Charlie Rose

Ormoz  05/07/2010 02:41 AM Report

I don’t know why some people try to change the subject here. Either they have not read the interview or simply are bigots!

The interview is about a visit to Iran by two CIA agents which means there are contacts between the US and Iranian officials. But if you read the following post you realise that Noam Chomsky’s criticism of US government’s stance on nuclear disarmament has been misunderstood as an argument that Noam Chomsky is against US and for Iran in the nuclear issue or that the US and Iranian governments are “enemies” !!! That is what the CNN has been telling us and maybe Mr Noam Chomsky has believed it too but NOT the Iranian intellectuals. They know of these secret meetings taking place between the US and Iranian officials.

The reason is that the Ayatollahs in Iran don’t know how to run a country so they need the US and CIA helps. Two famous persons from the Shah’s regime stayed in Iran after him to help the Ayatollahs. One was General Hossein Fardoost, chief of the army and the best friend of the Shah and the US. The second was Hossein Tehrani the notorious SAVAK boss, an expert in dissolving Communist groups and inventor of new torture and interrogation methods!! They served the US and Ayatollahs until they died of old age!!

The US government were telling the Ayatollahs to fight the Communists or contribute cash to CONTRAS or Mujaheddin in the 80’s, today they tell them to say and do things that can be used against Palestinians, Russians etc. The Israelis are using Ahmadinezhad (Who is a JEW himself) as a reason to ignore all international rules, including the nuclear disarmament. Israel does not allow any inspections of its nuclear arsenal, does not take the peace talks with Palestinians seriously and blames Iran for all that! Netanyahu constantly repeats this that “we have it because Iran has it”, “We don’t talk to Hamas because Iran is financing them”!! As for using them against Russians we know that the US wants to install radar facilities that watch MOSCOW and Western Russia in the Check republic and Poland. The US government claims that it is against Iran not Russia!!! The Iranian government has never denied it but on the contrary when George Bush and Putin were arguing about it, the Russians were saying it was against us because Iran doesn’t have possibility of hitting Europe. George Bush was saying yes they do. Ahmadinezhad said yes we have enriched 100 kg of Uranium and will destroy Israel soon, confirming G Bush!!!!

The Iranian regime is a tool in the US hands but NOT everyone knows that. The WESTERN media doesn’t want us to know these things!!!

On Iranian TV, Ayatollah Karrubi read what MOSSAD thinks of Ahmadinezhad, that he is the best thing that ever happened to Israel. What did Ahmadinezhad reply?? Just smiling shamelessly!!! What can he say?? He is serving his Jewish brothers you know!!!!

Mikefreeman  05/02/2010 01:37 AM Report

Chomsky: What's At Stake in the Issue of Iran

By Noam Chomsky

April 29, 2010 "Pravda" -- In an interview with the German publication, Freitag, Noam Chomsky talks about U.S. pressure on Israel and Iran and its geopolitical significance. "Iran is perceived as a threat because they did not obey the orders of the United States. Militarily this threat is irrelevant. This country has not behaved aggressively beyond its borders for centuries. Israel invaded Lebanon with the blessing and help of the U.S. five times in thirty years. Iran has not done anything like this," he says.´

Barak Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 while sending more troops to Afghanistan. What happened to the "change" that was promised?

Chomsky: I am one of the few who is not disappointed with Obama because I placed no expectations on him. I wrote about Obama's positions and prospects of success before the start of his campaign. Saw your website and it was clear to me that this was a moderate Democrat in the style of Bill Clinton. There is of course a lot of rhetoric about hope and change. But this is like a blank sheet where you can write anything. Those who despaired at the recent moves of Bush sought hope. But there is no basis to expect any one time to examine properly the substance of Obama's speech.

His government has treated Iran as a threat due to its uranium enrichment program, while countries that possess nuclear weapons such as India, Pakistan and Israel did not suffer the same pressure. How do you evaluate this way of proceeding?

Chomsky: Iran is perceived as a threat because they did not obey the orders of the United States. Militarily this threat is irrelevant. This country did not act aggressively beyond its borders for centuries. The only aggressive act occurred in the '70s under the Shah's government, when, with U.S. backing, they invaded two Arab islands. Of course nobody wants Iran or any other country to have nuclear weapons. It is known that this state is governed today by a loathsome regime. But apply the same labels that are applied to Iran to partners of the U.S. such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt, and it will only be lost to Iran on human rights. Israel invaded Lebanon with the blessing and help from the U.S., five times in thirty years. Iran has not done anything like that.

In spite of that, the country is considered as a threat...

Chomsky: Because Iran has followed an independent path and not subordinate to any order of international authorities. They behaved in a manner similar to what Chile did in the seventies. When this country was ruled by the socialist Salvador Allende, it was destabilized by the U.S. to produce "stability." It was not a question of any contradiction. It was necessary to overthrow the Allende government - forcible "destabilizing" - to maintain "stability" to restore the authority of the U.S. The same phenomenon is occurring now in the Gulf region. Teheran objects to the authority of the USA.

How do you value the goal of the international community to impose severe sanctions on Tehran?

Chomsky: The international community: a curious expression. Most of the countries in the world belong to the non-aligned bloc and strongly support Iran's right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. It has repeated often and openly that it is not considered part of the so called "international community." Obviously only those countries that follow U.S. orders belong to it. It is the U.S. and Israel threatening Iran and this threat must be taken seriously.

For what reasons?

Chomsky: Israel now has hundreds of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Of the latter, the most dangerous comes from Germany. This country provides Dolphin nuclear submarines that are virtually invisible. They can be equipped with nuclear missiles, and Israel is prepared to move these submarines to the Gulf. Thanks to the Egyptian dictatorship, Israeli submarines may pass through the Suez Canal.

I do not know if this was reported in Germany, but about two weeks ago the U.S. Navy said it built a base for nuclear weapons on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. There submarines equipped with nuclear missiles would be stationed, including the so-called "bunker buster." These are projectiles that can penetrate concrete walls several feet thick. They were designed exclusively for an intervention in Iran. Prominent Israeli military historian, Martin van Creveld Levi, a man clearly conservative, wrote in 2003, immediately after the invasion of Iraq, that "after the invasion the Iranians went crazy for not having developed any atomic weapon." In practical terms: is there any other way to stop an invasion? Why has the U.S. has not occupied North Korea? Because there is a deterrent. I repeat: nobody wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, but the likelihood that Iran would use nuclear weapons is minimal. This can be proved in the testing of U.S. intelligence. If Iran wanted to equip themselves with a single nuclear warhead, probably the country would be devastated. Such a fate is not to the liking of Islamic clerics in the government: until now they have not shown any suicidal impulse.

