, I think I heard the strongest endorsement yet from two crucial players. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said in a speech on Monday at NATO headquarters that the Afghan government needs to court rank-and-file Taliban soldiers and give them reasons to switch sides.
Later in the week, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seemed to agree. She commended his important NATO speech, and said that the U.K.’s way forward in Afghanistan is consistent with the United States’.
So, why isn’t it happening?
Meanwhile, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, is expected to ask for additional troops and equipment. That request will first land on the desk of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
Now, listen to what Gates said in April when he and I talked about troop numbers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT GATES, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I have been quoted accurately as saying I have real reservations about significant further commitments of American military — of the American military — to Afghanistan, beyond what the president has already approved.
ZAKARIA: But that means that a year from now, six months from now, you are unlikely to approve a request for additional troops in Afghanistan.
GATES: I would be a hard sell. There’s no question about it. And I have not made a secret of that, either publicly or in government meetings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: So, it appears that he has now changed his mind. In recent days, Gates said he’s waiting to see McChrystal’s request. But if needs are demonstrated, he would be open to sending more troops.
Now, while all these forces gather, a crucial event will occur in Afghanistan in a few weeks. On August 20th, the country will go to the polls for the first-ever, truly contested election.
Hamid Karzai has led the country since shortly after the fall of the Taliban in 2001. A once-friendly relationship with the West has frayed, and his own popularity has dipped substantially.
So, could a new Afghan president change the basic dynamics of the country? Will he be more friendly or less friendly with the West? And what will it mean for the battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban?
Coming up in a minute, a presidential debate of sorts. I will talk to the two candidates with the greatest chance of upsetting Karzai’s re-election hopes.
And then, what exactly is the U.S. government doing in Iran?
My guest from Tehran last week, Dr. Marandi, complained about the negative role that TV and radio signals beamed into Iran by the West have had on the crisis. Is it true? And what is actually going on in Iran right now?
We have a great panel to talk about all that.
Let’s get started.
ZAKARIA: Now, first up in our faceoff of the Afghan candidates who hope to unseat Hamid Karzai is Ashraf Ghani. He’s a former finance minister of Afghanistan who was educated in the United States at Columbia University. He has a Ph.D. He’s been a guest on our program before, so I welcome him back.
Mr. Ghani is coming to us from a tent in Kabul.
ASHRAF GHANI, AFGHAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to be with you, Fareed.
ZAKARIA: Ashraf, begin by telling us what you think went wrong with Hamid Karzai’s government. He comes into power with a great deal of hope. You were there at the time. You saw it. What happened?
GHANI: He turned out to be a very poor manager, in the sense that he could not deal with issues in a manner that would respond to the needs and aspirations of the people and create a sense of momentum. The other side was his tolerance for corruption that grew into a massive disease, into a cancer that’s eating through the society.
And then, the poor quality of governance. The people he appointed to central areas, where today the heart of the insurgency is, these were people that had failed to govern before, and it was their bad behavior that had given rise to the Taliban.
ZAKARIA: You said recently to George Packer of The New Yorker, that Shakespeare is in some ways the best guide to what happened in Afghanistan.
What did you mean by that?
GHANI: The palace is full of intrigues. It’s all about tactical play, who gets closer to the king, because the style that Karzai has created in the palace is much more like a medieval kingship, where there is intrigue all around. Somebody gets close in order to out- maneuver somebody else.
All is a game of pretension, and King Lear does not understand that he is being fooled. So, it’s there where we’re really getting the sense of a Shakespearian tragedy, because it truly is tragic.
Afghanistan did not need to become what it has become: the fifth most corrupt government on earth, according to Brookings index, the second failed state; the center of drug production; but most significantly, a place of disenchantment of the population with this government.
ZAKARIA: You said something very significant. You said that he has restored the Taliban. So, you believe that the failure of governance is at the heart of the rise of the Taliban, and not a kind of military resurgence or Islamic ideology that is fueling this insurgency?
