@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @á system >> it was amazing to me that we spent all this time with geology training an photographing the moon and understanding lunar craters. i even named a bunch of lunar craters on the flight. and yet, after about the third revolution, the moon was clearly kind of a boring place. i mean, it was nothing but holes and holes upon holes. and it always seemed ironic to me that we had really come to discover the moon and yet, when we saw the earth rise, we really kind of discovered the earth. >> i think that was one the greatest experiences and things that we brought back from that apollo 8 flight was really our perspective in the universe and

in the solar system and how small a body that we all lived in and it was sort of like a spacecraft with six billion astronauts all striving for the same things out of life. . . >> -- christmas eve -- took turns with the first chapters of the book of genesis, the home base of three great religions. whose idea was that? i guess you guys know what a thrill it if most people to hear that -- what a thrill. gave most people hear that. -- what a thrill it gave most people to hear that. people to hear that. >> we were told by nasa we would have the largest audience ever heard by a human voice before,>> the only instructions that we got from nasa -- can you imagine this happening today -- was do something inappropriate -- was to something appropriate.

[laughter] >> boy, from what we have heard tonight, that was a risk. [laughter] >> well, we all knew sy, and he went to one of his friends, a newspaperman. they stayed up all night trying to figure out something. his wife came are brown, and said, -- his wife came around, and said, open " you idiot, the answer is in the first chapters of genesis." i came back and asked jim and bill about it and they thought it was appropriate. >> i did it not so much as a religious story, but to set the tone for one man can first left the earth. -- for when mankind first left the earth. >> it could not have been scripted better than how it

actually turned out to be. a lot of it was coincidence. the determination of the time we had to go to the moon, the timing of it, was on december 21. we orbit the moon on christmas eve. those of you who remember 1968, it was a very troubled year in this country, with the war and assassinations and riots. we were able at the very end to circle the moon and do something positive and at the same time come up with a saying that was so appropriate at that time. >> as much as anything else that gets played over and over, "one small step," but you also hear the genesis reading and you get the pictures. ok, we're almost to the end.

we have a couple of microphones out here. >> can i add one more thing? >> let me finish one thing. we would get you a chance to answer some questions. i'm sorry. >> we were about the moon, and we were going to get the bird to get out from behind the mine. -- the burn to get out from behind the moon. going back to the sad thing about the time signal, that if we made -- the same thing about the time sicko, that if we made the successful burn, we would get out early. if the engine did not like, there would be a distinct difference in time. one of my jobs was to orient the antenna every time we would come around and make sure it was pointed at the earth when we popped out.

the engine burned just right, and we could just see them and moving away -- just see the moon, moving like a bit -- see the moon and moving away. i forgot to reorient the antenna. around the time we would have had radio contact, it turned around. it was a lot of heart failure down here. i owe all you guys a drink, and i'm buying. [laughter] [applause] >> there is one more story about that that i have never repeated. it sticks in my mind what i think about this. when we got set up to make that burn, lovell had to hit the button to start the countdown. he has cut his finger pointed and he looks at me and says, "are you sure you want to do this?" [laughter] you remember that?

>> the computer said, about five seconds, and it came up with a number that said, "are you really sure you want to make this thing?" and frank borman says, "punched the button." >> he is reaching over to punch it. [laughter] >> there are couple of questions before we go out to the audience. there is a microphone over here and i think one over here. if you have a burning question, we will come to you in just a minute. there are a couple of things we need to talk about here. what you guys think about -- what you guys think about a program that will take us back there, and a discussion of going on to mars? is that a good thing? should we have got 40 years ago, kept the program going? >> i, frankly, was a little disappointed that they canceled

skylab so quickly. you are going to go back to the moon someday. nasa seems to have a good plan, in my mind. but keep in mind that we don't have a cold war. the cold war was a major stimulus to apollo. as much as everybody wants a nice picture for hubble and exploring the moon again, i don't think we have the same groundswell of taxpayer support for it. as far as going to mars, it is a long way. these guys are going to be out of shape when they get there. i would hope that when we finally figured out how to do it, we could do not as americans beating the chinese or some silly things like that, but

do it as humans, going from the home planet to the next planet, and that does not seem to be happening. >> i cannot quite agree with that. i think there is a lot of cooperation now with a lot of the country's working together as a consortium. the short-term problem right now is the fact that shortly, the shuttle system will be taken out of service, retired, and we will rely on the russians for maybe the next four, five years to supply the space station, and hopefully the space station is complete. i think the modules can only be put up by the order. -- by the orbiter. that is the short-term problem.

.

it was quite a track to where you guys started to read ended up. >> i was born in 1928 and that was just before the depression. we did not have much money. i lost my father at an early age. i cannot go to college. -- i could not go to college. i did not have the money to go to college until i got into a naval aviation program. an rotc program. that is how i got my education. i did things that i always rockets and suddenly i was a naval aviator. something i had wanted to do.

the two things came together in the space program. i was in the original selection back in 1958 for the original mercury people and there are 30 two of us. -- 32 of us. i did not make it. i was disappointed. and then, when it came around, i was selected. i feel happy. i think i had a very fine career coming out of the depression and the conditions i was into where i am now. >> his experience and mike are about the same. the depression was sobering. for people who cannot remember, we were dirt-poor. i did not have the money to go to college so i volunteered to enlist. then you had the gi bill. point.

the other three guys ahead of me flunked or quit or something. i was there. i feel very lucky. we did not have health insurance, my dad did not have a job half of the time, i had to hitchhike to west point. it was a different world. the expectations today are a helluva lot more than ours were, and the strange thing was, growing up in arizona like that, i never felt or because everybody was like that. >> they are older than me. i do not have any depression experience. i don't have that depression and memory. or maybe i am so old that i can remember. my dad was in the navy in china when the japanese war broke out. my mom and by had a hard time escaping. -- my mom and i had a hard time escaping. that sort of boring day military career for me, following my dad in the naval academy in jumping ship in going to the air force. chasing russians around over the arctic ocean.

to me, everything was just like everybody else, things just fell one step after another and i was really surprised i got selected for the program. but i was all for it. >> ok. there are some lights on. i see some folks over at the microphone here. you have some questions for frank and jim and bill? >> i would like to start with a provocative question. after frank brought up his throwing up. was there and odor problem? or did that dissipate? >> i swore i would not help. -- would not tell. there was definitely an odor problem and because of the fact they put in some oxygen masks. even though is absolutely verboten, we were going to take an oxygen mask and slapped on.

