A note from my colleagues Laura and Euna…

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.

On World Population Day, India’s new health and welfare minister had an idea…a way to solve India’s over population problem…bring  more electricity to rural India, not to provide basic neccesities, but so people have less sex–meaning less children.  India’s yearly population increase equals the entire population of Australia.  So, I admit they have a problem.  They are well on their way to surpassing China, and on top of that they make up over 50% of the world’s poor.  Hence, the lack of electricity.  More electricity is good yes, but more tv, and less sex?  I have never heard of such a thing being more helpful.  How about a little dose of sex education, or education for that matter.

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:

What does Ahmadinejad’s inauguration really mean?  Does this mean the voice of the opposition will be silenced?  That he is now President and the world will move on from what has taken place over the last two months?  Does it mean the West will return to talk of sanctions and Iran’s increasing nuclear capability?  Or…will the situation just get more tense as Iranians struggle to get their voices heard and the conservative right continues to splinter…

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.

I know many of us have dates where the guy/girl goes in for the kiss and you turn slightly as to avoid direct lip contact.  They catch a cheek usually, or the corner of the lip. Awkward.  What if your on the giving end?  You think the date has gone well, your preparing yourself for that initial awkward kiss, and then, ohhhhhhhhh, he/she rejects you.  Awkward again…  Almost as awkward as waving back at someone who is in fact not waving at you but the person behind you.  Did I mention this all takes place in the middle of a big party with everybody staring back at you, especially your exes…the ones who have gone on to do great things.

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?