Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: There was more back and forth between the United States and Iran today. The latest escalation of tensions began when the U.S. and European Union moved to tighten sanctions against Iran. The Iranians responded with the threat to block oil shipments through the Straits of Hormuz. Then the U.S. Fifth Fleet said that it would not allow any disruption to shipping in the Straits. Today, Iran said the U.S. is not in a position to tell it what to do. We’ll consider who can tell who what to do and who can back it up, but first, we consider those sanctions with the help of Michael Singh, he’s Managing Director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Michael, explain what new sanctions or measures have been proposed and when they would likely take effect.

Michael Singh: Well, what the United States wants to do is it wants to impose restrictions on other countries dealing with the Central Bank of Iran. The idea being that this would severely constrict not only Iran’s various commercial activities but especially constrict their ability to sell oil easily, and would essentially reduce their oil revenues by forcing them to sell it at a discount.

Werman: Would it discourage any particular countries from buying oil from Iran?

Singh: Well, you know Iran just has a handful, frankly, of oil customers, the largest of which are countries in Asia – China, Japan, South Korea. It also has some important customers in Europe, such as Greece, Italy and Spain which obviously are undergoing their own severe economic difficulties right now. But it most important customers really are those Asian customers, and especially China as far as the U.S. is concerned.

Werman: So, do you think these sanctions will work across the board? I mean, will China play ball?

Singh: Well, I think it’s a tough road to hoe. I think that what the United States hopes is that perhaps you would’nt need to get China on board. China has been very difficult when it comes to getting international agreement on sanctions. But the thought is that maybe if you can get the other countries on board to reduce or even eliminate their oil purchases from Iran and switch, say, to Saudi Arabia or other Gulf countries, that essentially that would give China more bargaining power with Iran and again force the Iranians to sell their oil at a discount. Now, there are a lot of assumptions built into that and whether or not those assumptions hold I think is the big question.

Werman: And right now, what value is it to the United States that China would have more bargaining power with Iran?

Singh: Well, I think again, the idea is that the key is not so much Iran’s oil export, per say. The key thing is Iran’s oil revenues – how much it’s getting paid. The idea is that if China was in a position, or if any country were in a position, to force Iran to sell at a cheaper price, that would substantially eat into Iran’s oil revenues. And those revenues, bear in mind, make up 70 percent of Iran’s government budget and 50 percent of Iran’s GDP.

Werman: How big a gamble is it to impose sanctions like this? Couldn’t it potentially restrict oil supply and therefore drive up oil prices?

Singh: Well, certainly. Many other countries do see this as a gamble and that’s been the chief difficulty for U.S. diplomats and for the Treasury Department officials that have been trying to get other countries on board. They are not convinced that sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran wouldn’t result in a large increase in oil prices, or that it wouldn’t lead Iran to do something rash in the Persian Gulf. And, of course, the exercises which have been taking place in the last few days just contribute to those worries.

Werman: Why do you think we are seeing such a strong response from the Iranians?

Singh: Well, I think that what Iran is trying to communicate to the world and to the United States in particular is that they have red lines and that one of those red lines is their oil exports, and that any attempt to interfere with their oil exports will provoke a strong response by Iran. Now, one thing that’s important to keep in mind this context, is that Iran does engage in war games and Iran does make blustery threats almost on a daily basis. And so, while this one has garnered more international attention because of the context perhaps, I think that these threats do not necessarily carry a great deal of credibility either with government officials or frankly even with investors around the world.

Werman: Michael Singh, Managing Director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, thank you.

Singh: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Burmese cartoonist Harn Lay shows what Hillary Clinton is stepping through and around in making her historic trip to Burma. Harn Lay is the staff cartoonist for The Irrawaddy, an independent news source published in Thailand by Burmese exiles.

• The World’s Global Political Cartoons
• Follow Global Cartoons on Twitter @globalcartoons
• Find Global Cartoons on Facebook

Clinton says she is “quite hopeful” that reforms undertaken by the government could lead to a broader “movement for change”.

She is due to meet Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and President Thein Sein on her two-day visit.

No American politician of her seniority has visited since an army takeover in 1962.

Anchor Lisa Mullins speaks with Steven Lee Myers of the New York Times, who is traveling with Secretary Clinton.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: I am Lisa Mullins, and this is The World. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Myanmar today. Mrs. Clinton is on a 2-day visit to the country which is also known as Burma. It’s the first trip by such a senior American official in close to 50 years. That’s how long Burma and its repressive military leaders have been isolated from the rest of the globe. But as Secretary Clinton noted today, recent political openings allowed by the military could herald a new era for Myanmar.

Hillary Clinton: Obviously, we and many other nations are quite hopeful that these ‘flickers of progress’ as President Obama called them will be ignited into a movement for change that will benefit the people of the country.

Mullins: Steven Lee Myers of the New York Times is travelling with Secretary Clinton. He is in the Burmese administrative capital Nay Pyi Taw.

Steven Lee Myers: Secretary of State Clinton came here to try to test the depth of the changes that have been taking place here over the last few months, to get a sense, I think, of whether or not there’s a genuine commitment to loosening what is really one of the most autocratic governments in the world.

Mullins: Why specifically would the government of Myanmar, or Burma, be making these moves now…be making these overtures? And why would Washington want to seize the opportunity?