-- slapped it on. -- slap it on. >> that was so you did not throw>> over here. comparing the g forces to anything? >> is anything that compares experience to deforest? -- experience the>> go down to the deep in the -- experience lee 0-- g forces. >> go down to the deep, base and maple being hit by the letter in low gear air out and float right there and get in an >> i mean the high g forces. >> i don't know that there is any thing. there is something that you sleep around. >> after being the first humans to see the moon at a close range, did your thoughts change in any way? >> did your thoughts change in

any way about seeing the moon so close? @@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my thoughts have not changed for myspace flights. the i feel the same way. >> i was a little bit influenced by arthur clarke's 2001 were he had sharp corners on the moon. let me tell you, it's sandblasted. [laughter] >> i get a sense that in some ways that apollo 8 was the shift because my generation and many others, we were 5 years old and going to the moon is done,

the moon used to be the unattainable. how is your sense on the inside? -- how was your sense? is there any sense of things changing on the outlook of the world stage? was the focus on the landing completely? >> i was thinking it was like columbus. he decided not land on hispaniola. -- we just did not land on his spaniel of -- his spaniel of -- hispaniola. >> apollo 8 was the change. we had only done earth orbitwe

went to a place that no one had ever been before. we saw the far side of the moon which you never seen at birth. -- a scene from the earth. this was a pioneering flights for apolo 8. >> my thoughts were that we beat the russians. [laughter] that was mission accomplished. the apollo took the steam out of their program. that is why i was at nasa. that is what we did. i am not as political as bill. flag in the moon, the apollo program was over. we beat the russians. >> that was a difference of opinion. i am a navy guy. two air force here. we started to look at the scientific approach and that is what we sold the program on, even though it was a race between the soviet union and ourselves. i concur that was the primary reason. even president kennedy made that

announcement. by the time 13 came along, the scientific committee came out of the woodwork. they said, "ok. we have been to the moon. we accomplished our objective. now, let's get some return on our objective. let's start looking from 12 on to do the scientific work and that is where the change was made that we were to do it as a scientific program. >> i'm skeptical about the science. you hear people talk about science. science this, science that. on the space program, i don't know if they know what they are going to do. if they does want to see kids floating upside down, is that science? -- they have kids is sending up minnows floating upside down. is that science? i don't know what they are

[laughter] >> i can see your father whispering in kennedy's year. -- kennedy's your -- ear. [laughter] >> you are going to have to be pretty practical about it. you go to mars for the ink was the nature of human beings, i don't think it is for science. stop trying to the justify it because you have people floating upside down. -- because you have fish floating upside down. >> over here at this microphone. >> i'm 43 years old. the apollo program left a mark on me in my childhood. i remember seeing those shots on tv. you guys for the super heroes to me. it sounds kind of quaint, but it was true. a question is, the material, gadgets and tools that you took with the, like you had that tape, duct tape, for apollo 13

to help put the filters in was this just issued duct taped? [laughter] what else did you have? did you have a ranch, just in case? -- a ranch -- wrench? i am real curious about this. explain that for me. that would be great. thank you. tape? [laughter] we had it on 13 fortunately. >> we did not have it on 8. >> the tools were -- we found out what we needed to have to operate in space. maybe we did not have been on eight. we had scissors. we had various other tools we would use.

in our reading situations and things like that. >> i wanted to bring a screwdriver and a wrench and they would not let me do it because they thought i would start taking something apart. [laughter] >> over here. >> thank you very much for being here. when i found that you were here this was like christmas morning for me. a little kid, coming home, and i got to see the apollo 8 astronauts. i am a school teacher and i brought some of my students here. we are going back to the moon and the students are going to be walking on the mood in that is because of you gentlemen. -- walking on the moon and years from now, and that is because of you gentlemen. i want to say thank you. several years john glenn got to go back. and go back in outer space. i am wondering if any of the three of you would go back up there yourselves. before we retire the shovel. -- the shuttle. >> when he was sent up at zero -- i wrote a letter saying i was ready to go and he wrote back

and said i was too young. [laughter] >> the time has changed. bill. >> jim? >> at my age i think i would be very hesitant to accept a position to go back in space when there are so many more young and talented people that would do a better job. you have to remember that putting somebody into earth orbit to the station or on a shuttle is a very expensive proposition and you want to get the most out of them. to put me back up into space, and i don't have $30 million to go up there, so i think i would decline. >> i would do it. if i did. >> i think that glenn's flight in the shuttle was purely political. i don't think you should have people on the crow unless there is a mission. -- on a crew unless you have a mission.

>> thank you, gentlemen. >> there is frank. always beating around the bush. [laughter] >> i cannot remember the first administrator. we have not been able to send a journalist into space. we have not been able to do that yet either. >> i have some candidates. [laughter] >> i remember talking to walter cronkite about this. he said that after nasa gets its plumbing fixed, mine is not going to work and i am starting to get that way myself. i think we should have a journalist up their one of these days. and maybe a poet and so on. expensive.

the people have paid for this and they would love to know what is going on. oftentimes they have been excluded. for example, in hearing things that for the first time. -- are in hearing things tonight for the first time. -- i am hearing things. i think that is good. you cannot tell everything that happens every minute the something as complicated and dangerous as space flight is. i think there ought to be ways that the american taxpayers should get a close look at it is sending an american journalist is one. anyway, that is my view, too. >> i think you're wrong, but that is okay. [laughter] i do not know a damn thing that has not been put out. >> i believe is the most open program ever. >> i agree with you. >> they let it all hang out. even their failures. >> it is a dangerous business. i think the mistake that nasa made was to fly at a school teacher and that coincided with a tragedy.

>> that is correct. >> going that the men will not be a long time. your grandchildren -- were it will be saved to put school teachers up there. -- where it is going to be safe enough to permit students and poets of there. the idea of putting killing them was crazy. >> i don't think that killing them was their intention. >> we killed just one, right? >> that is enough. >> i agree. >> one final question. we are getting this signal that we need to wrap this up. >> it is sort of like christmas eve morning and finding all of the presence. -- presents. i disappointed to see you. i wondered if you could sign my book that gene has already signed? [laughter] [applause] >> she wants to know if you will

sign her book. gene has already signed it. >> failure is not an option tonight. we will get that site for you. -- signed for you. >> thank you. >> thank you for coming tonight. [applause] >> good job. good job. cable satellite corp. 2009] national captioning institute]

he talks about the latest employment figures. i do not think we are done.

we had some pretty tough job market reports over december 2007 when the session began. the rate of job loss has slowed considerably since the president has been in office. i imagine that unemployment may be pushing in the double digits by the time we get to the peak of this. >> see the entire interview on newsmakers at 10:00 a.m. and again at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c- span. ♪

this is c-span america and the courts, next, judge sonia sotomayor. first, someone who attended school with her at princeton university. >> however were you when you first met her? >> i was 14 years old, a freshman in high school. >> where? >> in the bronx. what was cardinal spellman like? >> it was not a typical high school because it was not. it is a cut of about catholic high school. -- it was a catholic high school. it was a pretty good education.

