By Fasih Ahmed

Lahore -Reactions in Pakistan to America’s historic presidential elections run the gamut from enthusiastic approval, especially among the country’s educated young, to outraged disbelief, especially among Pakistanis who remember Obama as the presidential candidate who vowed to send troops into Pakistan if Osama Bin Laden were pinpointed and the Pakistani government failed to capture or kill him.

"I am really happy and excited for America today!” said Anum Sohail, a social worker. “It’s commendable what they’ve done, it’s history we can all learn from.” She said it was unfortunate that Obama didn’t allow himself to be photographed with Muslims on the campaign trail. “But anti-Islam sentiment is so high there that I guess he had to be careful,” she said. She did not expect U.S. policy toward Pakistan to change under President Obama. “It’s shameful how our leaders have made us so dependent on the U.S.,” said Mujeeb Shah, 38, a bookstore checkout clerk. “Obama will not change the U.S. policy of invading and killing Muslims,” he said. “America should leave us alone and respect our sovereignty!”

Crocker addressed the question many Iraqis, as well as American troops and expatriates, have: “What will Obama do about Iraq?” In America, the ambassador assured, “We have one president at a time” and George W. Bush will be president for the next two and a half months. “We will have full continuity of unity and purpose as we move through our transition.” In other words, it will be, at least for now, business as usual – in this case nation-building in Iraq. The reassurance was vague and general, but few expected more. In Baghdad, the landmark election of Obama is being celebrated by most, but few are under any illusions that it will change much of anything.

By Kevin Peraino and Nuha Musleh

Jerusalem- For Israelis, Obama’s victory was bittersweet. At a number of key moments over the past eight years—including during the second intifada and the 2006 Lebanon war—the Bush Administration stood squarely behind the Jewish state. Despite increasing disillusion with Bush’s “freedom agenda,” many Israelis were unwilling to turn on what they saw as a steadfast ally in the Republican party. “Bush was very good for [Israel],” says Shai Bazak, a former aide to Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu. “I know they don’t like him in the States, but he’s very popular here.” Still, he added, “I don’t think this president is going to change a lot. Israel is the least of his problems.” Reaction in the Israeli press was mixed; at least some government officials grumbled that Obama was an unknown quantity and worried that he might soften the American position toward Iran. For the most part, though, Israelis took the news in stride. “It’s safe to assume that Obama will not abandon Israel,” wrote Aluf Benn in Wednesday’s editions of Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper.

By Barrett Sheridan and Fred Guterl 

The most common reaction across the world to Barack Obama’s Tuesday night victory was a simple one: “Thank you.” It was a sentiment directed not at the president-elect himself, but at the American people. Having felt abandoned by the United States for so long, and especially after the 2004 reelection of George W. Bush, people across the world saw Obama’s victory as an affirmation that yes, America still does represent something special. Nelson Mandela, in a congratulatory letter to Obama, perhaps summed it up best: “Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place.” It was also a good excuse to celebrate. Kenya, the home of Obama’s father, declared a national holiday, and Brazilians proclaimed a new era of "esperanza". The few disappointed by the final tally—a dour-looking Tory in London, some security-conscious Israelis—did little to dampen the global celebration.

Parisians reacted with enthusiasm and relief to the news, some of them turning on a dime to become Amero-philes. And the French newspapers, after 8 years of George W. Bush, might perhaps be forgiven for getting a little tipsy on Obama.

Our team of foreign correspondents has cavassed the globe for the morning-after reaction to this historic election. The event was cause for celebration and contemplation in London, Paris, Jerusalem, Seoul, Durban, Lahore, Tokyo and Rio.

Turkey was just one judge’s vote away from a constitutional coup. But after three days of secret deliberations, Turkey’s constitutional court voted six to five not to ban the country’s ruling party and exclude its top leaders from power. Seven votes were required to shut the party down on charges of allegedly plotting to introduce Islamic law to secular Turkey – a judgment which would certainly have plunged Turkey into a full-blown political crisis. Instead the court’s members – hardline secularists all – nevertheless decided to pull back from the brink and impose a simple penalty of cutting the party off from State funding – effectively a slap on the wrist for the AKP, but at the same time a face-saving solution for the judges.