GHANI: I have talked to a lot of people in the south, where the heart of the insurgency is. And time and again, their story comes to one thing: an injustice that could no longer be tolerated and forced them to active resistance.
They point out — and it’s a fact — during the first three years, there was no insurgency. The Taliban disappeared. They became ordinary men and women, and some went away.
So, 80 percent of what’s happening in Afghanistan is due to bad governance. ZAKARIA: Lots of people are advocating some kind of national reconciliation, talking to the Taliban, reaching out. I’ve written about it. The foreign secretary in Britain recently gave a speech advocating it.
It doesn’t seem to really be happening in Afghanistan. Is that because Karzai is not making the effort? Is it because, so far, the Taliban are not responding?
GHANI: How would they trust in his word, where we, who were his closest colleagues at one time, cannot trust in his word?
The president changes his mind on an hourly basis — say, a daily basis. He makes policy on the hoof.
First we need to get a cease-fire. This is not going to be an easy issue. But we need to try everything possible, so we can build a cease-fire. And once we have a three (ph) year (ph) of a cease-fire, then we can discuss the second issue, an exit date for international forces.
International forces in Afghanistan, in general, and those of the United States, in particular, are not here to colonize Afghanistan or to build an empire. They are here to create a stable Afghanistan that would be a source of stability to the region and the world at large.
So, we have an organic basis for a partnership between the Afghan people, who strive for nothing else but stability, peace and prosperity in the international community.
But we have not had an Afghan leadership that can credibly represent the wishes and aspirations of the Afghan people to the international community and take the kind of actions that would establish the political framework for a lasting peace and a just order.
ZAKARIA: What do you think of the Obama administration and its strategy towards Afghanistan? Is it an improvement on the Bush years?
GHANI: There is a very good team, from the president himself to General Jones — the National Security Council, Secretary Clinton, Ambassador Holbrooke and Ambassador Eikenberry. This is a team with deep knowledge and commitment.
And I think, at a time of global financial crisis, the commitment of President Obama to Afghanistan really is an act of courage and determination. He has honored his campaign promise. We in Afghanistan and the region need to help him gain credible momentum, so his commitment can be appreciated and that the American public can be persuaded that the commitment was wise, timely and effective.
ZAKARIA: Ashraf Ghani, we thank you very much for taking the time in the midst of a campaign and sitting there in a reed tent in Afghanistan for joining us. Thank you.
GHANI: It’s a pleasure to be with you, and it’s an honor. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABDULLAH ABDULLAH: I think the earlier, the previous administration in the United States was sort of on a blind date with Mr. Karzai, and continued until the end.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: And now we have Abdullah Abdullah. Some analysts say he has the best shot at unseating Hamid Karzai.
Abdullah is a one-time foreign minister of Afghanistan with strong ties to the U.S. He was a key figure in the Northern Alliance, the opposition group that helped the United States topple the Taliban in the days after 9/11.
ABDULLAH ABDULLAH, AFGHAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you.
ZAKARIA: Let me ask you, do you see President Obama’s approach to Afghanistan as one that is better than President Bush’s? How are you reading the new administration in Washington?
ABDULLAH: I think the earlier, the previous administration in the United States was sort of on a blind date with Mr. Karzai and continued until the end. And then, towards the end, they realized that the partner is not sincere (ph) and cannot deliver to its own people. At that time it was too late.
I think in the United States is a new beginning and a new approach towards many issues, including Afghanistan. In Afghanistan there is a hope that, as a result of the elections, there will be another opportunity for working together in order to help Afghanistan stabilize, as well as to address the needs of the Afghan people, and, of course, the concerns and the hopes of the friends of Afghanistan, including the United States.
ZAKARIA: Let me ask you, Mr. Abdullah, about the non-military element to this struggle. There are a number of people who have argued that the United States and, most importantly, the Afghan government should be talking to the Taliban, trying to get members of the Taliban to switch sides, to isolate the hardcore elements and broaden the base of support for the Afghan government.