it was interesting in that we all had to wear uniforms. i lived in east harlem, so it required me to take the train in a uniform going through the south bronx. that was amusing and interesting in and of itself. >> how old was she? >> she was a year older than i was. >> do you remember how you met? >> yes, we met through a mutual friend. he actually lived on the other side of 117th street. he was a junior. interesting enough, we all went to princeton, the three of us. >> what did you think of her at

first? >> someone who was very focused, very studious, not shy at all about giving an opinion about a number of different things but someone who was thought all was well. -- someone who was thoughtful as well. interestingly enough, many years later, she was very helpful in terms of the guidance that she provided. >> besides the attributes that you just talked about, what would cause someone like her to say that that is someone you aspire to. >> i think it is because her life and mine were parallel in

so many ways. she grew up in the south bronx. she is hispanic and i was born in cuba. many of the things that we both were looking to accomplish in a place like spelman, cultures and all of that, it was very much in line. i think that the family values that we shared were very much in line. this was someone who took academics quite seriously as i did. because of that, all of that made her a figure that i thought was approachable and felt comfortable speaking with her. i respected what she had to offer. >> so we can kind of understand how this fits in, how many minorities might there have been at that time? >> if you take the combination

of the african-american, it was probably 10% of the student body. >> what impact did that have at that time in the american life? >> i think that for us, it was impact full. clearly, the spelman experience is different than the princeton experience. it focused us on a number of different issues. there were clubs that were formed so there was a spanish american club and an african- american club. there were some issues. i think it shape how we thought about a number of things. >> review of discriminated against?

no. i never felt discriminated against. >> did you ever talk about discrimination outside of the school? >> absolutely. we talked a lot about issues such as statehood for puerto rico. the other very big issue at the time was what was happening in south africa. then, later, at princeton, that became a larger issue due talked about the kinds of endowments the university was involved in. while we were not discriminated against, there was a real sense as to what the real issues of the day were and i think that the student body was focused on that. >> the teachers were nuns? >> the combination of teachers

were halfway teachers and the other half were of the religious order. it was equally split among priests, brothers and sisters. is it safe to say that it was a strict environment? >> there was no political correctness at the time in fact, we had a dean of discipline although at that point, he was very imposing. you never -- you never really needed to do much because everyone came to school and was in a frame of mind that they were very serious about it. you have to think about a situation where almost all of us were either middle-class or from a poor background. spellman charged tuition. as a result, students took this very seriously because the

parents took it seriously as well. >> you were both in student government? what were you respective roles? >> there was something called the student senate. sanyo was a student senator. i followed suit as a junior. i was vice president my senior year. in addition to student government, we were involved on the debate and the top -- the public speaking team. that gave me a little bit of an entree as well while i was in high school. >> you grew up in harlem? >> you were born in the united states? >> you were born in the united states? >> no, i was born in cuba. >> in terms of speaking at

home, how did that play into school? was there multilingual discussions going on in school or was it pretty much all english? >> it was all english. the skills around english had to be developed before you got into high school. in fact, that was a pretty rigorous entrance exam to get into spelling. at that point, we had to be pretty proficient in the english language. >> in the student government, were you elected to those seats? >> yes, by our perspective class's. >> did you have to run campaigns? >> yes, very small campaigns. you had to make yourself well known and lecture opinions the mound. >> i would say that as a typical

high schooler, there were the same sorts of issues that were brought up, but i don't really remember them in detail. >> the judge sotomayor had diabetes by eight years of age. by the time you knew her, what did you -- how did that impact your day to day life together? >> this is interesting. i can also offer other anecdotes around that. i was not aware that she was a diabetic until we were in college. this is something that she kept close to the besvest. in many ways, it parallels who she is. in other ways, she is someone

who is not looking for excuses. despite all of the trepidation and challenges that live in the south bronx brings, she was not one to make excuses. i think it was paralleled in her own life. >> i think it came up in conversation. it was a shock to hear it. >> when you went on to princeton, was there a time when she would have to do certain things to take care of her diabetes? >> i did not see that. i just assumed she did what she needed to do. and i never saw that part of her. >> you are on your way to college and you are following her.

what impact did she have on that decision? >> i think she had a fair impact on a couple of different levels. this is someone that i knew very well in high school. we went to the same high school when she gave me an opinion about what it was that she did on her freshman year, i took it too hard -- to to to heart. i can tell you that spelman is a phenomenal school, but with that said, it is very different than coming from a boarding school. one of the things that she and i had to do was to catch up with respect to reading skills and

writing skills, typically as a freshman. what how did you do that? >> nose to the grindstone. he's been a lot of time in the library. in many ways, this was not about claiming some kind of correction. in her case, when you think about how was, she was given the prize her senior year. >> what is the prime prize? >> it is given to the senior that achieves the highest academic standing within the class.

princeton really values making sure that the student body embraces a lifestyle around service. they take that very seriously. suffice it to say, you have to have a pretty high gpa in order to be considered then, the winner is the person at the very top of that. was this during the period of time in high school and on? how did that play out? >> there was a number pulled

out. in my case, we were trying to be vigilant certainly at princeton, there was a fair amount of discussion what were we doing there, and how was it that we were going to events at a place like vietnam? those were good points and bad points. this was a big topic. >> it either if you become involved in protests? >> we did not have the

wherewithal to express the views that we wanted to. will you actually out demonstrating? >> the were talking about the issues that we felt pretty strongly about. there was a building on campus

that was named the third world center that was the focus of all the ethnic clubs. a number of us came to spend a lot of time there. we also engaged teachers and administrators. >> you mentioned that the minority percentage was to%, what would -- was 10%, what would it have been at princeton? 6 1/2%. >> i would say that overt discrimination did not happen, but covert discrimination had some traces of that. i want to be clear, princeton was a phenomenal learning

experience both academically and just in life. i met my wife at princeton. we continue to go back to school. however, it was an atmosphere where women have just been admitted and i went to school in 73 and 77. the experience around people of color was equally as new. in many ways, there was a little bit of a push, pull situation. they made certain strides, because they open the doors to groups of people.

at the same time, the one of their to be more changes. aside from the issues that we talked about, this was around faculty. we wanted to make sure there was a representative faculty on campus. we wanted the faculty of color to grow as well. we made those feelings known. >> on a recreation basis, the two parted together? digital against together? i would say a little bit of everything. we brought with us all the cultural. that was a big connection point.

we also interact in with people all over the world. our world was the bronx. we were able to experience a much broader brett. sometimes that was a good experience and sometimes it was not. >> so, by that time, you were in your early 20s or so? >> by that time today, many people of color have been totally integrated but 21 or 22 and to have a lot of other cultures. >> very much of.

the biggest difference for both of us is really a transition period of low it was good and academically competitive, it did not compare to boarding school preparation. also, even the smallest things, you get to do your laundry and an early age. all of those experiences were new to us. we felt that in some ways, outside of the academics -- the other thing that happened was because the population was so small, it survive as a

community. some of my very best friends are people that i graduated with from princeton at the time we share those experiences as well. >> windage to separate? how have you kept up? >> well separated when she graduated. >> she got married right after leaving school. there was a point when i entered princeton that i thought i was wanted to a legal path as well. many years later, i decided not to and pursued a life in business. our careers went in different ways and it became difficult just to keep in touch i followed a lot of her

accomplishments as i read them. i admired her from afar. >> you ended up at goldman sachs? >> yes. i came in 1985 and i was a sales person on the fixed income trading floor. i was the head of international sales desk for a number of years and became a managing director in 2000 and joined a group of management strategies. i still consider a lot of those folks good friends. >> when did he leave? in 2006. >> what are you doing now? >> will run national under a

student loans. >> have you talked to sonya since princeton? >> on and off, but not recently. >> thank you very much for your time. >> up next, columbia university law professor susan sterne. we talk with her about the judge's years of law school. >> professor, when did you first meet her? >> i met her in law school >> what were the circumstances? >> we were friends with a common foreign. we met at a social occasion. a group of law students who were getting acclimated to a new situation. >> what did you have in common?