Myers: I think there are many factors at work here. I’ve talked to many people in the administration about this over the last couple of months and they see what’s happening here as a reflection of the country’s willingness to kind of catch up with the rest of Southeast Asia and the world. This was a very isolated country and it fell far behind its neighbors like Thailand, let alone Singapore, Korea, or Japan. Another main factor is Burma’s or Myanmar’s only friend for years has been China and I think, at least, many people in the administration have said that they think that Myanmar’s new President may be looking to ease the dependence on China a little bit.

Mullins: What is America’s interest?

Myers: You know, America’s interest I think is two-fold. I mean, there’s the geo-political aspect of course in terms of managing rising economic and political power in China. But, the other factor which I don’t think you can discount is the cause of Burma is very important to America, to members in Congress, to celebrities, to people who have followed Aung San Suu Kyi’s resistance over the years. That resonates with a lot of people back home who favor democracy in everything. So I think it’s two-fold for the administration. I mean, there is this larger regional geo-political concern, but I think also just a genuine desire to help the democratic aspirations of the Burmese people.

Mullins: And just one more quick reflection on being there… You’re not in Yangon which is the former capital. You’re in a new capital that was basically, seemingly built overnight.

Myers: It was, and coming in… I’ve been in places like this, repressive countries before, but driving in you don’t see signs of modern life. It’s still a place where you see water buffaloes and farmers on the side of the road. There’s just not a city to speak of here in the sense that you and I would understand it. It seems like a very isolated, remote capital of a country that is somewhat behind. We just came here from South Korea and we were in Busan – - it’s just another world compared to this.

Mullins: All right. Speaking to us from the administrative capital of Burma – Nay Pyi Taw, Steven Lee Myers of the New York Times. Thank you.

Myers: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Reform in Myanmar:

• Nov 7, 2010: First polls in 20 years
• Lebanon and Israel exchange gun fire
• Nov 13, 2010: Aung San Suu Kyi freed from house arrest
• Mar 30, 2011: Transfer of power to new government complete
• Aug 14: Aung San Suu Kyi allowed to leave Rangoon on political visit
• Aug 19: Aung San Suu Kyi meets Burmese President Thein Sein
• Oct 6: Human rights commission established
• Oct 12: More than 200 political prisoners freed
• Oct 13: New labor laws allowing unions passed
• Nov 17: Burma granted Asean chair in 2014
• Nov 18: NLD says it is rejoining political process

Read tweets about Myanmar

Aung Zaw, a veteran of the 1988 protests in Myanmar, says Hillary Clinton’s visit is welcome, but that the civilian government has to take certain concrete steps, like releasing the remaining political prisoners, before it can say it is serious about reform.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: Aung Zaw is a pro democracy activist in exile. He left Burma after he took part in the 1988 protests against military rule. He’s now the editor of Irrawaddy, which is an independent Burmese news magazine based in Thailand. Aung Zaw says that many Burmese have great respect for the US and welcome Secretary Clinton’s visit, but he says that they want and expect Clinton to use her trip to press for real change in Burma.

Aung Zaw: That’s why they are asking okay, Clinton, you can come to Burma, but at the same time you have to press for meaningful change in the country because the Burmese people cannot express fully what they wish to be. So they want to see Clinton speaking on behalf of these oppressed Burmese people.

Mullins: On behalf of the oppressed people of Burma, I wonder about Aung San Suu Kyi, very celebrated opposition leader, I wonder if you think she should take part in the political process in Burma at all right now even before political prisoners are released?

Zaw: Well, first of all I would like to say that she’s hugely popular. She’s untouchable. She has a huge following in Burma, but at the same time she has decided to resist her party and she even said that she trust president, whom she met a couple months ago. But at the same time I think government wants to have a sense of legitimacy because she’s very important. She’s an international figure who gained the international legitimacy I think the government needs to cooperate with Aung San Suu Kyi. The people…

Mullins: So it sounds like it’s to the government’s advantage to cooperate with her and is it not to her advantage to cooperate with the government so she can make political gains, so the opposition can make political gains?

Zaw: That’s the million dollar question because she doesn’t have a lot of choices. I believe, I think she’s a great leader, but at the same time I think once she shifted a side I think people would start to criticize her and position, and if they’d see her as very compromised. So I think there’s a danger in the future. But at the same time she’s hugely popular. She has a huge following in Burma and we’re lucky to have her.

Mullins: So your fear is if Aung San Suu Kyi gets too close to the government, has any appearance of selling out or being compromised, that’s she’s gonna lose her support as an opposition leader.

Zaw: I think so. I think she could lose a few, but still she’s like a Hollywood figure. She’s a pop star figure. She’s a political figure, a Gandhi type of political status that she has enjoyed so much, so I think she’s still the one who will lead the country who could change the country. That’s why activists, students and also inside the prison, as well as the government try and garner Aung San Suu Kyi the legitimacy in her support, I think.

Mullins: Aung Zaw is the editor of Irrawaddy, an independent Burmese news magazine based in Thailand.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Clinton did concede that sanctions are a blunt instrument.

“I am aware that from time to time, certain sanctions can be difficult for totally innocent people going about their daily lives. But I would ask you to put yourself in the position of the international community and those who seek a better future inside Iran.”

One group of Iranians whose daily lives are being made more difficult by sanctions is Iranian students studying in the US.

When “Sarah” flew to San Francisco from Iran, she and her father were carrying $30,000 in cash.