What can the European Union do to resolve the tension of this so explosive situation ?

Chomsky: It could reduce the danger of war. The EU could put pressure on India, Pakistan and Israel, the most prominent non-subscribers to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, so that they finally sign it. In October 2009, when they protested against Iran's atomic program, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) adopted a resolution that Israel defied, that this country sign the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and allow access for international inspectors to its nuclear systems. Europe and the U.S. negotiated to block this resolution. Obama made Israel know immediately that it should pay no attention to this resolution.

It's interesting what has happened in Europe since the Cold War ended. Those who believed in the propaganda of the previous decades had to expect that NATO would dissolve in 1990. After all, the organization was created to protect Europe from "Russian hordes." Now they are not "Russian hordes," but the organization expands and violates all the promises it made to Gorbachev, who was naive enough to believe what President Bush and Chancellor Kohl said, namely that NATO would not move a centimeter in the direction of Eastern Europe. In the assessment of international analysts, Gorbachev believed in everything they said. It was not very wise. Today NATO has expanded to large areas of the East and follows its strategy of controlling the world's energy system, the pipelines and trade routes. Today it is a display of the power for intervention of the U.S.A. in the world. Why does Europe accept that? Because it does not put its foot down and looks facing the U.S.A.?

Although the U.S.A. intends to keep on being a military superpower, its economy virtually collapsed in 2008. Billions of dollars were lacking to rescue Wall Street. Without the money from China, the U.S. might have entered into bankruptcy.

Chomsky: There is much talk of Chinese money and it is speculated much from this fact about a power shift in the world. China could overtake the U.S.? I consider that question an expression of ideological extremism. The States are not the only actors on the world stage. To a certain extent they are important, but not absolutely. The actors, who dominate their respective States, are primarily economic: the banks and corporations. If we examine who controls the world and determines policy, we will refrain from stating a shift of world power and global workforce. China is the extreme example. These interactions occur between transnational corporations, financial institutions and the State insofar as it serves their interests. This is the only power shift, but it provides no headline.

Ormoz  04/19/2010 11:58 AM Report

Charlie Rose has done us all a great favour, especially the American and Iranian people. With this interview we understand that there is a dirty covert connection between the US and Iranian governments. Something they both deny and swear that they don’t even see eye to eye or don’t want to sit on a table and talk!! Oh no God forbid!!!

But Iranian and American intellectuals and those who are politically aware (which of course are not in the majority) know that there is something going on. There are regular connections and meetings between them. During the presidency of Rafsanjani his son had a meeting with the American officials every month, usually in Switzerland or Cypress. During Khatami, Jaques Shirac would bring a letter from Clinton for Khatami!!!

As for Ahmadinezhad, Michael Ledeen was in Iran a few months before the disputed presidential elections and now the revelation of the Leveretts that they have been in Tehran is the icing on the cake!!. Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi one of the biggest supporters of Ahmadinezhad changes his Arabic clothes and wears a suit and visits the US and England covertly once a month. His pictures in suit in New York were published on the internet a few days ago.

The Mullahs in Iran need the support of the US and Israel in order to stay in power. They don’t know much about diplomacy as their leader Ayatollah Khomeini said. The question is who is giving them more support. It looks like it is Israel. Both Michael Ledeen and Leveretts are Jews so are Ahmadinezhad and some of his ministers and close allies like: Askarowladi, Kolhar and finally the vice president (Ahmadinezhad’s inlaw, the father of his daughter’s husband).

It is widely known among the political intellectuals that Ahmadinezhad was supported by Netanyahu in the elections and it may be the reason he won. The question is if Israel can bring a person in power in a Muslim country what else can they do??? They had a history of doing that by creating and then empowering HAMAS and Hezbullah, but Iran is a huge country and this is a huge achievement for Israel. Will the Palestinians ever have a chance of getting their land back???? No way!!!

Mikefreeman  04/18/2010 08:18 PM Report

Ozmos, Either you have some problem or don’t want to understand, please read the book of Noam may be you will get some thing, your question was why “Iran bought the weapons to defend Iran against Iraq”, are you stupid or do you know how Sadam with the help of USA was using Chemical weapons against innocent Iranian and how many Iranian were killed during that war, The War that was started by Sadam.I am not Muslim but I have to say that it was success of Iranian diplomacy to get the weapons from USA and Israel and in the response Iran gave them Hezbollah(Results you have seen prior to 60 days war and even during 60 days war),Hamas and etc, while shame for USA and Israel who could not do any thing against Iranian revaluation expects creation of a few punks like you.

I asked you in the start you were against Ahmed then Khomeini and then Islam, while 95% of Iranians are Muslims and believe on the revaluation of Khomeini. Is green against of Islam or revaluation please let me know and then I will send you details of green leaders.

Ormoz  04/17/2010 11:00 PM Report

Yes I agree with you Mikefreeman!

The Israelis sold a lot of weapons to Khomeini through Nimrodi, but also 2 other businessmen Hakim and Ghorbanifar. Khomeini said it is Halaal to buy from Israel if they don't write " made in Israel or USA" or "shipped from Haifa".!! But one Danish seaman who used to work on a ship between Israel and Iran blew the wistle and told everything to scandinavian newspapers. Khomeini bought about 1000 billion US Dollars weapons. Most of them from Israel. You can read about it in: The Arms Bazaar by Anthony Sampson and also " Treacherous alliance" by Trita Parsi.

Ahmadinezhad and Shah and Khomeini are all Americans and work for the WEST not for the Iranian people. Otherwise why should they buy so much weapons and kill Iraqis for example who are actually brothers with Iranians.

Thanks for your sources that you mentioned here. It is all I told you before. They are dictators. They kill. The Shah, khomeini and Somoza and batista all worked for the USA otherwise the US and CIA doesn't let them to come to power. Like Mossadegh in Iran and Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Khomeini paid so much money to Reagan to fight the poor Sandinistas. Why?? What had they done to Khomeini??