You have called the current efforts at reconciliation “a joke.” So, what’s wrong with the way we are trying to talk to the Taliban now? And how would you do it differently?
ABDULLAH: The current administration is losing their people. And because of the resentment of the people, dissatisfaction of the people towards the government, the current administration is losing the people, and it is strengthening the insurgency. That trend has to reverse before anything else could happen. Next to that, there are thousands and thousands of people who have joined the ranks of insurgency, because of other grievances, rather than sharing the agenda of the Taliban, which is to bring the state down and to reverse the process.
There is no doubt there is a hardcore element in it. But there are thousands of people under the same brand, Taliban, which have joined the insurgency because of other reasons. By taking those reasons out, you can take a further step towards national reconciliation.
ZAKARIA: Mr. Abdullah, you have worked with President Karzai. You were his first foreign minister. What do you think of him as a leader? What are the flaws that obviously lead you to feel that you must challenge him in this election?
ABDULLAH: Our hope was that he will act as a national leader and take the national interests above every other interest. And there was a golden opportunity at the beginning, where the whole Afghan nation got together, and the international community also joined hands in supporting the Afghan people as well as the process.
He has turned — under his leadership, a golden opportunity has turned in today’s situation, which is a disappointment, a total disappointment.
So, I am disappointed because of my support earlier. But I should mention that I didn’t vote for him in the earlier election, in spite of the fact that I was the foreign minister. And I told him — I had told him that I had not voted for him for certain reasons, because I could see that he is leading the country towards a wrong direction, which is today’s situation.
In today’s situation, Afghanistan should have been more stable. Democratic institutions should have been functioning better. And the corruption issue, we shouldn’t have been in the top list. The issue of narcotics is bad (ph), and many, many other issues, including the failure to deal with the insurgency.
ZAKARIA: Let me ask you finally, Mr. Abdullah. If you were elected president of Afghanistan, what would be the first thing you would do to signal to the Afghan people that there is a new administration in place? What would be your first act as president of Afghanistan?
ABDULLAH: I think the first thing is about the message. What is my message to the people of Afghanistan? It is a message of change and a message of hope.
I will not promise to the people of Afghanistan anything that I will not be able to deliver.
The main issue is the issue of trust and mistrust. The atmosphere of mistrust in Afghanistan today, in today’s Afghanistan, is unfortunately very high and very serious. So, to change that, an honest message that this leadership would be at the service of the people of Afghanistan, rather than a gang which is benefiting from the hardship which has been imposed upon the people of Afghanistan — all from the billions and billions of dollars which has been poured into Afghanistan under the name of supporting Afghanistan and the Afghan nation.
So, that’s — it will be hard for the people to believe any leader, any future leader, because they will judge it against the current situation. But an honest approach towards the people, the people who will give you time, and they will test you.
And the first test will come from the first day.
FARED: Abdullah Abdullah, thank you very much for joining us.
ABDULLAH: You’re welcome.
ZAKARIA: Now for our “What in the World?” segment. Here’s what got my attention in this week.
It’s rare that a set of statistics make news. But the release of this month’s Case-Shiller Price Index was reported as the lead news story in both the “New York Times” and the “Wall Street Journal.”
Why? Well, the index showed that the decline in the American housing market seemed to have ended, and a recovery might soon begin.
This is big news. The decline of the housing market has been the single largest cause of the current recession and financial crisis. And its stabilization could well mean the beginning of a recovery.
Now, remember, when you’re trying to understand the way out of this recession, the single most important question is still: Will the average American start shopping again?
I know you’ve heard a lot about China, India, Brazil, the strength of the European Union, trade. But as a share of the world economy, the American consumer is currently equal to the total economy of China, plus India, doubled.
So, while governments around the world are spending a lot of money, they will not be able to do that indefinitely. At some point, the American consumer has to get back into the market.