“Handbags. I put it in my handbag, and my father put it in his carry on.”

I asked if that made her a bit, well, nervous?

“Yea, a little bit nervous, yea.”

Sarah was carrying stacks of hundred dollar bills because she needed the money to pay for her graduate studies. It’s not illegal to carry in large sums of cash. You just have to declare anything over $10,000.

Sarah had to do this because US sanctions imposed last year restrict Iranian banks from transferring more than $100 to American banks.

Sarah didn’t want to use her real name. Neither did her father. He lives in Tehran but was visiting Los Angeles when we spoke.

Speaking through a translator, he said he sent another $90,000 to Sarah through a third party. They wired money to his daughter from Turkey or Kuwait. Sarah’s father wasn’t sure which country the middle man used.

In the end, Sarah got the money to pay for her tuition, books and housing. But she and her father argue that the process was more than just an inconvenience. For instance, if something were to happen with the money transfer and Sarah was late with her tuition, she’d be in violation of her visa, and could be deported.

The US government wants Iranian students to come here. After all, they’re paying good money and serving as cultural ambassadors. Sarah’s father says the newest sanctions discriminate against average Iranians.

Banafsheh Akhlaghi

“The intention behind the sanction is to support democracy, eliminate the aiding and abetting of further national security issues. It’s not to have this young lady, Sarah, have difficulty in being able to be an international student here. I can’t imagine that the policymakers sat around the tables and thought that that’s the way in which they’re going to be able to get us to a safer nation, a safer global environment.”

“It’s very unfortunate that Iranian students, or Iranian citizens, should be hurt because of the actions of their own government,” said Nicholas Burns at the Harvard Kennedy School. “But I think the blame has got lie with their government”

Burns said sanctions are highly imprecise instruments. But they serve a purpose.

“They appear to be working well in Iran because they’re isolating the Iranian government, and that has been the purpose all along. Not just by the United States by the way. This is a policy agreed to by the European allies, and also by the other members of the (UN) Security Council.”

US officials have recently said that sanctions are slowing Iran’s nuclear program. Still, politicians and scholars have long argued over the effectiveness of sanctions.

Ibrahim Warde with the Fletcher School at Tufts University says the story of the Iranian students illustrates one point: It’s not that hard to get around the sanctions.

“An easy thing to do when you’re a tourist in Iran is to go to rug merchants and ask them, ‘OK, if I were to ship 20 of your carpets to the US, how would I do it?’ And then they would say, ‘Well, it’s very easy, because we have sister company in Turkey, or in Malaysia, or in Iraq. And what we’ll do is, we’ll do the billing thru these companies.’”

Those may just be carpets we’re talking about. But Warde says, in general, sanctions aren’t that effective if the rest of the world doesn’t cooperate.

“And there are always countries that are willing to help Iran and unwilling to go along with the sanctions.”

So what’s the answer? I asked attorney Banafsheh Akhlaghi what she proposed?

“So what do we want?” said Akhlagi. “An opportunity to also be part of those conversations as these policies are being written. We’re not there.”

Akhlaghi isn’t opposed to sanctions on the whole. But she says if policymakers see the broader impacts on average Iranians, they could write in exceptions.

When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for tighter sanctions yesterday, she also called for a “virtual embassy” for Iran. That could provide Iranians with online information about visas and student exchange programs.

But the country also known as Burma has a poor human rights record. Some 2,000 political dissidents remain in prison, and the United States, Europe and Australia have made their release a key condition of lifting economic sanctions.

On Tuesday, the Burmese government announced a mass amnesty, though it didn’t explicitly mention political prisoners. And many Burmese dissidents question the government’s commitment to reform.

In a safe house along the Thai-Burmese border, a man who calls himself Bo Bo looks at photos of a dozen men pasted on a wall. Like him, they’re members of a group of activist musicians called Generation Wave. Unlike him, they’re all in prison. He points at one photo; it’s of a friend now serving a 13-year sentence for illegal organizing.

“We started together doing politics,” he said. “We did actions together, and when he was arrested, I had to run.”

That was three years ago. Bo Bo had been handing out CDs and spray-painting anti-government graffiti in the capital, Yangon. One day police paid a visit to his house, so Bo Bo fled to this border town.

It was the anti-government protests in 2007, led by Buddhist monks, that politicized Bo Bo and other members of Generation Wave. Bo Bo said it was the first time he had ever seen a political demonstration, let alone marched in one.

“I feel something like, I would like to express out my feeling,” he said. “So I walk with them.”

But then the government launched violent crackdowns. Dozens were killed; hundreds more were beaten, and the number of the country’s political prisoners nearly doubled.

Now, nearly four years later, Myanmar’s leaders are promising reforms.

In September, the Burmese foreign minister Wunna Maung Lwin addressed the U.N. General Assembly. He urged the international community to drop sanctions against his country, and he hinted his government would soon grant an amnesty for an unspecified number of political prisoners.

Today, state media in Burma announced the government would release about 6,300 hundred prisoners. It’s not clear how many will be political detainees but the announcement came shortly after a government-appointed human rights panel said prisoners of conscience should be freed.

Many human rights advocates say this is an encouraging sign. But Bo Kyi remains skeptical. He was a student protestor in 1988, part of the 88 Generation student movement. He spent eight years in prison, some of them in solitary confinement.

