Our guest blogger is Jennifer Addison, national security team intern at the Center for American Progress.

Yesterday, the Afghan government announced the release of a woman serving a 12-year jail sentence for adultery after reporting that her cousin had raped her. Freedom comes with a price — the pardon came only after the woman agreed to marry her attacker. What initially seemed like a victory for women’s progress in Afghanistan actually became a reminder of the difficulties of making change in a society deeply rooted in tradition and custom.

The European Union’s ambassador and special representative to Afghanistan, Vygaudas Usackas, gave a statement responding to this event saying:

USACKAS: Her case has served to highlight the plight of Afghan women, who 10 years after the overthrow of the Taliban regime often continue to suffer in unimaginable conditions, deprived of even the most basic human rights.

As Afghanistan continues to inch forward out of the Taliban era and toward a new state, this event should remind us that although women have made considerable progress they still have the much to gain and lose in the changes coming to Afghanistan.

The continuing difficulties for women in Afghanistan are parallel to the obstacles that confront women worldwide — lack of equal economic or educational opportunity for example. Other problems are unique in their severity, such as gender violence and gender inequality, as a result of the conservative social structure in Afghanistan. A study from the Thomas-Reuters foundation put Afghanistan at the top of the list for the worst place for women.

As the country continues to evolve, gender activists and women’s groups in Afghanistan have expressed concern that women will be left behind as the country moves forward. As Samira Hamidi from the Afghan Women’s Network said:

“We have not been approached by the government — they never do. The belief is that women are not important,” she said, describing a mind-set that she said “has not been changed in the past eight years.”

Human rights groups, women’s rights groups, and other organizations continue to make significant efforts to raise the status of women in Afghanistan but the question of how to bring about change in a society severely entrenched with conservative values and custom remains. Additionally, the advancements that have been made risk being reverted so the challenge is to maintain what developments have been made while pushing to achieve new ones.

Former Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh is no dove when it comes to Iran. As recently as last month, Bayh supported attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. But in a Fox News interview today, he cautioned against the dangers of an Israeli attack and predicted a unilateral Israeli strike would take the United States on a “slippery slope toward war”:

BILL HEMMER: In your view, how real is the possibility of war between Israel and Iran?

EVAN BAYH: I think that’s more of a threat right now than a reality. And the reason for that, Bill, is Israel could launch a single attack against the Iranian nuclear facilities assuming we know where they all are. We know where most of them are but there may be some where we don’t. [...]

So the real consequence would be if Israel launched an attack against Iran, the Iranians would probably think we were complicit in that. They would never believe the Israelis did it on their own, even if that were true. The Iranians might then lash out at us. Bomb some of our embassies. Go after our troops in Afghanistan. Unleash Hezbollah against us some places. And that would then confront the United States with the decision that having being attacked by Iran, well of course we aren’t going to sit idly by and let them get away with that. So it could be a slippery slope toward war.

Watch it:

Bayh, who has previously bought into the “martyr state myth” that Iran is a suicidal country, should be familiar with the “slippery slope to war” from his membership in the Iraq-war pushing Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. His latest remarks don’t completely contradict his previous endorsements for the use of U.S. military force against Iran but it does offer a stiff rebuke against the increasingly explicit statements by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak suggesting Israel is preparing for a unilateral attack.

Admitting that an Israeli attack would almost inevitably result in retaliation against U.S. interests, thereby drawing the U.S. into another war in the Middle East, is an important admission coming from a certifiable Iran hawk.

Now that the super committee has failed, Republicans in Congress led by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) have said that they will “pursue all options” — including introducing legislation — to roll back the debt reduction sequestration, mainly to prevent any more military spending cuts. (Both McCain and McKeon voted for the mandatory military spending cuts back in August.)

President Obama has threatened to veto any legislation undoing the trigger cuts. And it seemed that House Speaker John Boehner had his back, Talking Points Memo reported last month:

But on November 3, at his weekly press availability, Boehner said he feels “bound” by the debt limit deal, even the automatic defense cuts. “Me, personally? Yes, I would feel bound. It was part of the agreement, and so either we succeed or we’re in the sequester. The sequester is ugly. Why? Because we didn’t want anybody to go there. That’s why we have to succeed.”

But now, Boehner is calling on Obama to stop the automatic military cuts, the Hill reports:

“I really believe that the president of the United States has a responsibility here as well,” Boehner told reporters [yesterday]. “He’s the commander in chief; he knows what those cuts will mean to the military, and so I frankly believe the Congress still must work with the president to find a solution to our long-term debt.”

Although it’s unclear why the Republicans turning back. The sequestration military cuts would bring defense spending back to 2007 levels.

A group of academics from a Saudi Arabian religious council warned that, should women in the repressive monarchy be allowed to legally drive cars, the country would see a rapid “moral decline.”

The religious scholars are from Saudi Arabia’s top institution of religious study and worked with a university professor to draft a report on the potential impact of women drivers. The group said women drivers would lead to a “surge in prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce,” and complained that, after ten years of women driving, there would be “no more virgins” in the kingdom. The report was prepared for and delivered to Saudia Arabia’s unelected advisory Shura Council, which holds no power in the country’s absolute monarchy.

Global Post highlighted an anecdote from the report that dealt with the personal experience of one its authors:

In the report Prof Subhi described sitting in a coffee shop in an unnamed Arab state where “all the women were looking at me“.

“One made a gesture that made it clear that she was available,” he said. “This is what happens when women are allowed to drive.”

This summer, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised a civil disobedience protest movement of women drivers and a group of U.S. Senators asked the king to overturn the ban. This fall, one of the demonstrators was sentenced to 10 lashes for driving, though the sentence was overturned by the King under pressure.

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that bans women drivers, leaving one wondering why there have not been more news reports on how it’s the only country left with virgins. (HT: Sarah Wildman)