By the way if you tell me your name I tell you my name. You know the Iranian government is spending a lot of money to control the Internet. Recently they bought some equipment from Israel to censor the Internet and some news sites, So I am afraid to mention my name. But we (the opposition) are controling the internet as well and know who is working for the Iranian government. We will get them and if we don't get to them because they are old and die like old Ayatollahs we will get their children. We will succede in getting our country back from the Zionists like Askarolaadi, Kolhar, ahmadinezhad and his vice and father of his son in law who are all Zionists!!!

Mikefreeman  04/17/2010 10:30 PM Report

Ormoz,i have to say that your allegations are the allegation of Your Boss Bush,Mujahideen were created by USA even earlier then Afghan war with the help of Saudia,if you need more ref.please let me know and please have a look on this article may be you will understand the role of University of Nabreska, saudi and USA

Mujahideen were created by USA and Pakistan with the help Saudi and USA aid.The mujahideen ran an Educational Center for Afghanistan that had “children's books designed for it by University of Nebraska under a $50 million USAID grant ... A third-grade mathematics textbook asks: ‘One group of mujahideen attack 50 Russian soldiers. In that attack 20 Russians are killed. How many Russians fled?’ A fourth-grade textbook ups the ante: ‘The speed of a Kalashnikov bullet is 800 meters per second. If a Russian is at a distance of 3200 meters from a mujahid, and that mujahid aims at the Russian’s head, calculate how many seconds it will take for the bullet to strike the Russian in the forehead.’ The program ended in 1994 but the books continued to circulate: ‘US-sponsored textbooks, which exhort Afghan children to pluck out the eyes of their enemies and cut off their legs, are still widely available in Afghanistan and Pakistan, some in their original form.’”[13]

The Americans and the Soviets, having thoroughly used and abused Afghanistan for their Cold War ends, abandoned it completely in the late 80s. Their withdrawal was followed by a civil war that was won by the victorious Islamists, who alone could provide a measure of cohesion and stability amid the chaos. A million Afghans had died, millions more were disabled, maimed, or orphaned. The chief economic product was still opium and heroin; the only schools operating were the madrassas once funded by the US to mould recruits for the holy war against the Russians. The global recruiting and training infrastructure remained, as did the financial networks and Saudi aid. After the war, the ideologically charged mujahideen didn’t just go home and become baby boomers. They had driven the Soviets out and their victory emboldened them to expand their militant jihad. From this cesspool arose the Taliban and “the forces that carried out the operation we know as 9/11.”[14] following:

Mikefreeman  04/16/2010 12:27 PM Report

My Dear friend ormoz (I don’t know it can be a real name or a fake person with fake ID),First of all it’s your style right from the beginning to blame and label people with different allegations like now people are getting money from Iranian government!!!!!!!!!! , I can see it’s not your fault. In start you were against of Ahmed and in favor of green latterly when you were exposed then you started to say bad Things about Khomeini and now against Islam, can I ask where are you standing. If you have some problem with Islam then around 95% of Iranians are Muslim. Right now in Iran there are just two group one is Ahmed and second one green while they both are under the shadow of Rehbar,where are you standing under the shadow of muafqeen.But any how your one allegation of Bush see below detail

From the book of Noam page 222 the culture of terrorism THE

Both Nicaragua and Iran were ruled until 1979 by U.S. clients—brutal, barbarous, corrupt murderers and torturers—who had been placed in power by U.S. violence (the Shah, by a CIA coup in 1953; the Somoza dynasty, by the Marine intervention of the late 1920s) and kept in power by the U.S., in the last years, with the aid of Israel in both

cases. Furthermore, Nicaragua and Iran each played a leading role in U.S. strategic planning, so that the loss of these client states in 1979 was a serious matter

page228

In the case of the Shah, who was regularly cited by Amnesty

International and other human rights organizations as one of the worst human rights violators of his day, President Carter praised his progressive administration” and “move toward democracy” on October 31, 1978, shortly after his U.S-trained troops had murdered thousands of demonstrators in the streets. Earlier, Carter had explained that “there

is no leader with whom I have a deeper sense of personal gratitude and personal friendship” than the Shah. Carter was particularly impressed by the “stability” in Iran “under the great leadership of the Shah”: “This is a

great tribute to you, Your Majesty,” he declared, “and to your leadership, and to the respect, admiration and love which your people give to you.” Meanwhile U.S. arms flowed in abundance while the CIA instructed the

Shah’s secret police in torture techniques devised by the Nazis, with the help of Israeli specialists.1

though Carter’s national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski remains convinced that “procrastination and bureaucratic sabotage prevented the U.S.-sponsored military coup” that he advocated and “that might have saved Iran from Khomeini”—and “the masses

Page232

One major purpose of these arms supply operations was to locate what are called “moderates.” Thus the Los Angeles Times reports that Israeli arms shipments to Iran apparently began in 1979, hence shortly after General Huyser’s failure to instigate a military coup, to “help keep

channels open to moderate or pragmatic elements in Iran, particularly in the military, who would one day overthrow or at least inherit the power.”23 The terminology (“moderate,” “pragmatic”) is standard Newspeak, but this report is unusually honest in recognizing the reasons. The concept of “moderate” is explained by Un Lubrani of the

Labor Party, former de facto Israeli Ambassador to Iran under the Shah, now in charge of Israeli operations (terrorism, to be honest) in southern Lebanon. Outlining the motivation for the Israeli arms sales over BBC in

February 1982, Lubrani said:

Page232

I very strongly believe that Tehran can be taken over by a very relatively small force, determined, ruthless, cruel. I mean the men who would lead that force will have to be emotionally geared toIn short, these men would be “moderates,” in the technical Orwellian sense, who could carry out a coup that would, it was hoped, restore the

Israel-Iran-Saudi Arabia alliance. In October 1982, the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Moshe Arens, informed the press that Israel was providing arms to Iran “in coordination with the U.S. government.

..at almost the highest of levels” in the hope of establishing relations with Iranian officers who could carry out a military coup, or who “might be in a position of power in Iran” during the post-Khomeini succession.