“That was hell,” Bo Kyi said. “At the time I thought I could not survive. I would be beaten to death.”

Bo Kyi, who now heads the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, said Myanmar is merely doing the minimum to curry favor with the international community. The Burmese military government would like to chair the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 2014. But according to Bo Kyi, releasing a handful of prisoners is not meaningful change.

“That is a showcase to convince the international community,” he said. “That’s all.”

Political rapper Zayar Thaw is one example. The hip hop musician co-founded Generation Wave after the 2007 protests. He was jailed a few months later.

This past May, he was among several dozen political prisoners who were released when the government shaved one year off their sentences.

In an email, he questioned how Burma can be seen as making significant reforms.

“The government is still arresting political activists,” he wrote in the email. “They sentence them to 65 years in prison, then they reduce it by one year. Is this an improvement?”

Meanwhile, Bo Bo and other members of Generation Wave continue to produce politically charged songs in hiding. Bo Bo said he hopes to return home one day.

For now, though, he’s still waiting for real change.

But not this year.

“There’s no tourism,” Salha said. “Because for a tourist to reach the resort he needs to drive down a high way with loads of police and army stationed on it. It’s not safe.”

The police and army are there to clamp down on anti-government protests that have sprung up around Syria.

It’s been more than five months since demonstrators began calling for the resignation of President Bashar Al Assad and his authoritarian regime. Assad has responded to those calls with a security crackdown that the United Nations estimates has killed 2200 civilians. The United States and European countries have slapped sanctions on Syria. And they’re looking to impose more. It’s putting the hurt on an economy already reeling from instability and uncertainty.

Nabil Salha said there haven’t been any protests, or security forces looking to crush them, in his town, which is mainly Christian. But in nearby villages and towns, there have been clashes. But it’s the economic situation, not the clashes, that caused him to leave three months ago to stay with his mother in neighboring Lebanon.

“We are living without work in Syria,” Salha said. “My Father is getting his pension, but it’s not much. I’m losing around $1,000 a month, and it’s been three months since I’ve worked. Now I’m borrowing money from people and going into debt.”

Other Syrians in the tourism industry are suffering as well. Reports suggest hotels in the tourist hubs of Damascus and Aleppo are empty. Tourism makes up about 12 percent of Syria’s $52 billion economy, and the uprising — and the government’s refusal to make any meaningful reform — is taking a toll, according to Hilal Khashan, an analyst at the American University of Beirut.

“There’s no tourism, no transit. There’s a flight of capital from Syria. The economy is not in full gear,” Khashan said.

Gulf Arab and foreign companies have delayed or cancelled huge projects in Syria. The stock market there has dropped 41 percent. The gross domestic product, projected earlier this year to grow at three percent, may shrink five percent. Khashan said the greatest threat now facing the Assad regime is not the protests; it’s Syria’s collapsing economy.

“Those middle-class people who have secure jobs and send their kids to school and can afford to go to supermarkets and live fairly decent by Syrian standards will begin to realize the Assad regime has become a liability,” he said.

Many of those middle-class people live in Aleppo and Damascus, cities that have yet to see significant protests. Khashan notes that people in those cities have benefited from Assad’s economic liberalization, and found stability with the regime, but “if the elements of good life they are enjoying seem to be endangered, then may change their minds.”

One example came this week — Syrians found that their VISA credit cards stopped working, due to US and European sanctions on Syrian banks.

But it’s the rural poor who’ve suffered most under Assad’s decade of economic reforms. The government cut subsidies on fuel and food, lowered government investment in agriculture and cut government jobs. Now in the face of growing unrest, Assad has increased subsidies, and raised wages in the large government bureaucracy.

Syria used to bankroll the subsidies through its oil exports. But those exports are dwindling. The European Union has been the number one buyer of Syrian oil. Now sanctions have barred EU countries from importing Syrian oil. Economist Lahcen Achy said sanctions in general could wind up hurting Syria’s poor and working classes – the very people who are protesting.

“The issue is the effectiveness – it still might take a long time. A regime can survive for a long time,” Achy said, noting the examples of Iran and Iraq.

Achy said economic sanctions can only do so much. He thinks political and diplomatic pressure is the best way to push the Assad regime into enacting real reforms, or stepping down.

Nabil Salha, the unemployed tour guide, doubts the tourists will come back to Syria any time soon and he doesn’t see any end in sight.

“I’m afraid from both sides” he said. “If the regime falls, there will be chaos.” But the opposition has no leadership, so no one can take over if Assad goes,” he said. He’s not optimistic about Assad making any any meaningful reforms.

For now, Salha is staying in Lebanon, looking for work as a tour guide.

By Jeb Sharp

The change has been swift and dramatic and the Obama Administration has had to roll with the times. Michele Dunne of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says there’s no question priorities are changing.

“The Obama Administration came into office wanting to work on the Israeli Palestinian peace process and engaging with Iran to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power,” said Dunne.

“Those are still important issues but they’ve been a bit moved off to the side. So this issue the Obama Administration did not want to take on the issue of internal politics and human rights in these countries now has been forced onto the US agenda.”

The irony of course is that freedom in the Middle East was supposed to be President George W. Bush’s agenda, and one that President Obama took pains to distance himself from. But no longer, according to Dunne.

“I don’t sense that the Obama Administration is reacting to Bush anymore,” said Dunne. “They’ve been in office, they own their own agenda they’re moving forward with it. I do think he’s predisposed to view what’s happening at least in Tunisia and Egypt in a positive light.”