>> we shared an interest in social justice. we immediately discover that that was a common bond. we were trying to see what was going on. we tried to analyze the culture. >> what was going on at that time? >> it was a very exciting play spiritece. we were very serious about ourselves and our futures. so, there were many discussions about the role of the law as an agent of change.

we're also the second wave of women. there were 41 women in our class. very few faculty were women. we were also navigating our way into a world that opened up to us, but we were relative newcomers. that was also part of the journey. >> she came from princeton. where did you come from? >> brown university. >> did she ever talk about princeton and how that transition? what i cannot say that was a big subject of discussion. we were focused on the work we were doing. we were colleagues. we both broke on and decided to

play on the leadership roles. there was a lot of discussion of that. >> what was her will. >> she was an editor. that meant she would work on other people's articles and she would write an article in for the law journal. >> what who reads that and what is it for? >> that is a very good question. the idea is that we are trying to create knowledge to inform the practitioners and other researchers law students are entering into the field. it allows law students to

express their review and say something. >> do you remember any of her articles i do not remember it with great precision, but it was on where rico and on the role of states' rights and allocating natural resources. in many ways, it was indicative of her as saying the anchor it was motivated by a sense of justice and trying to understand the problem the was executed in with great care. they didn't job i think that is

very typical of her, then. >> were you ever in a classroom situation together? >> i do not think we were in class together. i remember her socializing and then also brainstorming ideas together in law school. >> was talk about the brainstorming. what would happen? he said that you went to different leadership roles. she went to what? >> shebaa of lead that the policy journal and was on the executive leadership. that was the part that i knew most about. there was an opportunity to really develop ideas.

the was an area that i thought was deeply important and for which there was insufficient understanding. we both share of that. tell us what this exchange of ideas might have looked like. >> i am picturing as in her apartment, the law cannot be sure, with our feet up. i and simultaneously laughing, but i am really in deep conversation and i would say that there was constructive conflict around ideas. we were each trying to figure out where we fit in, but also this larger set of institutions

and what it meant to be a lawyer and to be addressing this set of issues that we came into a initially of a set of commitments but we were now being socialized into. what did that mean? what was the relationship between that the thing that i remember, was the degree to which sauna had a depreciation of. figuring out what it meant to be a lawyer and wanted to be a prosecutor, what it meant to be writing from a position of a law journal editor as opposed to a reporter. what it meant to be an advocate verses a judge. i remember having an initial set of conversations about the

relationship between wall and contents. once content were shaped by the position you are in. having a sense of being someone who had passion for the law and a good set of commitments. . .

. ó=ó=# . >> this morning on c-span a discussion on iran's disputed presidential election and its aftermath. that is next. 7:00 a.m. eastern "washington

journal". including healthcare issues and the situation in iraq and political news of the day. after that on "news makers" efforts to develop healthcare legislation. goo >> congress returns next week from the july 4 recess with lots of business to complete before leaving again for the august recess. the house returns at 2:00 p.m. eastern tuesday. on the agenda agricultural spending including a program for food stamps, farm subsidy and rural development and small business innovation. that is on c-span. the senate is back monday at 2:00 approximately eastern to resume work on legislative branch spending for 2010 with votes on amendments scheduled to begin at 5:30. once that is complete, they will move to homeland security spend for 2010. off the floor the national health committee will continue

marking up their version of the healthcare bill and al franken is scheduled to meet with harry reed monday. live coverage of the senate on c-span 2. a discussion now on iran's disputed presidential election and the aftermath. president ahmadinejad is declaring victory after a partial recount by the guardian council. the opposition candidate mir hose hossein mousavi has called for a second round of voting. >> good afternoon. i'm sam wells senior scholar at the wilson center filling in. i would like to welcome you to a session on the iranian presidential elections, what do they tell us. there's been a lot of of evidence, bits of evidence spread about, a lot of

interpretations. almost more interpretations than bits of evidence. and they are all over the map. we hope our four speakers today will give us some patterns and clarification in what we should make of this important election in the islamic republic of iran. among the things that i hope they will address are, is the election really as significant as the media in the united states and europe has made it out to be? has the opposition to the regime been broadly enough based that it can survive repression, that it can continue to work even behind the scenes? is compromise possible or desired by the leadership?

and, ultimately, if, as the guardian council's validation of the election yesterday seems to indicate, ahmadinejad continues in office, what are the implications both for the stability of the regime and for fortune policy? you have had available to you the biographies of the speakers. i won't go into them in any detail. let me first say that our initial speaker is robin wright, longtime international journalist, "los angeles times," "washington post." now a public policy scholar here at the center, and one of our most valued experts on the middle east. robin? >> thank you very much. for those who were here when we about the preelection presentation, i ended my power point with this slide, which turned out to be far more

prescient than i knew. i didn't realize how explosive this election potentially was going to be. so, where are we? the first week was clearly a political showdown over a disputed election. the second week was about a physical confrontation as the protests continued and state began to clamp down and, most importantly, as the flash point shifted from the election to the powers of the supreme leader. now we are into the third week and we have begun what i call the sorting out process. both politically and on the streets. i have 10 bottom lines to offer and three guidelines in judging what will happen next. my first bottom line is that a regime that came to power through a brutal revolution in a country suspected of developing a nuclear weapons program faced its biggest challenge in 30 years from peaceful civil

disobedience. it was a stunning precedent for both iran and the entire middle east. iran's up rising needs to be understood, however, in a global context. in other words, the past 20 days fits into a much broader historic pattern. the largest public demonstration since 1979 forced the regime to face the same ideals that swept across five continents over the last 25 years and forced regimes to take into account the supremacy of popular will, accountability, transparency and issues of justice. the outside world has focused on how tech savvy iranians used twitter and facebook in their protest. the same technology also has educated iranians over many years about what is happening elsewhere in the world. and many iranians very much want

to be part of the 21st century. in many ways some kind of challenge was also inevitable given iran's modern history. for a century iranians have been trailblazers, political tra trailblazers both in the region and in the wider 57 nations of the islamic bloc. their quest for empowerment has played out in four phases. from 1905 to 1911 there was a constitutional rebellion the first of its kind in asia. a powerful coalition of people, merchants and clergy forced the dynasty to accept a constitution and first parliament. in between 53 the democratically elected national front coalition of four parties led by prime minister pushed constitutional democracy and forced the last shah to free. in 1979 another coalition of

people mobilized on the streets to end dynastic rule. the energy unleashed this month in both peaceful demonstrations and in angry protests from the caspi caspian coast is the natural sequel in this string of events. each of the first three phases left indelible imprints that in some way opened up iranian politics and defined what followed. i think this fourth phase will, too. today the on session movement is distinct from the 1999 student protests which failed because it involved only one sector of society and it was a body without either a head or a strategy. in contrast, when you look at the variety of people who turned out on the streets, the coalition today and key word is another coalition -- is the most powerful since the revolution.