The same analysis was presented publicly in 1982—though kept from a U.S. audience—by other high-ranking Israeli officials, including David Kimche and Yaakov Nimrodi, who are now identified as the earliest intermediaries in the 1985 operation of secret arms supply to Iran,perhaps its initiators.24

page 234

The efforts to inspire a military coup in Iran were publicly endorsed in February 1982—with some skepticism as to the prospects—by U.S. commentators, including Richard Helms (former CIA chief and Ambassador to Iran), Robert Komer (high Pentagon official under the Carter administration and “pacification” chief in Vietnam, and one of the

architects of Carter’s Rapid Deployment Force, which, he observed,could be used to support a military coup in Iran), and others. Again, all of this was out of earshot of the American public, except for publications that are easily ignored in the United States.

Ormoz  04/16/2010 01:31 AM Report

Some people who have been paid by the Iranian government to write comments and change the subject are in action!!They are present everywhere there is a discussion about Iran and they come with broken English and naive comments like "if you want to know the current situation read the history" and when they fall short they start abusing and humiliating other comentators.

The subject here is that 2 CIA agents that went to IRAN to see their friend Ahmadinezhad are talking very "GOOD" about him.!!!( I thought they were enemies?!!) They think he should have the nuclear bomb too, and yes Mr Mikefreeman, it was the ISI ( ABDULGHADERKHAN)that by the order of USA and Israel gave the Mullahs in Iran the technology!! Now they want to use it against Arabs and sell some nuclear technology to them too.

Creating Mujahedeen and then Taliban cost billions of Dollars and I wonder if Islam is so much against USA, why did the US paid so much money to creat them?? I also wonder why Ayatollah Khomeini paid so much money to Ronald Reagan to creat Mujahedeen?? For more on that you can read books like "Unholy wars" by John Cooley.

On Israel selling weapons to Iran you can read The Arms Bazaar by Anthony Sampson.Also Trecherous Alliance by Trita Parsi.

About the dirty help that the Iranian government did in Nicaragua (Iran- CONTRA affair) and Bosnia to help the USA, read The culture of Terrorism by Noam Chomsky and Does America need a foreign policy by Henry Kissinger.

If you want to know how Israel created HAMAS read Battle for God by Karen Armstrong!

I wonder where you got your information from ???

Islam has been working so good for Israel and America that they decided to make Iraq an Islamic republic too. Allawi, Chalabi, Shahrestani are famous CIA agents and also friends and relatives of the Iranian government. There you have another connection between the Big SATAN and small Satan!!

The Iranian people will get rid of them both soon!!!

Mikefreeman  04/13/2010 11:55 PM Report

Dear Friend, you just exposed your self as I wrote in the start antirevolutionary and munafqeen can make noise as much as they can, please go and read the history may be you will learn some thing. Again please talk on facts instead of allegations like Bush.

• Taliban were created by Pakistan and USA with the help of ISI (I am pretty sure you don’t any thing about ISI)

• During the Afghan war Iran was fighting against Iraq and USA,when they were using the chemical weapons against the innocent children of Iran

• Please go and read about Bosnia what was Iranian role in that war

• Every one in Palestine and Lebanon knows the role of PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah if you need some articles and books please let me know I can provide

• Selling weapons to Saudi Arab and Kuwait ,can I ask a question do you know any thing about Sadam Hussein or do you like to read about history of current affairs

• You make me laugh about Nicaragua, same argument that was used by Bush, that Nicaragua is threat for USA

Over there in Iran people changed the name of Iran after revolution, more then 90% people want Islamic govermenr, and Iran never attacked any country. Iranian are facing the terrorism that is helped by superpower with the help of Junduallah.Please first sit down read and then write any thing

Ormoz  04/13/2010 10:07 PM Report

Iranian people were not happy with the Shah. He got cancer. The US had to put someone else in his place who would serve the USA as good as the Shah. His son was very young and couldn't do the job. They chose Ayatollah Khomeini. He did some things for the US and Israel that the Shah wouldn't even dare to do like:

1- Helping to fight the soviet Union in Afghanistan.The Saudi government and Khomeini also destroyed the oil prices by the order of the US so that it wouldn't be profitable for the soviet Union to start selling oil.

2- Helping and financing the Contras in Nicaragua.

3- Helping the US government to supply arms to Bosnia through Iran against the UN embargo.

4- Helping the US to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan and installing the Isamic government there.

5- Helping and assisting the US to install the Islamic government in Iraq.

6- Playing the role of a "threat" to arabs and helping the US to sell billions of Dollars worth of weapons to Arabs every year. Now they want to sell nuclear technology to Arabs because Iran has it!!!

7- Weakening the PLO in Israel by financing HAMAS that was created by Israel.

8- Destablising Lebanon by creating Hezbullah.

I can go on and on and on....

The question is who is serving the US better????We understand from this interview that the US wants Ahmadinezhad. But Iranian people are tired of governments that serve the US and Israel. They want independence and hopefully they will get it soon!!!

Mikefreeman  04/13/2010 01:36 AM Report

Point was raised that which Iranian government was more influenced or has/had more close relationship with USA, First of all if we see Shah-e-Iran every body in the world knows that he was a real slave of USA then in the period of Khomeini negotiation was going on with state for their bank accounts and for Americans who were captured by Iranian student But Hashemi Rafsanjani and Reza Khatami were more enthusiastic and keenly negotiating and helping USA that can be seen in BBC Documentary but Ahmed wants negotiation with USA on equal bases that’s why he wrote a letter to Bush. I don’t think Dialogue is bad thing, if they on equal bases instead of master and slave

Mikefreeman  04/12/2010 04:31 PM Report

My dear Ormoz don’t waste your time in by writing your point of view, there a lot of Jews who don’t like oppression in Palestine, Lebanon, and all over the world. Please try to be a human being and love the human kind instead of labeling the people with Jews, Muslim etc, for me there are some kind of people like oppressors, opportunist, and human kind lover etc, you can see and I can admit that isreal, CIA, Sadam, shah-e-iran are oppressors while revolution of Iran was and is a hope for poor people, but some opportunists don’t like it and wants to be slave of USA in terms of culture and economy.

Ormoz  04/11/2010 07:00 PM Report

It's interesting that some people write comments here that Ahmadinezhad is against Israel although this couple who just met him and probably had some messages from Netanyahu for him say he doesn't mean any harm to Israel!!!!

These persons, with their choice of words in their comments reveal that they are Jewish-Hizbullah supporters who don't like the Ahmadinezhad-Israel connection to be unveiled and discussed, so they are trying to redirect the course of this discussion, like Mikefreeman down here who has a Jewish name but uses Arabic words!!!