No new doctrine

But there’s no clear, new doctrine emerging yet. And it’s not a given that the United States will side with the protestors in all cases. Bernard Haykel, professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton, sees President Obama as torn between ideals and strategic interests.

“I think he identifies with these young people and would like to see them do well and like to see them succeed,” said Haykel. “But he is also being told by more established rulers, especially the ones who have oil, he’s being told if you pursue this path then you will destabilize this entire region and all hell will break loose and the United States will suffer as a result of it.”

Haykel would like to see more emphasis on strategic interests and more consistency. Instead he sees a scattershot approach.

“Choosing sides with those who want to topple Gaddafi, not knowing what to do in Yemen and sticking with what we know in Bahrain, is really no policy at all,” said Haykel. “Sometimes it doesn’t make sense.”

It may not make sense for a while. But Bruce Jentleson, who has just finished a stint as senior advisor at the State Department, says a couple of things are coming clear: these events reinforce, once again, the centrality of the Middle East to US foreign policy. And they have made old ways of doing business obsolete.

“Some of the old deals that the United States tried to stand by, you know, he may be a bad guy but he’s our guy and we would give a higher priority to some of the security cooperation over political and economic reform; that’s not a bargain that will serve American interests anymore,” said Jentleson. “It’s not even saying values are more important; it’s not going to work anymore as a general calculation.”

Cold War impulse

What’s more says Jentleson, the old Cold War impulse to divide the world starkly into us and them, friend and foe, needs to be checked, especially when it comes to political Islam.

“We have to be able to differentiate between different forms of political Islam,” said Jentleson. “Those that are extreme and are fundamentally threatening to our interests, our values, and our allies, like al Qaeda and some others, and those that are here to stay, are part of the political constellation and that we really have to find ways to work with if we really committed to processes in these countries that allow them to shape their own future.”

All of this will require a fundamental strategic rethink says Jentleson. Gone — or at least waning — are the days of presidents for life and absolute monarchies in the Middle East. Michele Dunne says dealing with a new array of political actors will require doing diplomacy differently.

“In a more modern way, in a way I think we do it in most of the rest of the world where it’s not a question of sitting down in a smoke-filled room and cutting a deal with one guy,” said Dunne. “That sort of way of doing diplomacy I think is gradually passing away in the Middle East as it has already in most other places.”

Whatever form the diplomacy takes, it’s hard to imagine the days ahead won’t be defining ones for President Obama’s foreign policy.

• Middle East protests: Country by country
• How We Got Here: Jeb Sharp’s history podcast
• NATO weighing options in Libya
• Follow Jeb Sharp on twitter

The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were relatively peaceful but the uprising in Libya has quickly turned into civil war. Muammar Gaddafi has shown — in word and deed — that he will target civilians who oppose him.

Bruce Jentleson is a professor at Duke University and was until recently a senior advisor in the US State Department.

“We can’t just sit on the sideline if this continues to escalate to huge atrocities against the Libyan people,” Jentleson said. “Yet we also know that the choices we have, none of them are guaranteed to work and all of them have lots of really difficult elements.”

The choice that’s been most bandied about so far is a no fly zone. British leader David Cameron has called for one. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has acknowledged the idea is under consideration. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates says there should be no illusions about what a no fly zone actually means.

“A no fly zone begins with an attack on Libya, to destroy the air defenses,” Gates said earlier this week. “That’s the way you do a no fly zone. And then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down. But that’s the way it starts but it also requires more airplanes than you would find on a single aircraft carrier, so it is a big operation in a big country.”

And Gates has made it clear he’s in no mood for new military adventures while he’s still got his hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan. But there’s considerable pressure building for some sort of intervention. The opposition in Libya is specifically calling for a no fly zone.

The merits of a no fly zone

Michael Knights is a Lafer Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He has studied the merits of no fly zones.

“No fly zones are the option that the international community naturally grabs for at moments like this,” said Knights. “They were very successful for instance in protecting the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq during a similar humanitarian crisis at the end of the 1991 Gulf War.

“A small state came out of that experience of protecting with a no fly zone. However that’s one of the downsides of no fly zones: sometimes they can be in place for a very long time. They’re easy to start but very hard to end and they’re very resource intensive.“

Knights says there are other options though — the US for instance could bomb Gaddafi’s runways and air defenses without necessarily committing to long-term patrols over Libyan air space.

“As long as the US got a UN resolution backing the no fly zones that was time limited, then the US would not be stuck in some open-ended policing operation that as in the case of Iraq, lasted a decade,” said Knights.

A UN resolution would seem to be key to any US intervention, given the troubled legacy of the US-led invasion of Iraq. President Obama has signalled he doesn’t want to do anything unilaterally.

But any US participation at all carries risks, given the strength of anti-American sentiment in the region. As Knights points out, if the US provides military support but fails to overthrow Gaddafi, then the US might feel responsible for protecting the opposition indefinitely. You also don’t want to raise hopes and then dash them as the first Bush Administration did in Iraq.

“After the 1991 uprising in Iraq, where the rebels almost toppled Saddam, but then failed and were severely repressed, that left a lasting legacy of resentment toward the US that has played into the insurgency we’ve seen since 2003,” said Knights. “People in southern Iraq never forgot the fact that the US encouraged them to rise up and then did not support them.”