Chief prosecutor, Aburrahman Yalcinkaya had demanded that Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the country's president, Abdullah Gul, and 69 other AKP figures be banned from politics for five years. Their crime, according to the lengthy indictment, was that they had allowed the party to become a focal point of “anti-secular activity". In particular, the prosecutor was incensed by the AKP’s lifting of a two decades-old ban on female students wearing Islamic headscarves at university.

A seemingly trivial pretext, perhaps, for banning a democratically elected government – and one which is the most popular in modern Turkish history. But the court case is just the latest and most dramatic episode in a decades-old confrontation between political Islam and the secular establishment, which has sworn to keep religion out of public life in accordance with the radical secularism of Turkey’s founder, Kemal Ataturk. In 1999, just three years before his party swept to power, Erdogan himself was imprisoned for sedition after reciting a religious poem at a rally. And just last year, Turkey’s politically powerful military tried - unsuccessfully - to prevent Gul's election to the presidency, also because of his strong religious beliefs and his headscarf-wearing wife. The AKP called the military’s bluff by immediately calling an early general election, which it won in a landslide, and then successfully re-nominating Gul. The secularists’ response to that defeat was to draft the indictment which was knocked down by the court today.

Nevertheless, the AKP must tread carefully to avoid more time-wasting battles which have distracted the ruling party from much needed reforms and spooked markets. "I hope the party in question will evaluate this outcome very well and get the message it should get,” warned chief justice Hasim Kilic in his ruling. "The verdict on cutting treasury aid has been given because of members who decided that the party was the hub of anti-secular activities but not seriously enough [to close the party].” The subtext was clear: the court had decided to spare the party – and spare the country months of political turmoil – but now expected the AKP to steer clear of more provocative moves such as the headscarf law.

The ruling is good news for Turkey’s path to the European Union. EU enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn said that "despite everything, this is a good day for Turkey and for Europe … There is a vast majority among the Turkish people who are in favour of European values. I'm sure this played a role, as stated by the president of the Turkish constitutional court."

It should also allow the AKP to take up a long delayed reform program on free speech and democratization. “Today’s decision by the Constitutional Court not to close down the ruling Justice and Development Party has averted a political crisis in Turkey,” says Emma Sinclair-Webb, Turkey researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The ruling party should honor its election promises now and revive the long-stalled reform of human rights in Turkey.”

For Sgt. Matthew Villalpando, Tuesday wasn't so Super in Baghdad. The California native has to be at the International Zone's Checkpoint Two by 6 a.m. every day for work, so when the results of the primaries started rolling in late Tuesday night, he was sound asleep in bed with his alarm set for 4 a.m. He didn't even have time to check on what had happened before heading out the door Wednesday morning.

Like Villalpando, most troops were too busy--or tired--to stay up to watch Super Tuesday's results as they unfolded back home. Few had the time to vote themselves, saying that, given their busy schedules, it was not a priority. While the Iraq war provides unprecedented means for soldiers to follow events back home--satellite television, cellular telephones, Internet and daily deliveries of the Stars and Stripes newspaper--there are still pockets that are out of touch. In a new base set up two weeks ago in an abandoned house in the Arab Jabour area, less than 100 soldiers live without any hook-up to the civilian world--they only have one room with electricity so far. Not only did most not know Super Tuesday was held yesterday, many still did not know the outcome of the Super Bowl.

Soldiers abroad vote by absentee ballot, which they can request over the Internet from their home states. Voting Assistance Officers at the U.S. Embassy can also help, but some still say the process should be made simpler.

With news of U.S. and Iranian ships passing uncomfortably close in the night off the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend, it's time once again to consider what's on the minds of the power-brokers in Tehran. Was the incident the result of rogue Revolutionary Guard ship commanders or part of a deliberate escalation by Iran? That the incident was announced by the Pentagon is noteworthy, as Iran might have been expected to toot its own horn, were it proud of the maneuvers. (Think of the drama it whipped up over the British seamen captured in the same waterway back in 2007.) This time, the official line from Tehran is that this was the "normal" kind of bumper-to-bumper traffic in the strait.

This is the foreign policy parlor game that used to be called "Kremlinology" during the old Cold War, and has no name at all now. But all intelligent guessing aside, one thing is clear: as a contentious symbol in the struggle between reformists and conservatives in Iran, America remains without peer. In legislative elections scheduled for March 14, conservative supporters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are attempting to maintain their dominance by appealing to a sense of nationalism -- specifically touting the president's success in countering U.S. threats and "intimidation." For their part, the reformists are playing on the suspicions of many Iranians that Ahmadinejad's provocations risk too much in the service of too little.