The subject is this: what are the CIA agents doing in a country that the US says has no relationship or contact with?? We know there are regular contacts but both governments deny it because they don't want the Iranian and American people know. Why? Because the 1979 revolution in Iran which was for independent from the US becomes meaningless!!

We, the Iranian people appreciate these opportunities to tell the world that Iran is still under US and Israel control and ask them to support us. What this couple say and this discussion here is very important. Please don't waist time and space and allow serious contributions here!!!

Mikefreeman  04/11/2010 11:03 AM Report

Totally agree with most of friends who are mentioning that Ahmadinezhad is blessing for Israel and USA, very true Ahmadinezhad is showing the real face of Israel and USA to innocent American who are captured by the CNN,FOX etc. most of the people over here are talking without any fact they are just presenting their own point of view

First of all Ahmadinezhad is a blessing for Israeli people not for Israeli Army, (Fact)

• We all have seen that during the 60 days war Israeli and majority of world population came out of the Hallucination that was created by Israeli Army and Israeli corrupt leader.

• Ahmadinezhad did not denied the Holocaust but asked for more research to know the fact that why this incident happened and what was the actual rate of death of Jews during that worst incident which was happened in Europe and poor Palestinian have nothing to do with the Holocaust and if Jews wanted to have a separate country that should be build in Poland or Germany instead of Palestine.

For Election every body knows that Rehbar is the most popular leader in Iran and he has full support to Ahmadinezhad and election results were 95% fair without any doubts. We all have seen the rally of 31 Anniversary of Revaluation. So antirevolutionary and Munfaqeen can make a noise as much as they can.

Ormoz  04/09/2010 04:51 PM Report

How can this couple and the world media be so naiv to compare the number of Ahmadinezhad and Green movements supporters??! One comes out to show his support may lose his life or get arrested and the other gets a cold drink or a sandwich.These people are talking like there is no way for listeners to realise they are not being fair in their observations and it is definately bias because they simply want Ahmadinezhad to continue . The reason is simple as we understand in the interview that he is good for the American and Israeli interests in Iran. They say "What Ahmadinezhad is doing for the Iranian people Khatami didn't and Mussavi can't deliver". If you take out "Iranian people" and put USA & Israel instead, you realise why they want Ahmadinezhad. That's why MOSSAD's says" If Israel had spent hundreds of billions of Dollars they could not achieve what Ahmadinezhad has achieved for Israel. He is an angel that God has sent to help Israel".

We, Iranian people are not that stupid as the CIA thinks and will get our independance some day if people like Ricardo Amaral who is posting a lot of messages in support of the Iranian government here allow us to use this space for wiser messages than his!!

saeedrezairani  04/07/2010 08:41 PM Report

thanks for your interview with these smart and opportunity hunter business couple, i believe this couple just understand very well that how they can take advantage of present weak position of Ahmadi nezhad and make a fortune for themselves by repeating the same nonsense as he deliver in his speeches, just in a different style and in a democratic pose (no doubt they are well paid for that, specially when they said that they had been in iran just two weeks ago and they addressed american poles as an evidence for the fair and true result of the election, however they have not mentioned to two other poles by two very much more important poles conducted by Iranian Intelligence service as well as Internal Ministry in which both of them showed the election will going to the second turn, i believe between Karoobi and Mousavi) they also referred that the mousavi and green movement had not presented any evidence so far which is the biggest lie i ever heard after election (the respected report of evidences in more than 550 pages is available for every one on net showing solid evidences to support that the election was total fraud, after all what every iranian without presenting any evidence can understand is very simple, majority of the voters unexpectedly participate in the election just for a single goal, which was not to elect Mousavi or Karoobi, but to prevent Ahmadi nezhad to remain in power. any way i can not blame these smart business couple why they are taking advantage of situation by denying the crystal clear facts and truth but at last i just refer them to their consciousness as a human being and ask them to think over and just a little bit consider the innocent university student, teachers, ..... who are now in prison and reconsider how they are helping a brutal dictator for just earning money? however they are not alone in this line, Hamas, Syria, Chavez,, .... and all others who supporting this regime are treating well in the same way, this is the very common policy of Ahmandi Nezhad for buying support among the international media by spending generously from our Iranian Pocket, shame on them all!

danial  04/07/2010 08:42 AM Report

Hillary Leverett says:

"He (Khatami) also didn’t deliver on relations with the

international community".

She Also says: "He (Mousavi) is not going to be the answer to any of our national security and foreign policy concerns"

Do they not know that when it comes to foreign policy the matter is out of the hands of the president and his office (probably even the parliament)?

"I think the critical point about us which differentiates us from I think most of the Iran analysts out there is that we don’t have a preference..."

Well I think they very much have a preference. Their support (and their call for the US govt. to do the same) for the Iranian regime does make sense but doing so openly will will harm potentially good relations with the reformists, of course assuming that this Iranian regime considers the US govt.'s backing as genuine (which will never happen).

Arash  04/07/2010 05:04 AM Report

The Arguments of these two interviewees, Leveretts, just made me coin a new term and add it to the political terminology: that is "political prostitute". Yes prostitutes are not only those who sell their bodies. those who, contrary to all clear evidences tell great lies are also prostitutes. now the question is that "how much have they got from the criminal regime of Tehran to defend it in public?" this will be cleared out later.

Ricardo_Amaral  04/06/2010 11:33 PM Report

Reply to Ormoz

Based on your posting I am not sure if you are a member of the Jewish Lobby doing your job?

Or if you are just stupid by nature?

.

Ormoz  04/06/2010 08:45 PM Report

Ricardo_ Amaral!

Please read the interview carefully!!

You sound like you have not paid attention to the secrets they unveil that there is a covert relationship between this government in Iran and the US. That there are some people in the Iranian government that are keeping an eye on the US interests in that country and this couple want the US to pay more attention to them. You have not paid attention to the fact that these are Whaite house advisers who have been travelling to Iran and have been visiting top Iranian politicians. Did you know that inocent people are being prisoned for talking to foreign journalists and then the president talks to the White House advisors while he sends the people to the streets to say death to America!!!