Grappling with failure

In the years since the international community has grappled with its failure to stop mass killing in Bosnia, Rwanda and the Darfur region of Sudan. In 2005 the UN General Assembly endorsed an evolving principle known as the responsibility to protect.

The idea is that the international community should intervene — however it can — when a government sets about slaughtering its own people. Former Libyan foreign ministry official Murad Hemayma has just defected. He invoked the principle in an interview with the BBC.

“The international community has a duty to protect,” said Hemayma. “We don’t want another Rwanda on our hands.”

Rwanda looms large in Bruce Jentleson’s mind as well.

“If this continues to escalate, and the international community does not act, and you have a genuine instance of crimes against humanity,” said Jentleson, “If we don’t act in that situation, the thing that really resonates with me is the question of when will we act?”

For now though, any overt military assistance from outside seems a long way off. The hope is that the Libyan people will manage to bring Gaddafi down by themselves.

View Libyan uprising, last updated at 10:30pm GMT, Feb 27 in a larger map

• Marco Werman talks with former ambassador Ryan Crocker about a possible intervention in Libya
• Live updates from the BBC
• Video reports from Libya
• BBC coverage in Arabic
• How We Got Here: Jeb Sharp’s history podcast

Read tweets about Libya

• Live updates from the BBC
• Possible scenarios for Libya
• New York Times photos from Libya

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World.  Today, Muammar Gaddafi denied the people on the streets are demonstrating against him.  Quite the opposite, said the leader.

Muammar Gaddafi: They love me, all my people with me, they love me all.

Woman: But if they do love you…

Gaddafi: They, they will die to protect me and my people.

Mullins: Despite Gaddafi’s words, reports say there was intense fighting today between pro and anti government forces in northwestern Libya, and a protest took place in the suburb of the capital, Tripoli.  Several hundred people took to the streets to chant slogans against Gaddafi.

Protestors: [Speaking Arabic]

Mullins: They cried, “The blood of martyrs won’t go to waste.”  Otherwise, today was a relatively quiet day for most residents of Tripoli.  A business professional, a man named Ahmed, spoke with us this afternoon.

Ahmed: The regime has done a fantastic job making things seem to be quite safe.  And I’ll have to admit from about 9:00 o’clock in the morning until about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon it’s relatively quiet in Tripoli in the sense of any military, nothing really visible, people are going on with their normal lives, and getting, buying the food, and going about the city.

Some are just furious to see what has happened from the day before.  Schools are still shut.  Offices, governmental offices are open.  The government is handing out cash, 500 dinars per family.

Mullins: Let me just…

Ahmed: So it’s a substantial amount of money for many families.

Mullins: That’s pretty substantial as you say, Ahmed, say 500 dinars per family is roughly about 400 U.S. dollars, I believe.  How is that working? This has never happened as you say in Libya before, that there have been handouts, cash handouts to people.  How is it working?

Ahmed: No, this has not happened before.  This is actually the first time.  We expected there will be a lot of payments from the regime, sort of incite people against the protestors.  And if some of the population who actually buy into the gesture of goodwill from the regime for more good things to come, then I will be worried.

Mullins: Do you see…

Ahmed: In other words, the 500 Libyan dinars could be buying some people’s souls at the moment.

Mullins: Ahmed, you mentioned that things seem to be business as usual between 9AM and 3:00 in the afternoon.  What happens after 3:00?

Ahmed: Yes, now the past 10 days or so the resistance has been active at light, from 7:00 in the evening onwards more than during the day.  So what we, most of us unfortunately, we do sit idle waiting to see what will happen next.  And fair enough, I mean every night it’s almost been since seven o’clock in the evening until about two or three o’clock in the morning, that’s when the most activity happens.

Mullins: When you talk about resistance Ahmed, often we think of armed resistance.  And I wonder if you can make the distinction for us, from what’s happening at least right now in Tripoli.  I mean speak to what you know.  Are there protestors there conducting the kind of resistance we’ve seen in other countries, Tunisia or especially Egypt?  Or is it more armed resistance?  Do people have, those who are against the government, do they have easy access to weaponry?

Ahmed: I wish there was.  And there are none.  The reason being that we’re not very mobile outside Tripoli.  Tripoli is heavily guarded so we might be able to exit, but on entrance we’re gonna be heavily searched, so everyone is avoiding that.

Mullins: Ahmed, I don’t want to mischaracterize what you’re saying or what your intentions might be, but it sounds like you’re saying that if there were an armory that were opened up that you would happily arm yourself and be part of some kind of resistance if it turns violent, then it would all be resolved sooner.  Is that what you’re saying?

Ahmed: That’s correct.  If we have access to weapons the resistance will be much more effective, and we will be able to take much more control in truth than we do at the moment.

Mullins: Well, how do you, I mean…

Ahmed: And I would be personally very happy to be active in that as well.