it includes people of all ages and all classes. youth that make up the demographic majority. feisty women trailblazers in the wider islamic world. it also included sanction strapped businessmen, two former presidents and a prime minister as well as taxi drivers, civil servants, members of the national soccer team and senior citizens. one of the most interesting things is the role of the clergy in all of this. several have spoken out adding legitimacy to the challenge. ayatollah ayatollah who would have been prime minister if he decided to speak out just months before imam khomeini died has issued a veter virtual fatwa dismissing the results urging iranians to reclaim their dues in calm

protest. he warned security forces not to follow orders that might later lead them to be condemned by god. today he wrote censorship in cutting communication lines can't hide the truth. another outspoken cleric is grand ayatollah mousavi artibili who told the guardian council we must hear the objections the protest e protesters have and let them speak. another grand ayatollah expressed abhorrence for those behind the violence and sympathy for the injured protesters particularly the students. he said what belongs to the people should be given to the people. the wishes of the people should be respected by the states. another grand ayatollah said the protests were both lawful and islamic. he, too, warned the security forces that it is against islam

to attack unarmed people. most senior clerics have been noticeably silent in either endorsing ahmadinejad before the election or embracing him afterwards. most clerics in the holy city have never backed an islamic republic. i think that we are seeing many of those objections play out in this election. an even more powerful coalition has becomed ahmadinejad led by the supreme leader. the regime has also unleashed the tools of the state to support their choice with no holds barred. the paramilitary religious vigilantes have become more powerful than any time since their creation after the revoluti revolution. generally, iran has not witnessed this scope of brutality since the chaotic early days of the revolution.

the regime's strategy is now three-fold. one to rebuff all allegations of fraud. the council of guardians has given its stamp of approval. second, they are trying to divide and conquer, to break up groups that dare to take to the streets into small groups to prevent anyone from taking cell phone videos or pictures of large crowds gathering. three, to pick up the people around a.c. around mousavi and the protesters. this was found by my research assistant a website where the regime is use the technology the students are putting up pictures of people in the demonstrations and asking people to send in any identification. we have several as well that have stamped across them identified. they know who they are.

the political divide in iran is now a full scale schism. there are people who once served in the shah's jails together whose mug shots hang in the same rows and i think it will be very hard to recreate that kind of unity any time in the near future. the one thing we need to remember is that the protests were not a counterrevolution. the opposition is not talking about ending the islamic republic. they are talking instead about what it should be, how to reform it, how to refine it. and how to make its officials more accountable. the core issues in fact are not new. this little word up here says republic or republicism. the main flash point in the confrontation goes back to the early days of the revolution between the ideologues and the realists.

ideologues argued that the republic should be championing repressed, restoring islamic purity not only in iran but the 57 nations of the islamic bloc and creating a new body to challenge both east and west. the realists argued that iran should seek legitimacy by creating a capable islamic state, by institutionalizing the revolution in a realistic, practical framework. they wanted a new political and social order independent of the outside world but also one that was capable of interacting with the outside world. so, the bottom line issue today is, really, whether to give priority to the revolution or to the state, whether the islamic republic is first and foremost islam or a republic. that issue played out again in

the campaign this year with ahmadinejad championing the idea of the revolution narrow clerics' original vision and mousavi campaigning for the need to create a viable and practical state. the same issues are central to the post-election turmoil. in the latest statement mousavi tellingly warned that the large amount of cheating and vote rigging has begun to kill the idea that islam and republicism are compatible. so neither the opposition leadership nor the demonstrators are rejecting the role of islam in the state. the rallying cry today is still "god is great." they simply envision a different role for islam and the state. where does that leave us? the regime has never been so

vulnerable, and the idea of a supreme leader, an infallible political pope, now faces a real challenge of legitimacy. and there is no resolution in sight. so, what is next? there are three factors that will determine the future. leadership, unity and momentum. leadership is where the opposition is the most vulnerable. the still unanswered question is whether or not mousavi can lead it new opposition long term. the answer remains unclear. he was always an accidental leader, the product of public sentiment favoring reform. he was not the founder of it any more than former president katami was in 1997. in both elections, iran's savvy voters latched on to a figure who promised some degree of political, economic and social openings and who had a prospect

of winning. i think if mousavi doesn't demonstrate more visible leadership soon, the opposition may begin to look elsewhere. there is probably a window of opportunity for him to act, and he has been increasingly less visible over the past week. the third issue is unity. this is where the regime is most vulnerable. many in the government have to be worried about the long-term cost of a crackdown. parliament has yet to get more deeply involved -- sorry-has begun to get more deeply involved. both in attempts at reconciliation and outspoken criticism. i'm really sorry, i had this fantastic video of a little speech given by a member of parliament angry, getting so angry and worked up his turban keeps falling off and he has to keep pushing it back on his head and he blasts the regime and their tactics. it is not something that i have

seen reported and it is just the last few days and i think that it is very striking that this played out in parliament. this is also where the speaker of parliament, mr. larijani, could emerge as an interesting play player. so far he has straddled both sides. he was seen here with ahmadinejad. the man bowing forward, at the speech given -- sorry -- tsermo given by the supreme leader. but he has since then indicated some concern about what is playing out on the streets. the security services are another area to monitor. they are the regime's most loyal instrument, but it will be interesting to see what plays out among the police. this is one of many pictures of how a protester is trying to help -- and there is a sequence of this so we know it is true --

help this policeman who has been injured. we have lots of stories of policemen indicating to protesters that they don't want to hurt them, would they please leave so that we don't have to act. but i think there are even some questions about the revolution narrow guards. not the commanders like these men who have long been part of the system, but the rank and file. in 1997 the regime did a poll among the revolutionary guards to find out how they voted, and they found that 84% voted for the reform candidate. we have to remember that most of the rev guards are rank and file doing their national service, and many prefer to do the revolutionary guards because they get off at 2:30 and they can get a second job. the third issue is momentum and how the opposition movement manages to sustain itself. this is my last point. i think that this is going to be the trickiest part.

