A scene from Iran's army day parade in April 2008 (Majid/Getty)

To sanction or not to sanction?  The question of  the week, the summer, or the year.  Economic sanctions on Iran seemed like more of a long shot last week, than they do today.  I spent  last week covering the anti- Ahmadinejad protests in New York City.  There was a huge turnout, fueled by emotion, passion, and dedication.  There were Iranians, Americans, Canadians, Europeans, people traveled from everywhere, just to hold signs and participate in a historic couple of days.  As an observer, you would think there would be one message from the protesters, but there wasn’t.  There was infighting amongst the protesters because of their different views on the situation.

Some protesters believe the best way to engage Iran is through the issue of human rights.  These same protesters are saying no to economic sanctions, and no to military aggression…ultimately they think Iranians can change the regime on their own.  There is also another group of protesters who say no to the Islamic Republic, a very controversial platform, while others just say no to a nuclear Iran, “peaceful” or not.  Those that advocate a dialogue on human rights are made up of more Iranian-Americans who reference the nuances of Iran’s current government and media, stressing the ability of these institutions to twist messages from the west to their own benefit.  Ultimately, they say the less “political” our message, the less likely  Iran’s government can convince Iranians that these “protesters” are connected with organizations that  are not concerned with the best interests of Iran.  This tactic has been used over and over by Iran’s government and could very well be used yet again, when economic sanctions are increased.

Right now, the target of proposed economic sanctions by the world powers on Iran, is the government.  But, some say the government won’t necessarily be effected, it will be the Iranians themselves who on average make $10,000/year.  Yes, the economic sanctions will further cripple an already troubled economy, increase unemployment, and drive prices even higher, but the sanctions may also do something the sanctioners can not predict.  The sanctions could very well unify the Iranian people and the government against the world powers.  In an effort to save face amidst failed economic policies, sanctions can be the “fall guy” for the Iranian government versus criticism of their own economic programs.  It’s something to think about…So, I ask you…

[poll id="14"]

In watching Ann Curry’s partial interview with Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, I learned, well, very little.  I learned Ann Curry looks like she could pass for an Iranian woman ( a halfy), I have learned Ahmadinejad’s feet barely touch the floor when he sits on a chair (it looks like he is sitting in one of those oversize chairs from the 80’s or Tom Hank’s loft apartment in “Big”) and I have learned, while Ann Curry can repeatedly ask a pressing question in a soft spoken voice, Ahmadinejad can avoid that very question right back at her with a soft spoken voice and a smile.

So, I wonder is there even a point to interviewing Ahmadinejad?  As a journalist, and an Iranian-American journalist at that, getting an interview with Iran’s controversial President could be quite a score.  But, then I wonder, is there a point?  I have watched Mike Wallace, Christiane Amanpour, and now Ann Curry interview Iran’s President.  Every time, its the same thing.  Question from interviewer…pause…Pres A’s answer….pause…Interviewer repeats question…Pres A’s squinty smile, subtle answer…Interviewer repeats question yet again, and may crack a ( you little… smile)…Pres A…smile and answers “you’ll make it what you want anyway, so what’s the point.”

Here’s the thing, we can criticize the journalist for not asking the right questions or not pressing hard anough.  But, in the end I am beginning to think it won’t make a difference no matter how hard you push.  Ahmadinejad will continue to give his squinty smile and in the end if blamed for something he said, merely blame it on editing.  As someone who has been to the country on a press pass, Iran fears the evil of editing, as so many reality stars do, or for that matter don’t do.

Maybe, the only solution to this problem, would be to ask the questions that are not as “sexy” to the American audience but certainly important and crucial to figuring out the man behind the controversy.  Maybe asking questions about Iran’s revolutionary guard, Iran’s supposed “Third revolution,”  or the alleged internal split between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei.  What’s becoming more crucial to understand about Iran is its internal politics, because I can assure you, Ahamdinejad’s reaction to the “nuclear question” and the election, will be the same.  Let’s think outside the box, but that may mean  A. never scoring an interview in Iran again, and B. bad ratings.

So, let’s review the speech and see just how damaging this speech will be for American school children.  Obama spends the first few paragraphs of the speech establishing the fact that he was once a kid, he gets how much it sucks that summer is over and early days are here again, and he transitions to parental, school, and self responsibility.  No “socialist or Orwellian” agenda in sight so far.  But, then, the real “agenda” begins to emerge…wait for it…taking responsibility for yourself.

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.

Then, he goes on to emphasize the importance of an education and finding what you are good at through that education.

And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.

And this isn’t just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.