Mullins: That again is a man named Ahmed, he’s a critic of Muammar Gaddafi.  He spoke to us from Tripoli this afternoon.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Read tweets about Libya

Iran's key nuclear sites

Iran said today it will begin construction of a third nuclear enrichment plant by March of next year. The Islamic republic already has a large enrichment site at Natanz and a smaller one near Qom. Today’s announcement referred to 10 new enrichment plants Iran plans to build. The US and its allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to make nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the charges. The World’s Katy Clark talks with Greg Thielmann who is an intelligence expert at the Arms Control Association in Washington. Download MP3

• BBC coverage
• IAEA reports on Iran
• Iran’s key nuclear sites

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

KATY CLARK: I’m Katy Clark and this is The World. Iran said today it will begin construction of a third nuclear enrichment plant by March of next year. The Islamic republic already has a large enrichment site at Natanz and a smaller one near Qom. Today’s announcement referred to 10 new enrichment plants Iran plans to build. The US and its allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to make nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the charges. Greg Thielmann is an intelligence expert at the Arms Control Association in Washington. Greg, some people may think that Iran already has nuclear weapons, but, technically at least, how far off are they?

GREG THIELMANN:  Well, that is one of the questions of the moment, Katy. US Defense Secretary Gates says that Iran could have sufficient fissile material, or the ingredients of nuclear weapons, within a year, and within another year could have weaponized that material. But I’ve spent enough time in the intelligence community to pay very careful attention to words like “could.” We have not been able to document any Iranian production or enrichment of uranium above a 20% level. 90% is required for fissile material.

CLARK:  Does the IAEA, though, have complete access to all of Iran’s facilities?

THIELMANN: It does not have complete access and that is exactly the rub. The issue is can the International Atomic Energy Agency assure the UN membership that Iran has no nuclear weapons program? So, right now we are in a dispute between the international community and Iran on making the Iranian nuclear program transparent enough to dispel suspicions that Iran has a parallel nuclear weapons program.

CLARK: Just how wide is the gap between Iran’s current lack of transparency and any perception that they want nuclear weapons? Is it one of these cases where Iran needs to prove that it doesn’t want it because people are just tending to think the worst at this point?

THIELMANN: I think the weight of expert opinion is that Iran, at the very least, wants to develop the capability to be able to acquire nuclear weapons rapidly. And also after the findings of, not just the US, but various foreign intelligence services, that Iran itself for some 18 years had a clandestine nuclear weapons program that was only halted, the US believes, in the fall of 2003. So, the current focus is on whether or not Iran has resumed that clandestine nuclear weapons program.

CLARK: So, I’m wondering then, bringing it back to the announcement today that Iran is going to begin construction on a third nuclear enrichment plant. Does that announcement only confirm assumptions that Iran wants a nuclear weapons program down the road?

THIELMANN: Well, it certainly does confirm it for many people. If the announcement were made in the way that announcements should be made, that is, information on where it planned to construct, providing the blueprints of that construction, an explanation that showed how this plan fitted in with Iran’s overall nuclear energy development program, that would be a major step toward addressing suspicions that these plants are going to be developed at clandestine locations and would be used to make highly-enriched uranium for nuclear weapons purposes.

CLARK: Greg Thielmann is a former director at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. He’s now a senior fellow at the Arms Control Association in Washington. Good to speak with you.

THIELMANN: Thank you for the opportunity.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• Stephen Kinzer on Iran, Turkey and the U.S. (Feb)
• book info

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  I’m Marco Werman and this is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston.  Iran’s tough stance on its nuclear program got tougher today.  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country won’t agree to talks on the issue if the U.N. Security Council imposes new sanctions.  Then, the Council announced it will vote on fresh sanctions tomorrow.  They’d include tighter financial restrictions and the expansion of a limited arms embargo.  Stephen Kinzer was a foreign correspondent for the New York Times for many years.  His latest book is “Reset:  Iran, Turkey and America’s Future”.  Mr. Kinzer joins us in our studio.  Do you think that there’s a risk that there’s maybe too much attention paid to what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says.  Sometimes it feels like this is just pro forma trash talk like in game three or four of the Lakers-Celtics series.

STEPHEN KINZER:  You’re exactly and I’d even go a step further.  I think that Ahmadinejad is very aware that many Iranians don’t like him and that he’s unpopular in the Middle East as well.  He knows that there is one thing that could make him a hero to all Iranians, and that would be to be attacked by Israel or the United States.  That would then turn him into the ultimate martyr.  And I think he’s calculating what I can do, what can I say to be as outrageous as possible and see if I can provoke someone to bomb me.  That’s the way the entire nation of Iran will gather behind me.  There’s no other way.  And I think Ahmadinejad is calculating this very carefully.  We are playing into his hands by reporting every wink of his eyebrows and trying to play him up as this ultimate demon and I think in the long run Iran’s strategic interests actually coincide more with America’s than they conflict with America’s.  And in addition, Iranian society, which is very vibrant and very open and democratic, has much more in common with American society than the societies of any of the countries with which we are now aligned.

WERMAN: What’s the primary way you think Iran’s interests coincide with American’s interests?

KINZER: The most important goal for Iran is a stable neighborhood.  That should also be the most important goal for Israel.  These are two countries, that in that sense are parallel and they are also parallel in the sense that they have a lot of enemies in the neighborhood and a lot of enemies in the world.  Nonetheless, it’s wrong to push these countries into a corner and stigmatize them and make them feel friendless and angry.  Somehow they need to be brought in to a kind of new regional security architecture in which stability in the region, which is the ultimate goal both of those countries in the United States, could possibly be assured.

WERMAN: Well one area where the world seemed to kind of pump helium into Ahmadinejad was just after last year’s contested Presidential election in Iran.  When you were in Iran recently, Stephen Kinzer, did you get a sense that the day of this anniversary, this coming Saturday, is going to be marked by protest?