because, as we have already seen, the momentum has begun to slow significantly. there are the morning cycles. this is a picture of the young woman who was the philosophy student shot on the streets and whose death -- this is her grave -- marked the emergence of a kind of heroic figure to the revolution. but, because the very tactics of mourning were used originally by the revolutionaries to propel the protests against the shah, they have begun to clamp down on the types of engine that might create a momentum. they, for example, refuse to allow public demonstrations, public mourning. as shiites honor on the third, seventh and 40th day for when she died. but inthe genie is out of the bottle. i think it is impossible to put

become. it can be repressed but i don't think there is any way that we can go back to what happened at the beginning of june. thank you. >> thank you very much, robin. two announcements that i neglected to make at the start. since we are being webcast and broadcast live on c-span, i would like to ask people to turn off mobile devices, cell phones, pagers and such because it does interfere with trans medicatimi. i would like to let people in the overflow know that we will take questions to you and we will provide paper to let you write questions and we will work you into the discussion in the second hour. the next presentation is by an add jrnth facul adjunct political science and former scholar here, a frequent

visitor to our sessions and someone we always welcome back. >> thank you so much. thank you everybody, for being here. i will pick up where robin left. i will try to lay out what happened in iran and make an argument and say most of us here really do not know where iran is going and that has to do with the fact that the iranian leaders themselves probably don't know where they are going at this point. i'm going to make an argument that this is a very improvised game, a very improvised moment in iranian history, and we are probably better off sitting down watching than trying to analyze

the situation on a minute-by-minute basis to see which direction to go. let me begin by saying the crisis that has engulfed iran since its election is without a doubt the most significant event in 30 years of the islamic republic as far as i'm concerned. with the exception of the revolution itself, the political map restructured, no other political event -- and we are talking about the iran-iraq war, then in 1989 revamping of the revolution that institutionally reshaped the islamic republic, turning the office of the leadership from a regular office of leadership into an absolute office of leadership and created the expediency council because of the conflicts that existed in the country or the rights of the

reformist politics. none of these have been as significant as far as i can tell. and as far as i'm concerned the significance of the events lies in the fact that throughout its life the islamic republic has relied on two basic institutions to manage and moderate political competiti competition, conflicts and fundamental contradictions of the islamic republic. they were elections and office of the leaders. in this situation, both of those institutions failed, and failed significantly and miserably. elections, amazingly, the 29th that we just witnessed in the islamic republic's 30-year history, have been a method of choice to manage mass participation while the office

has been the ultimate overseeing arena where competition is regulated and ultimately negotiated. not necessarily totally managed because, you know, as competition goes out of control once in a while but that office ultimately is the body that comes in and negotiates and tries to find a new balance. as i said, in this crisis both of these institutions, irrespective of whether there was fraud or per session of it -- and i'm in the camp that says the election was not only fraudulent, it was totally cooked. i'm in the camp that thinks the numbers were just made up. and i'm happy to defend that position if there are questions, but no matter whether they were fraudulent or there is a perception of fraud, this election was mishandled gigan c giganticically and ultimately failed to temper conflict. in fact, it ended up, both

institutions heightened and incited them further. if you remember, i'm from hawaii and i had to stay awake until past midnight to watch ayatollah khamenei speak in prayer and my mouth was open. i couldn't believe he would actually go on television on friday prayer and incite the public to go into the streets the way that he did. and that is a role that the leadership in iran has not played, or has not tried to play. so, the failure of these two institutions was the direct cause of street confrontation and violence. because, as far as i'm concerned, it is electoral politics by other means. but the iranian election is still continuing. and it will continue, as far as

i can tell, for a while. in the process, the damage that has been done to the legitimacy will either have to be repaired in serious ways or face -- these institution also have to face serious consequences. and with results for the future structure of power. either elections will become totally meaningless in iran, for instance, or the way they are conducted has to be repaired in serious ways. in short, such cosmetic and in some ways amusing efforts to open and read the ballots of 10% of poll boxes on mattnational television when no one knows where the boxes have been are silly exercises in trying to repair the damage to the legitimacy of the system. but the fact that they are doing

so suggests that at the fully understand that something serious has happened and at least they have to put a show on. so, while the events must be seen as detailing uncertain and ultimately improvised outcome there is one thing that is certain and that is the fact that the election was seriously mishandled and mismanaged and you could say that both sides, in this very intense competition, miscalculated and underestimated their opponent's power and capacities. let me begin with the reformists. and the so-called anti-ahmadinejad front and their miscalculation. obviously their foremost miscalculation on the part of the expanded ranks of the iranian elite who ended up standing behind mousavi was their belief that a degree of

electoral manipulation was the name of the game in iran and a given in iranian politics, massive manipulation was unlikely. in that miscalculation i also plead guilty. i really did not think that massive manipulation in iranian politics was a likely thing. in fact, i thought -- and the reformists thought -- this massive manipulation would be a dangerous exercise. hence, it would not be tried for its destabilizing effects. they understood from the beginning their path to winning the presidency was difficult depending on their ability to mobilize a large sector of iran's silent voting bloc which constitutes iranian specialists inside iran suggesting up to 40% of the electorate. they entered the race highly skeptical of mr. mousavi's ability to expand the

participation but they did assu assume, wrongly as it turned out, that if he did indeed manage to mobilize that bloc of sleent voters, he -- slatight voters he could overcome the five to seven million vote deficit he had to contend with because of the ability to marshal the stuffed ballots, fraudulent ballots, the kinds of things they do regularly. one former reformist president candidate withdrew his candidacy. they didn't take into account the forces loyal to the system reacting the way they did to a mousavi presidency. particularly since mousavi had made his commitment to the islamic republic very clear and his commitment throughout the campaign he made clear efforts to bring in the basiji forces

and talked about them as essentially being the backbone of the refuse looks. they model the reformists still operated on was the 1997 model when close to 80% participation pressured the highest authorities of the country to assure a fair election out of the concern for popular election. in 1997 the friday prayer, a sermon on the friday before the election was given by mr mr. rafsanjani. he assured the public that there would not be a fraud. and remember he was also the president of iran at that time. on the wednesday before the election, ayatollah ka mancamp assured the republic there would be no fraud. so they could assume that the same pressures would be at play.

and the genuine shock expressed by mousavi along with the population was the direct result of this miscalculation. on the conservative side the miscalculation occurred in the opposition direction. what they under estimated was, first, the ability of the reformist candidate, particularly the largely uncharismatic mousavi, at the time of the election, to energize what to them was considered to be very happily a relatively cynical electorate. the conservatives in iran are very happy we about 60% of the electorate votes because they can say more iranians vote than the united states. at the same time, because of the split, because of the support they have among a good chunk of the population, they can bring their base and with a little bit of manipulation win all of the

elections with 60% participation rates. they knew that with a 60% participation rate and the backing they had build and it would not be a difficult argument to sell that he really did get 60% of the vote because he has been passing around oil money, he has been good to the poor and so on and has bought the votes. that really didn't matter to them that people would think that way. what they thought was important is support everyone to agree that people actually went into the voting station and voted for the man. that is one underestimation is the rise in the participation rate. secondly they under estimated the impact the debates had energyskr-- energizing the election.