You failed to pay attention to the fact that ahmadinezhad is not really against Israel (he is in fact a JEW) who says bad things about Israel to gain support among Arabs (as the couple say)and fool the Palestinians and Iranian people. This makes Ahmadinezhad a poor people's president. The Iranian government has been doing that for 30 years now!!

From your comments I realise you have missed a lot!! please read the interview again!!

Parvin_Irandoost  04/06/2010 05:57 PM Report

To the Leveretts and others who think the election results were valid, I have to pose the question as why a small percentage of those 63% or 24 million people who voted for Ahmadinejad did not have a grass-root demonstration in support of him after the election? Furthermore, why would the government object to recounting the votes or conducting another election to prove the validity instead of improsoning, raping, and killing so many people? Those who care at all about Iran and US would never want a normalized relationship with a regime that treats its own citizen like we have all seen. (look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71xh0KgSbvk

It is time for America to speak for humanity and not her short term interstes in the region like it's done in the past.

ScottLucas  04/03/2010 03:47 PM Report

Fiorangela,

A belated thank you for your comment.

While I have serious issues with the Leveretts' approach to information and analysis, I share your call for common ground....

"The people who care about Iran, as I believe you and the Leveretts do, and who care about the US, should be on their guard against being divided against each other by forces who do NOT have at heart the best interests of either Iran or the US."

Scott

ScottLucas  04/03/2010 04:52 AM Report

All,

I've contributed/responded to a series of points on and beyond the election, up to the current state of the situation in Iran, in the discussion on the Leverett blog at Race for Iran (www.raceforiran.com).

For the record, I was an Adjunct Professor at the University of Tehran and am honoured to have worked with many fine academics and students there. Some of them are amongst my close friends.

Peace,

Scott

Ricardo_Amaral  04/03/2010 02:22 AM Report

To epic1212

I agree with you - Israel is completely out of control - they are sending hit squads to assassinate people in other countries, and they continue to threat to attack Iran, year after year.

Never mind all the innocent people they have killed in Gaza over the years, and so on....

As a matter of fact I just read an article on the front page of a major Brazilian newspaper saying that the international community is tired of the constant threats of Israel about attacking other people.

The world is waking up regarding which country is the real troublemaker on the Middle East.

It is time for the United States to distance itself from this lose cannon.

.

Ricardo_Amaral  04/03/2010 02:15 AM Report

To epic1212

Which criminal government from annihilation?

Israel?

epic1212  04/02/2010 08:50 PM Report

Please understand that Islamic government spends millions of dollars each year on censorship and propaganda; trying to find itself a place in the world; part of this campaign is to buy out influence with American public and American government; as it feels extremely insecure; here we just witnessed, vividly, one example of how some of that millions of dollars had bought; an ex-CIA couple, now on Islamic Republic's payroll, spreading lies and propaganda; at the end, none of these are going to save this criminal government from annihilation..

Thank you.

Ricardo_Amaral  03/31/2010 10:13 PM Report

Since February 2006 we were having a discussion on the Elite Trader Forum about the history American interference on Iran’s internal affairs in the last 60 years.

I wonder if Americans would mind if the Iranians were trying to do the same things here in the United States such as organizing the overthrow of the US government like the one the CIA organized in Iran in 1953, or financing and organizing local groups to demonstrate and create political problems to the current government of Iran.

With such a history of destabilizing and creating problems inside Iran, if I were an Iranian citizen I would not trust the United States for anything. I would not trust the British as well.

You can read the discussion on that subject at:

Iran and American Interference

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63583

…February 6, 2006

The Iranians want to build nuclear weapons – and so what?

Since Iran is a sovereign country they have the right to do anything they want inside their country to protect their population, including building nuclear weapons - In my opinion, the same story applies to North Korea.

Here we are talking about a country's sovereignty. I don't know if the American people understand the concept of "Sovereignty" today, otherwise why the United States make such a big deal about other countries developing nuclear weapons?

This is not a debate about defending North Korea's or Iran's position. This is a debate about how a country that has sovereignty also has the right to build nuclear weapons….

.

SEC  03/31/2010 10:12 PM Report

I thought the Leveretts were very insightful and not in the least bit "misleading" or full of "empty allegations" as Scott Lucas has bellowed more than once below. In the very least they caused viewers to reflect and perhaps challenge their own assumptions about Iran and recent developments there. Reading the ebbs and flows of politics in Iran is an inexact science. Any serious student of Iranian politics knows this. One of the things that impressed me about the Leveretts' analysis was that they didn't give easy answers, probably because they are committed to the difficult task of cutting through what has become a well-established narrative about Iran and its politics. I did not agree with everything the Leveretts said and I can agree with Scott Lucas that there was some speculation on their part. Personally, I am skeptical about the viability of the "Grand Bargain" thesis. But, again, we are trying to make sense of a very dynamic and complex situation unfolding in Tehran. What we got from the Leveretts was honest and open evaluation of the situation in order to shift and expand the conversation about Iran and its relations with the United States. Overall, based on their collective experience, it is hard to deny that they speak with a great deal of authority on Iran and the region, no matter what one thinks of their views. As such, they were worthy guests of Charlie Rose. I hope they soon return to the show.

Ricardo_Amaral  03/31/2010 10:10 PM Report

Since February 2006 we were having a discussion on the Elite Trader Forum the history American interference on Iran’s internal affairs.

I wonder if Americans would mind if the Iranians were trying to do the same things here in the United States such as organizing the overthrow of the US government like the one

The CIA organized in Iran in 1953, or financing and organizing local groups to demonstrate and create political problems to the current government of Iran.

With such a history of destabilizing and creating problems inside Iran, if I were an Iranian citizen I would not trust the United States for anything. I would not trust the British as well.

You can read the discussion on that subject at:

Iran and American Interference

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63583

…February 6, 2006

The Iranians want to build nuclear weapons – and so what?

Since Iran is a sovereign country they have the right to do anything they want inside their country to protect their population, including building nuclear weapons - In my opinion, the same story applies to North Korea.

Here we are talking about a country's sovereignty. I don't know if the American people understand the concept of "Sovereignty" today, otherwise why the United States make such a big deal about other countries developing nuclear weapons?

This is not a debate about defending North Korea's or Iran's position. This is a debate about how a country that has sovereignty also has the right to build nuclear weapons….

.

Esfandiari  03/31/2010 07:54 PM Report

@Kamran: Maybe he got confused between the University of Tehran and the University of Tel Aviv. We all make mistakes!