While the reformists have been distracted in recent days by the usual controversies over who can vote (the conservative parliament just passed a bill raising the voting age) and which of their candidates can run (an unelected government body can toss out any candidate deemed to be insufficiently "qualified"), the conservatives have, appropriately enough, had their analytic eyes trained on America.

Here's the revealing close to an otherwise windy tract in the January 5 edition of Iran's conservative Jomhuri-ye Eslami:

"Due to the continuous failures of the Bush administration in Iraq and Afghanistan, the circumstance is extremely difficult for the Republicans inside America. The situation is so dramatic in the Republican camp that an unknown candidate like [Gov. Mike] Huckabee has won the internal Republican election [referring to the Iowa caucus]. Huckabee's victory sends this message to Bush and his administration that they have lost their popularity even amongst their own party members. The Democrats have also faced a similar situation. Due to their failure to take the Bush administration into account the people do not trust the main body of the Democrats anymore. ... The victory of Obama and Huckabee proves the failure of both leaders of the two main parties in America and a gradual deterioration of America's power in general."

The purpose of such agit-prop is unmistakable. To any voters worried about American reprisal in the face of Iran's nuclear policy, the message from Ahmadinejad's forces is that the U.S. electorate is sure to blink first and change political course -- like a ship in the strait -- as part of an increasing powerlessness. Therefore, a tack in the direction of Iran's own "agents of change" in the legislative elections would be not only unnecessary, but the renunciation of a great victory. In this light, it's not hard to understand how the decision to instigate some mischief on the Strait of Hormuz might have been conceived. And while there's no guarantee such stunts will continue to work on Iran's voters, Iran's conservatives must privately be weeping over the coming end to the era of such ready-made propaganda in the Bush 43 years. Just as we no longer have an analogue for "Kremlinology," so, too, will they be forced to discard some expired political language at approximately this time next year.

In most countries, soldiers returning from being held hostage in enemy territory would probably be treated as national heroes. Not so in Turkey. Last Monday, eight Turkish soldiers kidnapped in an Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) ambush on Oct 21st were released unconditionally by their captors. But the soldiers – six privates and two non-commissioned officers - returned to their homeland to face accusations of betraying their motherland. Justice Minister Mehmet Ali Sahin said on Monday that was “not entirely happy” about the soldiers' release – adding that they were still being questioned by Turkish military interrogators about their ordeal. "No member of the Turkish armed forces should have found themselves in such a situation," Sahin told an audience at Ankara University. “As a Turkish citizen I cannot accept the fact that they went with the terrorists that night. Our soldier is prepared to die if necessary when he is protecting the country." Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Çiçek yesterday denied telling ministerial colleagues that two of the kidnapped soldiers had PKK sympathies and could have gone over voluntarily.

The story says a lot about the way Turkey works – and how, despite years of EU-inspired reforms, the country has still retained many of the habits of mind formed during years of military dictatorship.

Reporter Seth Colter Walls has filed this analysis of recent military maneuvers:  

The wires are hot today with news of Hezbollah's weekend maneuvers along the border with Israel, as reported by Lebanese outlets. Pretty much everything about the revelation is newsworthy – in particular that Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was supervising the exercises in person, and that anyone was ever told about them at all.

What did Vladimir Putin hope to achieve as he stood side by side with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Teheran yesterday?

  Photo: AFP

Certainly the visit was a boost to Ahmadinejad. Ever since Russia – believed by many in Tehran to be Iran’s only major international ally - backed a UN Security Council resolution censuring Iran and imposing mild sanctions last March, Iran has been dangerously isolated internationally. Now, it seems, the relationship is back on track – and, crucially, Iran is a degree more confident that thanks to Russia’s veto on the Security Council, there will be no further tightening of sanctions.

That diplomatic boost for Ahmadinejad sounds like a loss for Washington. Indeed, when George Bush hosted Putin at the family estate at Kennebunkport, Maine, this summer, much of the talk was on Iran and persuading Putin to continue his support for UN sanctions. At the time Putin agreed that Iran should be prevented from developing nuclear weapons. Yet yesterday Putin confirmed at a press conference in Tehran that Iran also had the right to "pursue its civilian nuclear power projects." That’s actually something not even the United States denies – but the symbolism of Putin coming to Iran’s defense was significant.