having confidence in the man's aggressiveness, they didn't grasp the impact of ahmadinejad's comfort with telling lies on national television and furthermore the impact of other candidates standing their grounds and engaging in a pushback. thirdly, and this is the most contentious part of my argument, they didn't see the messity to adjust their model of ahmadinejad's receiving two-thirds of the vote once the participation rates threatened to become 80%. so i'm making the argument they were planning to cheat. somewhere in the process the ground under them shifted and rather than adjusting to the shifting ground and making the scenario more viable by, for example, reducing, saying ahmadinejad won by 52%, they

still maintained their two-third scenario. while they must have known that additional voters beyond 60% have historically voted for change and never entered the fray in order to vote for status quo, they simply chose to ignore it reality, probably because -- and this was the fourth miscalculation -- they under estimated the role of preelection rallies, the role the rallies had in creating networks and links among people of different backgrounds that could be mobilized. these values inside iran were extremely important not only because you had people from all ov over, every strata of society, the reality is for the first time they were meeting each other in the streets and saying i'm a mousavi supporter, too. we both support.

so there was a bonding in the street that broke down that narrative that has been created in iran that it is only the north terrhranies that support e regime. this was about an election and people saw on the treats that they were on the -- on the streets that they were on the same side and they connected, and this was underestimated. at the end, like the reformist counterparts, the conservatives also assumed certain similarities to the events of late 1990's, when student demonstrations were prevented from, as robin pointed out, from spreading across the population through the use of sporadic but very effective violence, which i can -- i would like to describe as indiscriminate use of club

wie wielders attacking a mall group of population, usually students in dormitories. in this election the first series of violence was in the student dormitories before the massive demonstrations. they went pediatric immediately dormitories starting to beat up students to cause fear and send everybody home. that has been the method of control in the islamic republican the last 20 years. it was the failures of this system of crowd control to put a quick end to demonstrators that ultimately forced the hand of the leaders to enter the fray with full force, use the court that he had not been forced to use and probably shouldn't have been used until later to effectively take the responsibility for the fraud and violence.

c and ultimately effectively identifying itself, himself, with the part of the government in iran that has always been in the shadows and willing to impose violence on the iranian population. it is important to understand what mr. khamenei did in his friday prayer speech. he not only threatened violence but owe made clehe made clear t had ideological fight he stands with ahmadinejad and not the other icon of the islamic republic, rafsanjani. he made it clear it is his office that will be the bastion standing against compromise with popular sentiment for less you a ste -less youaustere system.

he made ahmadinejad look very small and insignificant in comparison to the titans who are fighting for the future of the country. now, we will probably never know what led mr. khamenei to incur costs for his office to give support to iran's most politi l politically polarizing political figure. and it is significant that in the friday prayer he went further than he really needed to go. when he also revealed the deep ideological fissures that have meyer mired the islamic republic. and he also revealed that his office as mandated by the constitution is not the consensus builder but partisan,

fueling instead of dampening, inciting schisms rather than alleviating them. this is something many people suspected in iran. and they whispered about it. but to publicly align his office with the hard line security status of the country in the minds of many in iran -- who in the minds of many in iran are responsible for ahmadinejad's presidency was aligned that the leader had not tried to cross before. and throughout the election, he tried assiduously to suggest he was not going to try to cross. and a mousavi presidency or ahmed presidency would be fine. so the big question is why the change. it retrospect it was probably the extensive mobilization of the electorate that must have frightened the hard line sector

of the iranian elite and office of leader in particular. i use the language of fear intentionally here because the only explanation that i can think of in trying to understand mr. khamenei's costly move is the sense of extreme threat which is made more odd when one considers the fact that this sense of threat is reflected about the constant refrain about the british involvement in iran and this sense of threat occurred precisely at the moment we iran was at its strongest in relation to upcoming negotiations with the united states. and mr. khamenei, by giving support to a popular elected president could have made his name lasting in iran's history not as the leader of iran's anti-democratic forces -- that is how his name will go down in

history at this time at least -- but as the leader that was effective in his pushback of aggressive u.s. policies that were implemented during the bush administration. it has now become a common wisdom in washington to suggest what has happened in iran is an effective takeover of the revolutionary guards over the iranian political system. and it is indeed possible that this election was an attempted capstone of the process that has been going on for a while, an attempt to take over of the islamic state by the security establishment whose public face for now is ahmadinejad and perhaps mr. khamenei himself. aside from the fact that the history of punditry the reality of iranian politics seems at once more complicated and yet

more simple. if this was an attempted coup, because of the way it was conducted, despite the fact that it can probably, as robin suggested, can count some people for a period of time to accept the new arrangement, it has exposed deeper risks that exist in iran and iran's place in the world. and the contours of state society relations that cut across all institutions and strata of the society. it is a fact that as we sit here today and, for example, talk about revolution narrow guards in rebecca -- revolutionary guards in iran and their take over of the political system, none of us has any sense of the structure of the revelatifus re narrow guard and who runs them, yet we feel free to make commentary about this reality that presumably an institution

that there's been a military coup in iraq. what i suggest is the deep risks exposed in iran the past couple of weeks ago suggests to us that these risks cut across both the society and values in institutions of the islamic republic. and the rift is essentially about different visions and the ability of the contending visions to fight it out in a peaceful way, win or lose, in a game is not rigged and takes everyone's citizenship seriously and doesn't try to purge the other side out of the political system. this election once again confirms that a large sector of the iranian population and elites yearn and have been yearning for decades essentially to have a say in the policy direction of the country. 30 years ago it came out in the street and made a revolution to make the same point.

on june 12, 15, 17 in came out to make the same points of the election. let me end by saying that on june 11 i was marvel iling at t fact that iran had come a long way since 1979. the population was no longer wishing to reshape the structure of the state, was no longer revolutionary, but insisting still on its way, on its say, in the policy direction of the country. it was making a choice between two candidates that in the process of election had convinced the electorate -- rightly or wrongly -- that they would lead the country in different domestic and foreign policy directions. but june 13 and to today it is clear that iran's century-old yearning for end to arbitrary rule and agreement for a set of

agreed upon rules has yet again not been fulfilled. yet, the reaction to what has happened suggests to us that there is still a lot to go. so the islamic republic remains in limbo still searching to find a compromise solution to the fundamental contradiction of the populist and anti-imperialist revolution that can't find the proper balance of accommodation among its contending forces, both social and political for s forces, that all want a say in the direction of the country but can't get along. as such, it keeps itself open to periodic and unpredictable issues unless it manages to put in place rules that are accepted by both sides and can resolve the conflict in a peaceful solution. >> thank you. excellent. our third comment is by a senior

advisor at the center for strategic and international studies here in washington and in an academic vein he has the claire of global management and is director of the center for global business studies at pennsylvania state university. as his positions imply, he will focus on the economy in iran. >> thank you very much, sam. can you hear me in the back? yes? great. what i'm going to look at this afternoon is really going to look at the economic condition in iran. i'm going to look at the economy in two ways. i will look at -- in fact, robin mentioned unity, instrument. that is very -- vulnerability.