The thought that the President of the United States is actually asking children”to do all that they can do,” or “be all that they can be,” please clarify which part of this speech is supposed to be socialist or Orwellian?  Is it that he goes on to recognize that you have to work hard to be good at things, that you may not be good at first, but to go back to that phrase we all know well…”if at first you don’t succeed try and try again.” Then, Obama goes on to encourage curiosity…”do not be afraid to ask questions, don’t be afraid to ask for help…it’s a sign of strength.”  ( a lesson I often forget)  His final thoughts challenge students to be better, to hold themselves accountable, and stay in school…a phrase all of us have heard over and over again. There is nothing socialist or Orwellian about any of this address, and in fact should be viewed as a way to inspire and include kids in rebuilding a nation that has been through some very tough times.

It’s the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google, Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other.

So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?

Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.

So, of those that are against airing this speech or hearing what the President has to say…I ask you…”why do you feel so threatened?”  I am genuinely curious, because I cannot come up with an answer on my own.  It makes zero sense.

We arrived at the frozen river separating China and North Korea at 5 o’clock on the morning of March 17. The air was crisp and still, and there was no one else in sight. As the sun appeared over the horizon, our guide stepped onto the ice. We followed him.

via Laura Ling and Euna Lee: Hostages of the Hermit Kingdom — latimes.com.

According to the CIA factbook, less than half of India’s female population is literate while 73% of men are literate.  So, I blame the men!  Just kidding, but shouldn’t the men at least know how to use a condom?  I know if the women could read they would certainly make sure that condom was being used whether or not Leno (sorry, Conan now) was on or not.

CNN references a study done by an Italian sexologist (that is quite a job title…imagine meeting someone in a bar…”What do you do?…I am a sexologist!…A what?…A sexologist!”). The study finds couples with televisions in their bedrooms had sex half as much as those without it.  Wow, now that is really some telling information.  I think most of us know that by now…it’s kind of one of those questions you ask when you are in a new relationship…tv, or no tv in the bedroom.  Its also the thing you bring into your bedroom when you are sad and lonely…too much information???

Sorry…Either way, this does not seem like the solution to reducing India’s population problem.  India currently spends only 3.2% of their GDP on education equal to Armenia and Chile.  But, India is the 5th largest economy in the world, Chile?  number 44, and Armenia? 125.  So, I am thinking education is the way to go…because there is also that little problem of HIV/AIDS.  India has the 4th largest population of people in the world  living with the disease.  Let’s not take away the joys of life just to bring more reality television to India.

Then again what would you do if you had no electricity?  I guess go to the movies…

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Nairobi on August 6 (State Dept.)

Did Secretary Clinton make another gaffe, or am I blowing it out of proportion?  Iranian news publications certainly seem to be talking about it.  What are they talking about?   Secretary Clinton’s quote when discussing US involvement in Iran’s post election.

“Behind the scenes we were doing a lot…as you know one of our young people in the state department got twittered “keep going.”  Despite the fact that they had planned for a technical shutdown.  So we were doing a lot to really empower the protesters without getting in the way and we continue to speak out and support the opposition.”

If one decides to peruse the Iranian publications what we see is a play on Secretary Clinton’s words…For instance in Kayhan, a conservative publication with massive distribution, yesterday’s headline reads Clinton: We Did a lot to Support the Riots. In Raja News, a paper associated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, a conservative military group with massive political and economic power, the headline reads Confessing to the Behind the Scenes Support by the American Government of the Tehran Rioters. Finally, Fars News Agency’s headline reads Clinton Confirms America’s Widespread and Secret Support of the Rioters.

The situation in Iran is in no way over, and the government continues to conduct “show trials.”   Clinton’s quote can only be used as ammunition to delegitimize the movement- evidenced in the newspaper headlines.  The Obama administration has until now, directly avoided addressing the situation in Iran, so that in Clinton’s words, “the leadership would not try to use us (the United States government) to unify the country against the protesters.”  So, Clinton’s most recent statement is in fact a direct contradiction of the Obama administration’s stance on Iran.  The question now is:

[poll id="13"]

Honestly, I think no one knows the answers to these questions.  I don’t think the talking heads know, the journalists, the analysts, even the politicians and clerics that are deeply involved in the situation.  However, I do think there are major entities involved that are influencing the direction of Iran’s political path…the question is what are these entities and from who’s perspective?