KINZER: I think there will be protests, but there’s no doubt in my mind that the momentum of the green movement, as the protests were called, has definitely slowed down.  I talked to dozens of ordinary Iranians on the street and the sense I got from all of them was, we tried something last year, it didn’t work, and now we’re just going to go on with our lives.  There’s no point in us getting arrested and beaten, that’s what’s going to happen if we go out and protest.  There will be change, but it’s not going to come soon.  Now in a country with 25 centuries of history, which is ten times more than the United States has, that’s a very understandable attitude.  Nonetheless, in a way it kind of conflicts with the American attitude.  We have the sense that everything has to happen right away.  We also have a sense in America that all problems ultimately have a solution, even if they’re complex.  You just break them down into pieces and you can find a way out.  Iranians have a different approach to life.  They would say that many problems don’t have quick solutions and some problems have no solutions at all.  So there’s a psychological as well as a political gap here.

WERMAN: Now Iran may have a role in the latest crisis with the flotilla of activists headed for Gaza, this boat that Israel took over last week killing nine activists.  The Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said this past weekend that Iran could use its Navy to send humanitarian assistance to Gaza.  What do you make of that?

KINZER: I don’t take it too seriously.  I think right now the Egyptians have opened up their own crossing into Gaza.  They are allowing a lot of relief supplies in.  That takes some of the pressure off and therefore the theater of flotillas trying to land in occupied Gaza has diminished in the impact and importance that it has.  I think the flotilla incident, I think it really was a reaction what was happening particularly in Gaza.  When you’re sitting in that part of the world, and you are watching on television every single day, as we in the west do not, what is going on in Gaza?  And every episode is replayed a hundred times in your mind and on your TV screens, naturally anger builds up and that was what was behind Prime Minister Erdogan’s blow up in Davos earlier this year.  That friction between Turkey and Israel has been largely focused on Gaza. So I don’t think this is necessarily a problem that’s afflicting the entire policy apparatus in that region.  I think it’s more about Gaza and if the Gaza situation can somehow be eased, I think some of this tension we’re seeing in recent weeks will also ease.

WERMAN: Stephen Kinzer’s latest books is “Rest: Iran, Turkey and America’s Future”.  Stephen thanks so much for coming in.

KINZER: Great to be with you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• Ahmadinejad speaks at UN nuclear conference
• Iran and the nuclear issue

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  I’m Marco Werman and this is The World.  Years of diplomatic deadlock over Iran’s nuclear program may have reached a breakthrough today.  Iran says it will ship low enriched uranium to Turkey.  In return, Iran will receive higher enriched uranium to use in a medical research reactor in Tehran.  That fuel would still be enriched well below the level needed to manufacture a nuclear weapon.  The deal was brokered after 18 hours of negotiations between leaders from Iran, Turkey and Brazil.  But it’s far from certain that the deal will satisfy the international community.  The World’s Jason Margolis has more.

JASON MARGOLIS:  The question is why now?  Why is Iran agreeing to this deal?  That’s what the west is wondering.  After all, the agreement announced today mirrors a deal negotiated in Geneva last fall.  President Obama endorsed that plan, but Iran backed away from the proposal.  Brazil’s President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva suggested a deal is being reached now because of the people doing the negotiating.

INTERPRETER:  We’ve established a relationship of trust.  Politics isn’t possible without trust.  I think we have secured a great achievement that was a great victory for diplomacy.

MARGOLIS: That’s high faluting talk for a bad deal, argues Nicolas Burns at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.  He says Brazil and Turkey have negotiated an agreement contrary to the interests of the United States, Europe and even Russia.

NICOLAS BURNS:  This proposal does not address the real concern about Iran.  It’s still enriching uranium without the oversight of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

MARGOLIS: As to the question why now?  Burns argues that the game has changed since a deal was proposed last fall.  Iran has more raw materials.

BURNS:  President Obama and President Sarkozy had announced last autumn an arrangement with Iran whereby up to 70% of Iran’s low enriched uranium would be shipped out of Iran.  That would have made it impossible for Iran to have continued to enrich sufficient material to produce a nuclear weapon.  This agreement, as far as the press reports are concerned, and I’m just looking at the press reports, would only take about 50% of the low enriched uranium out of Iran leaving a lot of material in the country to potentially enrich to a weapons grade level, and to give Iran the prospect of continuing its nuclear program.

MARGOLIS: Iran’s foreign minister said this new deal should lead to cooperation and avoid confrontation. In other words, Iran should not be subject to further U.N. sanctions.  The President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy said the new deal does not change Europe’s position about Iran’s nuclear program.

HERMAN VAN ROMPUY:  Iran has so far refused to engage in serious discussions on reasonable concerns related to its nuclear program.  Iran needs to reassure the international community about the intentions behind its nuclear program.

MARGOLIS: Critics of today’s deal say Iran is simply stalling, trying to avoid sanctions while also attempting to win propaganda points.  Israel’s Deputy Defense Minister, Matan Vilnai, cut to the chase.  He said Iran is intent on getting nuclear weapons.  That Iran is taking steps that are far from benign as the President of Brazil tells it.  Iran is supposed to send details of today’s proposal to the IAEA within a week.  The White House is taking a wait and see approach, but stressed today that Iran has repeatedly failed to live up to its own commitments.  For The World, I’m Jason Margolis.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.