Kamran  03/31/2010 07:47 PM Report

When Scott Lucas is even prepared to be dishonest when he claims to have an affiliation with the University of Tehran in order to score a point, what do you expect?

He seems to have an interest in continued hostility between the two countries. It's sad.

Esfandiari  03/31/2010 07:20 PM Report

@Kamran: I don't know what Scott Lucas's point actually is? Do you? Are the Leveretts "misleading" because they actually bother to visit Iran and talk to students, professors and politicians alike whereas he does not?

He claims he is not advocating sanctions or war and prefers rapprochment, but he is working hard against the very two people who are doing everything to foster a better relationship between Iran and the United States.

Makes no sense to me.

Kamran  03/31/2010 06:19 PM Report

Why does Scott Lucas falsely claim that he is an an adjunct professor at the University of Tehran? What sort of academic would do such a thing? He completely discredits himself by saying such things.

He should accept the fact that he has invested too much of his credibility in the GM and that he has basically become a propaganda tool for these people. All of his predictions have turned out to be completely wrong and the Leveretts were much more mature and very accurate in their analysis.

Iranian  03/31/2010 05:49 PM Report

I've asked my professors at the University of Tehran, whether Scott Lucas is an adjunct professor at the University of Tehran. The reply was that he is not an adjunct professor. Everyone was surprised that he would make such a claim. I wish he would be a bit more honest about these things as well as many other things. Maybe he will now claim that his position has been stolen by the Iranian government!

Fiorangela  03/31/2010 05:01 PM Report

Scott,

I notice that you were one of the participants in the NIAC conference in DC early this month. About 50 of us watched the live stream and discussed it online as it progressed.

We remarked then that you seemed to attempt to press Iran into your own analytic framework rather than attempt to capture a truly unique Iranian/Zoroastrian/Islamic/Persian/ complex. To that complex one must add a soupcon of paranoia and a suppressed (by pride and dignity) resentment that the world has steadfastly refused to recognize that Iranians, too, were subjected to horrendous victimization by Saddam's chemical attacks which have left as many as 50,000 Iranians unable to lead normal, fruitful lives. In response to this bitter experience during Iraq's war on Iran, Iranians, too, have vowed "Never Again" would they be defenseless in the face of an imperializing West -- or Arab or Israeli -- power.

Most American refuse to take this huge reality into account when discussing Iran. Hang on to your hot buttons: to ignore the gassing of Iran is tantamount to denying Iran's holocaust.

I certainly don't presume to bring any expertise at all to the situation; I'm just an observer. I think you and the Leveretts have a great deal more in common than issues that separate you. You all might benefit from the observations of an outsider: you, Scott, seem 'logic-bound:' constrained by the tenets of your field of expertise. However, as you mentioned in your reference to my earlier comment, you have been in contact with Iranians and discussed these issues closely; I respect that and thank you for communicating your impressions to us.

The Leveretts seem to come to the table with a less rigidly constructed theoretical framework, and with a knowledge of the current historical contexts that Americans are, mistakenly, in their view, applying to Iran. They suggest a different context from America's brief portfolio of foreign policy experiences. They may not have the ultimate answer, but at least they, together with you, can shift the conversation from one that has, so far, been dominated by neoconservatives.

The people who care about Iran, as I believe you and the Leveretts do, and who care about the US, should be on their guard against being divided against each other by forces who do NOT have at heart the best interests of either Iran or the US.

ScottLucas  03/31/2010 04:49 PM Report

Esfandiari,

Sorry, but it's not productive or even possible to engage with unsupported assertions of right and wrong, whether it comes from the Leveretts or from yourself, that are simply repeated over and over.

I wish you well,

Scott

Esfandiari  03/31/2010 03:31 PM Report

SCOTT:

The simple fact is that, on every occasion, your analysis has been WRONG. You see Rafsanjani's bid to rescue himself from political oblivion as a sign that all is not well in the Islamic Republic. The "shark" has decided to make peace with his enemies for now: He was always only going to rock the boat and not sink the ship.

There is not real threat to Ahmadinejad or Khamenei. They rode out the crisis successfully.

ScottLucas  03/31/2010 02:27 PM Report

Esfandiari,

Your last sentence does no justice to the rest of your post --- you can't, after the "machinations" in the "political culture", wish away a questionable electoral process and the issue of Government legitimacy with a pejorative like "clueless".

Read and consider what I have written about the election, Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, Rafsanjani, and a wide variety of issues inside Iran --- such as the current battle between the Larijani camp in Parliament and the President --- and then I can look forward to a productive discussion with you about the "complexity of the matrix of power struggles going on in Iran".

mutex  03/31/2010 02:11 PM Report

I just wanted to say thank you to the Leveretts and Charlie Rose for the refreshingly honest and insightful analysis of the United States/Iran relationship. I happen to agree with their argument for a 'Grand Bargain' with Iran but what strikes me about the opposing point of view is how intellectually inconsistent it is. Could you imagine, in any other context, approaching someone and announcing you want to collaborate with them in the short run but that your ultimate goal is their forceful elimination?

Their analysis with respect to China is also to the point. These nations feel defensive because they believe the United States refuses to respect their fundamental right to manage their internal affairs and exert influence in their regions. The way forward seems to be through embracing them as allies while still defending an evolutionary improvement in civil rights and democracy. The basis of this non-threatening philosophy is that commerce, communication and cooperation will do far more to bring about modernization than threats and covert operations that support revolution and cause destabilization.

Ultimately the United States needs to either treat Iran as an all out enemy or to reconcile with them. The current middle ground is untenable and only promotes the perpetuation of current tensions.

Now, if only our economic problems could be addressed with the same rigor and candor we might set about the task of turning that ship around. Unfortunately politics and reality all too often seem to be only nodding acquaintances.

Thanks again for at least bringing some balance to this debate.

Esfandiari  03/31/2010 01:41 PM Report

@LUCAS:

Forgive me for not knowing enough about your background. But you don't seem to appreciate the complexity of the matrix of power struggles going on in Iran - if you knew Iran better you would understand that cloak & dagger and underhand machinations are part of the political culture.

Rafsanjani is in a battle for influence with Ayatollah Khamenei, but they both have enough in common to know when to kiss and make up - the Leveretts are right in that they go back a long way to the time when they were in seminary. Ahmadinejad is at much at war with fellow conservatives as he is with reformists. At the end of the day, the rival players within the Islamic Republic are not going to sink the very ship they are aboard.