So, is he or she doing that? Well, we don’t really know yet. The housing data is good news. And actually, most recoveries begin with recovery of the housing market, followed by automobiles, appliances, and then, other consumer categories.
But many experts argue that this is not an ordinary recession, and will not be an ordinary recovery. The consumer went deep into debt over the last 10 years, is slowly paying that off, and won’t get easy credit any time soon. The optimists point out, on the other hand, that the American savings rate is already back up to 7 percent, which is close to its 30-year average. The pessimists say, yes, but Americans are going to be very cautious now, and save more in the face of the uncertainty and hard times they foresee.
So, the key to understanding whether and when we will experience a real economic recovery around the globe lies not in a set of hard economic facts, but a very soft question. When will Americans feel confident and secure enough about the future that they will start spending again? Is it when the savings rate is 8 percent, 9 percent, 12 percent?
The fate of the global economy rests on the answer to what is ultimately a question of human psychology.
And we will be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN O’SULLIVAN: I think what we’re doing is reporting news that they would prefer that people not know. That’s what annoys the government. And it’s nothing whatever to do with espionage. We don’t send out coded messages, or anything like that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: Iranian officials like to say that the United States and Great Britain are interfering in their internal affairs, that in some manner, the West is responsible for the Iranian anger over the disputed elections.
Just last week on this program, a conservative Iranian academic made this charge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEYED MOHAMMAD MARANDI, UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN: Right now you have almost 40 television channels in Persian being broadcast into Iran from the United States and Europe, basically funded by the American government and European governments — or, in some cases, owned — which have played a very negative role over the past few weeks, turning people against one another.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: It is, of course, an absurd accusation. The Iranian people are angry at what they see as a fraudulent election, not because of something they saw on TV or heard on the radio.
But it does raise the question: What tools are Western countries using to figure out or to influence what is going on in Iran? Is it propaganda? Is it espionage? Joining me to talk about this, from Washington, John McLaughlin, the former deputy director of the CIA; from Berkeley, California, Robert Baer, a former case officer for the CIA; and from Prague, John O’Sullivan, the executive editor of Radio Free Europe.
John O’Sullivan, the charge really is centrally directed at people like you, who are broadcasting stuff from outside Iran, beaming it into Iran. And it’s principally Voice of America and the BBC, though there are many others.
What are you doing that is getting the Iranian government so riled up?
JOHN O’SULLIVAN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY: I think what we’re doing is reporting news that they would prefer that people not know.
We are acting, in a way, like a domestic broadcaster for the Iranian people.
Although I am the executive editor of the entire organization, Radio Farda, our Iranian service, is staffed entirely by Iranian journalists. And they’re doing what an Iranian journalist would be doing if you had a free television station, a free radio station or free newspapers in Iran.
That’s what annoys the government. And it’s nothing whatever to do with espionage. We don’t send out coded messages, or anything like that.
We simply report the news. And we also provide a forum for debate among Iranians. And on both those counts — free debate and truth — the government doesn’t like it.
ZAKARIA: So, you don’t encourage people to go out and demonstrate or to protest against the government?
O’SULLIVAN: No, we don’t directly do anything like that. Of course, if we report, for example that people have been shot or killed while demonstrating, it might have the effect that some people will then respond by being indignant and by turning against the government or possibly by demonstrating themselves.
One of the things we do make plain is that the repression is severe, and that anybody who decides to take peaceful action, like demonstrations, is taking a risk. So you could equally well argue that we’re persuading people to stay at home, because we point out the dangers.
ZAKARIA: John McLaughlin, you saw this play itself out in the former Soviet empire. How powerful are these tools of information technology — information warfare, some people call it?
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CIA: Well, they were powerful tools during the Cold War, Fareed, but that was a time when we didn’t live in the media-saturated environment of today.
I don’t think those kinds of tools are as important to espionage as they once were. And while I don’t know what the U.S. government is doing at the moment on this, I strongly doubt that there’s anything that would justify the charges coming out of Iran.