she also mentioned the role of larijani. i think he is going to play a role in that situation. and farideh brought up the revolution narrow guard and i think there will be some importance of that. but first i will look at the general economy in total. the first chart that i have looks at iranian oil exports. wa i want you to notice two things. prior to the islamic revolution we were returning around five or six million barrels of which close to five was exported. the economic crisis that followed in 1979 the drop to 3.3 and in 1980 it dropped to 1.3. they managed to bring it up to four, now it is about four to 4 1/2 million a day because they can only export 2 1/2 because

local consumption has risen rapidly. the director of the international division was interviewed yesterday in dubai and he said he thought he was under the impression that the oil exports had not been hurt. i suspect we are still running around there. so this is the consumption. this is the crude oil export. you can see it s is sort of stabilized around two. if you look at oil export over production, again it is going down. the other thing that people talk about is the gas sector. iran is the second largest gas reserve holder in the world, yet it is actually a natural gas importer. the line have very close and depending on which statistic you look at they cross each other. in terms of dollar amounts, it

is exporting some gas to turkey at subsidized price while importing it at a higher price. so this is a drain on the economy. the g.d.p. growth rate has been erratic. you can see a drop right after the islamic revolution. surprisingly, despite the fact that oil prices have been quite high the past two or three years, the growth rate has been around 4%, 5%, 6%, and recently actually dropped. this despite the fact that oil revenue has gone through the roof. so, the question then becomes, you know, what is going on? and you have to look at the fundamentals of the iranian economy. when we look at it, right now we have an economy where the government is really around 30%,

35%, maybe 38% of the economy. add to that the role of the foundations, which are again another 30%. so you have a private sector that is maybe 35%. despite that, i think that is even a distorted number because the large projects that are supposedly given to the private sector end up being given to senior members of the revolutionary guard. three huge projects were just in the past year given out. one was a $1.3 billion project for gas to be shipped from southern border, pipeline from the southern gas fields of iran to the border of pakistan. a project that is not finished but the contract has been given out to a leader of the revolutionary guard. an upgrade and expansion of the metro system in tehran, which is about $2.3 billion, was given to the same revolutionary guard

person. and the gas field upgrade which is another $2.5 billion was given to the same group. so, if you follow the money, which is what we do at the business school, you basically say, look, you've got 30%, 35% directly controlled by the government, and if you look at what ahmadinejad did after he became president, within the first year he changed 10,000 people in various levels of the organization. that is a huge number. just think of a republicans go democrats they don't remove 10,000 people. so, that is a substantial impact on the economy. then the others share the money and the private sector is basically biased toward the revolutionary guard. then from a sectorial point of view the service sector is the largest, maybe 45 to 50 but the service sector consists of

telec telecom, publicly owned, authorizati authorization, railroads, publicly owned. the economy is really a government governmental/bunu governmental/bunuot/ revolutionary guard economy. when i was in graduate school i read a book that basically looked at iran and the dual economy separating oil from the rest of the economy. about four years ago at penn state we did a study of long-term trends and looked at democracy. and something interesting hit me. and that is that democracies came about because the central government taxed people and people started getting upset and wanted to tell them how to run the show. and it is kind of an interesting historical thing. the french revolution occurred when the king was taxing the french at 11%. west africa at 10%. the chinese emperor at 9%.

so, it seems to me that 10 sprs about it. -- 10% is about it. if you tax them more than 10%, off with the king's head. if you tax them more than that, then the people have to have a say. yes, you can tax me more, but you are going to have to build hospitals, give me security or education, et cetera. that, by the way, a side note, my wife is lutheran and i made a presentation to the lutheran brotherhood and they started laughing when i said that. they said don't you know even god is expected to pay 10% so even god figured out 10% is it. so, if you tax -- the difficulty with oil export eers, gold exporters, diamond exporters, et cetera, it is the money goes two central government and the central government then

allocates the money. then there becomes a big hassell. the -- hassle. the voice of the people is important but by golly i want the money under my control. the situation in iran is really -- well, i will come back to the gasoline import. so not only are they gas self-sufficient, 40% of the gasoline is imported. but what has happened is there is a debate on who gets the mon money. are the bunyot's getting the money? and i looked at the first debate, how many came over deba debating mousavi and the first thing he said i have the files and i'm not debating one person, i'm debating you and rafsanjani

and he says i have these files. files in english sound very neutral. but in persian it is to say i've got something on you. this is not just a file. this is something that can take you to jail. that brought up the whole debate and all of a sudden we saw the unity break apart which robin so eloquently described. and this is really a debate between rafsanjani and his team and khamenei/ahmadinejad and his team and how is the money going to be separated. that is my opinion. now, what is the role of the economy? well, look at what has happened to housing. this is housing in tehran. it has gone from 500 to around

2,000. much faster than the inflation rate. weak wheat imports gone through the roof. they were more or less self-sufficient in food. now imports of food have gone through the roof. inflation has gone through the roof. yes, the central government is giving them money, but the salaries are not keeping up with inflation. so, people are getting upset now, and again in the presentation everybody shows numbers and there is some way to take the inflation this month and multiply it by 12 to get the inflation. but in any case this is central bank of iran, it shows the inflation was running around 25% last year. it has dropped now because of the recession, around 15%. if you add toen employment a -- y

you, robin -- if you look at unemployment. it is an interesting statistic, too, because the government gives you all sorts of st statistics saying it is 15%, 17%, 18% and i have no way to judge except to look at aggregate of unless. they are roughly around 70 million population of iran, 20 million are either too young or too old so that leaves 50 million of workforce. yet they say there are 25 million in the workforce. what happens to the other 25. you say they are women. that not true either because if you look at the 25 million people who are employed eight million are women. so, roughly one out of every three in the workforce is a woman. so, if you take that out, take 25 million, eight million women, and the others a woman can't work -- i didn't say that or i will get in trouble with my wife

and daughters. but you saw him the other women stay home and don't want to work so unemployment is not an issue, of the 25 million remaining there is 33% unemployment. so,en employment is running -- unemployment is not around 15% or 16% but in the 20's. add the 20's to the 20% inflation and as you get older you remember all sorts of indices. we used to have a misery index, older people remember that. that was inflation plus unemployment or interest rate plus unemployment rate. and in the peak of the period we we talked about the u.s. economy was in terrible shape we had an interest rate of 17%, inflation around 18%,en employme eu unemp 7%. that was the worst situation. we have a misery index in iran somewhere on the order of