Your continuing rejection of the validity of the election result ,and the level of popular support for the incumbent, is what makes you think you are, frankly, clueless.

ScottLucas  03/31/2010 12:27 PM Report

Esfandiari,

I have had the good fortune to go to Iran. I have taught there, worked with academic colleagues and students,and met many Iranians who have become close friends. I have written for Iranian newspapers, still comment frequently on Iranian satellite television, and am (to my knowledge) still an Adjunct Professor at the University of Tehran.

When I say that the Leveretts have little or no evidence for their claims, I do so from the basis not only of my observations but --- more importantly --- from information and analysis from many Iranians who are kind enough to work with me.

For example, to respond to Fiorangela's example, Flynt Leverett --- from a lack of information, misunderstanding, wishful thinking, or wilful distortion --- has put out the misleading line that Hashemi Rafsanjani now supports the regime. Rafsanjani, a complex politician playing a complex game, has made clear in recent weeks that he backs the Supreme Leader but he has maintained --- primarily through allies making public statement --- opposition to the Ahmadinejad Government. (Note that the regime, trying to press Rafsanjani to give up that opposition, have imprisoned both his grandson and his wife's cousin, another prominent Iranian politician, in recent weeks.)

I value a variety of opinions on this important matter. But those opinions should --- in the spirit of honest discussion --- be based on facts rather than empty allegation.

Esfandiari  03/31/2010 10:34 AM Report

@Bahman.

They may not speak Persian but neither does Michael Ledeen or Josh Muravchik who advocate regime change. The fact is that they have visited Iran, met with ordinary people, and have engaged Iranian officials. They have also carefully analysed the developments over the last 31 years better than anyone.

Do you think someone like Karim Sadjadpour or Abbas Milani are serious scholars and don't just speak for the agenda of the institutes they work for?

Bahman  03/31/2010 07:33 AM Report

The Leveretts have a right to their opinions, but I can't cede them as having any sort of expertise on Iran, given that neither of them speak any Persian whatsoever (which while not being a sufficient condition for expertise is certainly a necessary one).

Fiorangela  03/31/2010 07:17 AM Report

I disagree with Scott Lucas's criticism that the Leveretts "offered little support..." regarding Iran's internal politics (especially).

On Mar 29, Ellen Tauscher briefed the press on the outcomes of Obama's nuclear weapons reduction pact with Russia. Her comments regarding Iran betrayed a shallow knowledge of Iran, no more sophisticated than the latest pop-blog talking points.

In contrast, Flynt presented first-hand, eye-witness evidence that major political players in Iran's power structure are contending with one another, but are NOT challenging the structure of the government: Leverett heard Rafsanjani deliver a major speech in which he said, "the Supreme Leader is the center of unity." Flynt presented background on the depth and strength of the relationship between Rafsanjani and Khamenei.

That is critically important information for a negotiator to have about the party across the table.

US government spokespersons and pundits have taken to concluding that, because Iran's government is in "disarray" in the aftermath of the "fraudulent" election in June, there is "no one to talk to" in the Iranian government.

Flynt and Hillary Leverett set the record straight on each of those points.

Unfortunately, Ellen Tauscher did not have the benefit of that information when she briefed the American people on critically important matters.

Esfandiari  03/31/2010 06:21 AM Report

I am surprised by Professor Scott Lucas's continuing argument from ignorance and personal incredulity. He has never, to my knowledge, been to Iran or met with Iranians living there, especially government officials - but the Leveretts have. There is nothing misleading about the Leveretts' analysis which is based on a careful understanding of Iran's internal dynamics.

Dr Lucas was wrong about the results of the election ,and the strength of the Green movement, whereas the Leveretts have been shown to be broadly correct as 3 independent and comprehensive surveys of Iranian public opinion demonstrate. It is astonishing that he should be so deprecatory towards them when it is he who must acknowledge the failings of his own understanding of Iran and inability to learn.

Charlie Rose did the right thing in inviting two voices of reason to the show. It was a good interview.

Fiorangela  03/31/2010 05:29 AM Report

Bravo! Bravo! Drs. Leverett, you have undone the Gordian knot:

"The best thing that can happen to ensure Israel's security is for Iran to turn, and we can do that. The US did it in Egypt; Kissinger and Nixon did it in China. A US rapprochement with Iran is in the best interest of Israel and the US." (paraphrasing)

Yes We Can!

ScottLucas  03/31/2010 04:33 AM Report

Sadly, I found little of value in this platform for the Leveretts, and indeed in almost all of their commentary in recent months. For me, this is polemic posing as analysis, distinguished by unsupported speculation, misrepresentations, and frequent distortions.

The Leverett offer little support for their assertions about Iran’s internal politics, some of which are wildly off the mark. Unfortunately, in contrast to the normal excellent of this programme, I found Mr Rose and his researchers ill-prepared to confront the Leveretts' misleading claims.

Ricardo_Amaral  03/30/2010 10:41 PM Report

Congratulations Charlie for presenting an honest perspective about Iran.

This program has been the best program that you had in years regarding the subject of Iran.

This program shows that we still have some people with common sense here in the United States that can discuss the subject of Iran in an intelligent manner.

Thank you for bringing into your program some guests that have something to say that gives us a fresh and positive perspective regarding Iran.

.

ssfred  03/30/2010 08:38 PM Report

Hillary, when will you run for President?

I am almost 57 years old and voted once in my life because I received extra college credits. You would be the only person I would get out, limp to the polls, and vote for.

You are absolutely brilliant.

Thanks and please let me know when you are running for President.

Thanks Charlie for your show and for having Hillary on.

REMant  03/30/2010 07:58 PM Report

I think it would be typical of the Obama admin to try to play both sides of the street, and I agree that's not possible. But I can't see "turning" the present Iranian regime, as much as I'd like that to be the case, and it is not poor or Sunni like Egypt. Perhaps tho we can learn to live with them. There's containment and there's containment. I do not think it necessarily entails embargoes and sanctions, that we have to be buddy-buddy, or that we should encourage a revolution. A lot of ppl I suppose are thinking of Cuba or the Soviet Union. Well, how much has our policy there actually accomplished, and what has it cost?