In fact, looking at Iran today, I think the reputation for this is in Iran itself, not only the street demonstrations that are so evident in the world media, but also, I think what is most striking, and what the Iranians should be more worried about, is not what outsiders may be doing, but what insiders are doing and saying.
The most striking thing to me in the last couple of weeks has been the degree to which we see splits developing within the Iranian government. We see conservative newspapers criticizing the government. We see a grand ayatollah who has scolded the Republican Guard for its treatment of protesters.
Friday’s sermon by Rafsanjani made very clear that he is upset with the way the government has handled the situation. Former President Khatami has called for a referendum. The head of the nuclear program has resigned. There are splits obviously developing between the intelligence ministry and the Republican Guards.
These are not things that you influence with propaganda or with media that is piped into the country. These are things that develop when a country like Iran is confronted with some of the choices it now faces.
And some of the engagement strategy that’s come out of the Obama administration I think has obliged people within the country to think about their options. And as a consequence of that, fractures have developed.
ZAKARIA: So, you think the offers of engagement by Obama have been useful, in that they have complicated the life of the Iranian regime.
MCLAUGHLIN: I do. I do. I’ve felt this for a long time, because clearly, Iran is not a monolithic society. And is not monolithic at the top, either.
So, when the Obama administration offers thoughts about the future and the future relationship with the United States, I think, unlike a circumstance in which you are not engaging them and in which the Iranians can simply cast you as the Great Satan, when they’re confronted with choices, they use their heads and they have differences among themselves. And so, it helpfully drives a wedge, I think, between some of the factions in Iran.
ZAKARIA: Bob Baer, do you think this kind of appeal to nationalism that the Iranian regime is trying to employ works? That is to say, you know, we may say, “Look, this is absurd. Obviously, the West is not involved.”
But Iran is a proud country with a prickly tradition of nationalism.
It certainly has been true that the United States and Britain have interfered in the past. As you probably well know, one of the great best-selling books in Iran is called “My Uncle Napoleon,” and it’s basically a book about how the Brits actually control everything that’s going on in the country.
So, does it work when they say, you know, it’s all this Western interference that’s causing our problems?
ROBERT BAER, FORMER CIA CASE OFFICER AND AUTHOR, “THE DEVIL WE KNOW”: Fareed, no, I don’t think it works. The regime has certainly made these charges against the demonstrators and the leadership of the opposition.
But what we have to remember is that Karroubi, Mousavi, Rafsanjani, Khatami were all extremely close to Khomeini. They have impeccable credentials. They were there at the beginning of the revolution. Many of them were in exile in France with Khomeini.
They have absolutely no important foreign contacts. They are not susceptible to charges they’re taking money from the CIA or from outside.
So, I think that when they made these charges right after the election was disputed on 12 June, they fell absolutely flat. And you know, they arrested the British employees at their embassy in Tehran. That fell flat as well. It was a strategy that’s failed.
And I agree with John completely. We see these cracks inside the regime, which were, you know, frankly, for me, two months ago were unthinkable, and this is coming out of nowhere. And what we’re really seeing is many of the important ayatollahs in Qom are coming out against Khamenei, as well as Ahmadinejad.
ZAKARIA: John O’Sullivan, what do your analysts tell you, the people you have, many of whom are Iranian? Are we in a pre- revolutionary situation in Iran?
O’SULLIVAN: Well, we are in a pre-revolutionary situation that could continue for a long time, because we’ve seen splits in the regime at every level, which we couldn’t really have imagined before.
But why have we seen them? They emerged, because the regime itself made the colossal mistake of blatantly rigging an election, when one of the things which is important to its survival and success was the idea that there was a democratic element to it.
The result was the people came out onto the streets. There was a genuine resistance. They forced leaders like Mousavi, really, to lead them in a more dramatic direction than people had intended, and the splits emerged.