According to Ahmadinejad the “evil” entity is…wait for it…the West.  Surprise, surprise.  In his inauguration speech he says first, “We will resist oppressors and try to correct the global discriminatory mechanisms in order to benefit all the nations of the world.” My translation: “Let us lead you world, we know what’s right.” Then he goes on to say, “We heard that some of the Western leaders had decided to recognize but not congratulate the new government … Well, no one in Iran is waiting for your messages… Iranians will neither value your scowling and bullying nor will they pay attention to your smiles and greetings.” During a White House press briefing on Tuesday, Robert Gibbs said “Ahmadinejad is the elected leader.”  Then a day later he retracts his statement saying,”I denoted that Mr. Ahmadinejad was the elected leader of Iran. I would say it’s not for me to pass judgment on… He’s been inaugurated, that’s a fact. Whether any election was fair, obviously the Iranian people still have questions about that and we’ll let them decide that. But I would simply say he’s been inaugurated and we know that is simply a fact.”  Hmmm…very interesting.  So, what Gibbs is saying is, “We don’t really know what we’re saying.”  What Ahmadinejad is saying is,  “I could not give a d$$####5.” This sounds like a very strong friendship in the making.  Communication at its best.  The most amazing part of it all is the passing mention by Gibbs of “the Iranian people,” and the total lack of acknowledgment on Ahmadinejad’s part of “the people.”  In saying and I repeat “no one is waiting for your messages…” Yes, I think some of them are.  And, “Iranians will neither value your scowling and bullying nor will they pay attention to your smiles and greetings.”  He might as well have said “right on” and “woohoooo” at the end and waited for crickets…Some of them value and some of them pay attention.  This entire situation and “relationship” is bound to get much worse and I don’t think either side can see the trajectory.

The other entity is the ever-powerful Revolutionary Guards and Basij security forces along with the supreme leader Ali Khamenei.  This relationship is described perfectly by Mehdi Khalaji, Islam expert, political analyst, and a researcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  In an article published in the Washington Post just a few days after the election in Iran he says:

Ayatollah Khamenei, the official and absolute supreme leader, is not just a single person, but the fundamental pillar of an systematic establishment. Military–security networks, religious institutions and organizations (especially the clergy), large-scale business enterprises not under the government’s control, and the judicial system are all part of this integrated and entangled system. Ayatollah Khamenei , as the embodiment of the “absolute supreme leadership” [or Absolute Guardianship of Islamic Jurists (velayat-e motlaghe-ye faghih in Persian)] ideology, is the thread that runs through all these dispersed parts and gives them unity and cohesion.

He is the cornerstone, symbol and the main focus of this establishment. Without his leadership, military commanders would lack ideology and would be unable to communicate with other components of the collection. Without him, there would be a barrier in communication between military-security institutions and the lower layers of society. Complex economic networks would be disintegrated as well.

Ayatollah Khamenei is just as much a “captive” by the military commanders as they are his captives. Without his commanders, he would be nothing, as without him, the commanders would be nothing. The association of this huge hierarchy is based on the supreme leader’s house [what his office is called, a normal phrase used for the offices of Grand Ayatollh’s too]. The boundaries of his house, however, are beyond its physical walls, its invisible walls extend from the streets of Qom [a religious city, largest center of Islamic schools in Iran] to the black lines of the Kayhan newspaper, from Evin prison to his representative offices in colleges and universities. Any small crack in these walls would destroy the entire supreme leader’s house.

via Ayatollah Khamenei’s Coup? – Interview with Mehdi Khalaji – Tehran Broadcast.

Are we to believe that one small crack would destroy the final arbiter between all these various factions?  If we are, then are we seeing a small crack?  Is Ahmadinejad cracking the cohesion, defying the Supreme Leader on numerous occasions leading up to his inauguration?  Then, publicly “reclaiming” his support just a few days before the official ceremonies.  Who is really pulling the strings internally in this situation? In an interview I had with Reza Aslan, contributing editor for the Daily Beast and the author most recently of How to Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization, and the end of the War on Terror, he says “Both Ahmadinejed and the Revolutionary Guard Corps are moving Iran towards a militaristic state, where the Supreme Leader will be merely a figure head wielding little power.”  Whether or not this is true, remains to be seen.  With so many entities battling each other in this complicated system so many of us refer to as “Iranian Politics” it would make it much easier to believe that there is a clear force that is driving the direction of the country.  Instead, we are beginning to learn that Iran is being lead by many different entities all contributing to the mounting tensions, making it harder for outsiders to understand.  I do believe as we watch the next few months play out we are bound to encounter many surprises politically.  While the world was hoping Iran would see more suits and less turbans, more suits may not necessarily mean a more moderate, more secular government.

So, here we are talking about kissing and your probably wondering, what does kissing Iranian style mean?  Well, maybe we should all follow Khamenei’s example and give the shoulder.  Picture this, Ahmadinejad goes in for the cheek kiss…he is rebuffed, so…instead of backing away calmly he goes for the shoulder…nice move!!! But, who was wiser?  Was Ahmadinejad going for the shoulder initially or did Khamenei dodge the kiss because he saw it coming…Either way, in front of a room of peers and the world, the awkward situation was handled beautifully…kinda, if only we could all learn from their moves we actually might be in better dating spirits.

Now the question remains is Khamenei distancing himself, or was it a pity shoulder kiss?  I can hear them now…Khamenei “I’ll call you…” Ahmadinejad “But, you don’t have my number.”  Lets think about this…when one avoids a kiss after a long convoluted situation plays out…you are likely distancing yourself.  The factions are moving further apart and we kind of know this because of a kiss. Who says we get USWeekly’s body language expert in on this conversation…Don’t you love romantic stories?