I think what’s going to happen here is a loosening in general of the regime in the long term, even if the present repression continues and in a sense, succeeds, which is by no means certain. And whether or not it succeeds, I think we’re going to see more people, more factions at all levels of society demanding the right to express their view, and gradually gaining that right.
And that is going to open up all sorts of opportunities. Although I think for the moment, it’s not going to have a great deal of impact on the diplomatic relationship between the United States and Iran.
ZAKARIA: Gentlemen, we will be right back. We’ll be back with John McLaughlin, Robert Baer and John O’Sullivan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCLAUGHLIN: What happened in the aftermath of this election, I think, sent shock waves through the region, as well as through Iran, so that it no longer has the standing it had, and it no longer seems like this force that cannot be stopped in the region.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: And we are back with John McLaughlin, the former deputy director of the CIA; Robert Baer, former CIA case officer; and John O’Sullivan of Radio Free Europe.
John McLaughlin, do you believe that there are important rifts emerging within the Iranian regime? And do you think that this is significant in a broader sense?
MCLAUGHLIN: You know, the Iranian Republic is one of the great survivors of the last three decades. So, I think we should not underestimate the resilience of the regime.
But I don’t think these things can be papered over in a way that leaves Iran as it was before this election. It’s impossible to know at this point where it’s going, what it might look like a year from now. But I think it’s fair to say that Iran will never be quite the same again.
Just imagine, for example, how we thought about Iran, say, two years ago, when the United States was pinned down in Iraq, when Israel was fighting Hezbollah to a standstill in Lebanon. Iran at that point seemed like a colossus forming in the region. Its prestige was high. Its proxies were powerful.
What happened in the aftermath of this election, I think, sent shockwaves through the region, as well as through Iran, so that it no longer has the standing it had, and it no longer seems like this force that cannot be stopped in the region. It has been weakened in that respect in terms of its regional posture.
And in a way, it gives the United States a lot of openings that it didn’t have before — openings with regional partners in the Gulf and elsewhere, in the Middle East. It gives us openings to throw proposals in there that they have to think about and disagree with. Although I think the prospects for actually stopping this nuclear program are very, very low.
ZAKARIA: Talk about that for a minute, John. What would you do — a weakened Ahmadinejad, a weakened Khamenei — would you try and strike a deal by taking advantage of that weakness and getting a good bargain, as it were?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, the argument can be made that, because they feel weakened, and because they have a diminished sense of legitimacy, perhaps, in the region — they’re not irrational — that they may be open to proposals now that they would have rejected some time ago.
I think that’s a thin reed, though, personally. My sense is that the belief, the conviction that they need and want and deserve a nuclear program of some sort, this is not unique to me, it’s widely held that this is a broadly shared conviction in Iran.
So, I think the United States at this point has to be thinking about three options. One is extremely intense diplomatic engagement to exploit the situation, and hopefully move them toward some consensus with us on this. The problem there is you’ve got to have the Russians and Chinese on board, and I think the Russians would have a very high price.
The second option that people don’t take off the table is a military option. But, frankly, I think it’s a horrendous option. I think it would have horrible consequences that would lead to proxy retaliation on the part of Iran’s proxies, and kind of an endless struggle that no one needs.
And the third option, which is almost unthinkable, but which people really need to be thinking about, is what if we can’t stop them, how do we manage an Iranian nuclear — a nuclear Iran?
So, there are no great options here, I don’t think. But I believe the United States’ hand is somewhat strengthened in pursuing the diplomatic option in these circumstances.
ZAKARIA: Bob, let me ask you about a very important point that John McLaughlin made, I thought, which was, it does appear — or at least one can speculate — that the current events have weakened Iran’s influence in the region.
You’ll remember a few months ago, what everyone was concerned about was that Iran had emerged as the great, new power in the region. Its hand had been strengthened in Iraq with its proxies, in Lebanon through Hezbollah, in the Palestinian areas through Hamas. And on the Arab street, there was a general feeling that Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime were the great proponents of the great Arab cause, that is, the cause of Palestine.
Now, looking at things today, do you think that Iran’s current troubles have weakened its proxies and its informal or soft power in the region?
BAER: I think we should watch that.
Remember, in 1981, when there were car bombs going off in Tehran, when there was truly a violent struggle for power — more violent than it is now — Iran was just getting underway its revolutionary message. A year later, it was coming into Lebanon, right in the middle of the Iran-Iraq War. Iran continues to export its message, even when things aren’t well at home.
And you look at yesterday and the last couple of days. Clearly there was an Iranian hand in Iraq, in raiding the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq camps, the Iranian opposition.
I think whatever government comes into power in Tehran, even if Ahmadinejad resigns or something dramatic happens like that, you will find anyone who replaces him will want to make sure that Iraq goes in the way that Iran needs to, especially as we withdraw more quickly than we had expected.
So, what I’m saying is, we shouldn’t count an aggressive Iran — we shouldn’t count it out.
ZAKARIA: And finally, John O’Sullivan, let me ask you just on a simple note, which is, have many of the people that you would have worked with on the ground in Iran been intimidated, harassed, arrested? What is the status of people who have done some of the underground reporting for you in Iran?
O’SULLIVAN: Well, I think you know yourself from YouTube, from SMS messages and so on, that an awful lot of the stuff that’s coming out to us, and later through us, comes from citizen journalists there. And many of those, of course, have been arrested, beaten up, attacked. Some of our reporters actually described to us what happened to them physically.
But I think it’s important to know that there is a very large reserve of people who come back either as professional journalists or as citizen reporters, and are prepared to keep getting this message out.
And before one begins to despair about the power of authoritarian governments in this regard, I think we should look at today’s news from Moldova, where only a few weeks ago an election was apparently stolen. There was a new election today, which has produced a defeat for the government.
When we look at the battle between, so to speak, democratic crowds and authoritarian governments, it’s far from certain that authoritarian governments are winning that battle.
And in the case of Iran, I think that although they will probably sustain themselves in office for some time, they will not have the power that they had previously. And they’re having to — they’re going to have to make more and more concessions, both to their rivals within the ruling clique and also to the crowds on the street, in order to be able to sustain themselves. And while they’re doing that, they’re not in the self-confident position of being able to export revolution, on the one hand, or to continue an aggressive diplomatic policy on the other.
So, I do think that this battle on the streets in Tehran, and certainly in other Iranian cities, does have in some sense a restraining effect on the ability of the regime to cause trouble outside, because it’s simply compelled to pay attention, to make some concessions and to pay regard to what’s going on in the streets.
ZAKARIA: John O’Sullivan from Prague, Robert Baer, John McLaughlin, thank you all very much.
BAER: Thank you, Fareed.
MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you.
O’SULLIVAN: Thank you.
ZAKARIA: And we will be back.
ZAKARIA: And now for our “Question of the Week.”
Last week I asked you whether we are nearing the end of the recession. Are we seeing the light at the end of the tunnel?
It was a pretty close vote, but the majority view actually said “no.”
One viewer, who did not give his name, turned our cliche inside- out to make a point. Is the light at the end of the tunnel actually that? Or is it the headlight of an oncoming freight train?
Now, for this week, I want to know who would you vote for in the Afghan election: the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, or one of the men I spoke with today, Abdullah Abdullah or Ashraf Ghani?
Let me know what you think.
As always, I’d like to recommend a book. It’s a splendid book called “Free: The Future of a Radical Price,” by Chris Anderson, the editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine.
Anderson says that sometimes the best price for your book, music, art or your magazine is, well, free.
Now, as an author, as a magazine editor, as somebody who puts out a TV show, this scares me. But he makes a very compelling argument. It’s a very intelligent book.
If you want to read it — free — go to our Web site, cnn.com/gps. We have a link to it there. You can also do the more traditional thing and actually pay for it at any bookstore or Amazon.
Thank you for being part of this program. I will see you all next week.