Recently in The Iran Question Category

"'The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching,' Obama said in a written statement. 'We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people.'"

As protests -- and violence -- escalate in Tehran after last week's dubious election returns, the world increasingly looks to social networking sites to ascertain what's really going on in the streets. The revolution may not be televised, but -- so far at least -- it seems to be managing quite well with Twitter: "This is a country where you have tens of thousands of bloggers, and these bloggers have been in a situation where the Internet has been filtered since 2004. Anyone worth their salt knows how to find an open proxy [to get around government firewalls and filters], knows how to work around censorship...The Iranian government, by filtering the Internet for so long, has actually trained a cadre of people who really know who to get around censorship."

Update: Over at Salon, Iranian-American journalist Hooman Majd (who's making the rounds -- I saw him on the Lehrer News Hour yesterday as well) argues that the role of social networking has been vastly overstated: "More people have access to the Internet in Iran than other Middle Eastern countries but often it's dial-up, it's slow, they don't do it like we do all day long...The depiction of the Internet revolution isn't quite accurate. We're putting our own image onto Iran. Of course there are people Twittering from the demonstrations; they're just not representative of the vast majority of Iranians. What was so heartwarming about this whole thing is that the Iranian people stood up in mass and said you can't take this away from us."

"It's a truism that Barack Obama faces the most intractable set of challenges that any president has faced in at least 50 years. But on a few issues in foreign and military policy, he's caught a break. Whether by luck, the effect of his election, or President George W. Bush's stepped-up drive to win last-minute kudos, Obama will enter the White House with some paths to success already marked, if not quite paved." Having covered six diplomatic priorities for Obama right after the election (the link was buried in this post), Slate's Fred Kaplan takes a gander at five foreign policy arenas primed for good news under the coming administration.

"The Democratic leadership’s agreement to commit hundreds of millions of dollars for more secret operations in Iran was remarkable, given the general concerns of officials like Gates, Fallon, and many others. 'The oversight process has not kept pace -- it’s been coöpted' by the Administration, the person familiar with the contents of the Finding said. 'The process is broken, and this is dangerous stuff we’re authorizing.'"

In related news, The New Yorker's venerable Sy Hersh reports that the Dubya administration has been stepping up covert activities in Iran...and Congress is once again going along for the ride. "In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership...were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy."

"The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I might not know him as well as I thought, either." After an unrepentant Jeremiah Wright ratcheted up the heat again at the National Press Club yesterday, thus bringing the punditariat to a full boil, an "outraged" and "saddened" Sen. Obama definitively cuts Wright loose.

A bit depressing that this had to go down, but, at this point, Obama really didn't have much choice. (Wright was practically begging for it, what with promoting the AIDS and Farrakhan stuff anew yesterday.) So, hopefully this helps bring an end to the sad diversion that was the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Now, perhaps we can move on to other matters, such as the Rev. John Hagee and the "Strangelovian" obliteration of Iran...

Update: While we all mull the fallout from Wrightgate II, consider this: Sen. Obama picked up two more superdelegates today, Rep. Ben Chandler of Kentucky and DNC member Richard Machachek of Iowa. I believe that puts the post-PA total at 6 for Obama, 2 for Clinton, meaning Sen. Clinton is now a full 10 behind where she needs to be to stay "alive."

Update 2: Count three more supers for Clinton, and now three more for Sen. Obama. The new post-PA tally: 9 for Obama, 5 for Clinton, meaning Clinton is down 13 from her needed mark.

"Judging from Gen. David Petraeus' Senate testimony today, our military commitment to Iraq is open-ended and unconditional...Their unwavering stance amounted to this: Further pullouts might trigger defeat; the costs of defeat are too horrible to ponder; therefore, we shouldn't ponder further pullouts." Slate's Fred Kaplan takes the measure of yesterday's Petraeus hearings, and the performances of Senators Obama [transcript | video], Clinton and McCain respectively. "Near the end of the afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrats' likely presidential nominee but a junior member of the foreign relations committee, finally got his turn to ask questions -- and he homed in on one of the administration's key conceptual failures...'I'm trying to get to an end point,' he said. 'That's what all of us are trying to do.' This is what many critics and thoughtful supporters of the war have been trying to do for five years now. The Bush administration hasn't addressed the issue. And, ultimately, neither did Petraeus or Crocker today."

"It's not a case of good vs. evil. It's just another crevice in the widening earthquake called Iraq." As violence flares up in Iraq once more, Slate's Fred Kaplan summarizes the current situation: "[I]t is 'a power struggle' between rival 'Shiite party mafias' for control of the oil-rich south and other Shiite sections of the country. Both sides in this struggle are essentially militias. Both sides have ties to Iran. And as for protecting 'the Iraqi people,' the side backed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (and by U.S. air power) has, ironically, less support -- at least in many Shiite areas, including Basra -- than the side that he (and we) are attacking."

"Senator Clinton says that she and Senator McCain have passed a 'Commander in Chief test' – not because of the judgments they’ve made, but because of the years they’ve spent in Washington. She made a similar argument when she said her vote for war was based on her experience at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. But here is the stark reality: there is a security gap in this country – a gap between the rhetoric of those who claim to be tough on national security, and the reality of growing insecurity caused by their decisions. A gap between Washington experience, and the wisdom of Washington’s judgments. A gap between the rhetoric of those who tout their support for our troops, and the overburdened state of our military...We have a security gap when candidates say they will follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but refuse to follow him where he actually is."

On the fifth anniversary of the war, Sen. Obama delivers a speech on Iraq and national security in Fayetteville, NC, and takes time to poke McCain for his apparent and frightening misunderstanding of Mideast affairs. "Just yesterday, we heard Sen. McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and Al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no Al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades." Really, McCain's oft-repeated error smacks of Dubya-level incompetence, and would be all over the news today if we were in general election mode, rather than collectively continuing to assuage Sen. Clinton's vanity, by assuming she still has a chance. For shame.

"Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005." Uh, y'know that whole Iran is the new face of evil, imminent-WWIII thing we've been hearing about? Well, never mind. It's time to update those lyrics, Senator McCain: A new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report -- which, it seems, Cheney may have held up for a year -- finds that Iran actually stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. "Even if Iran were to restart its program now, the country probably could not produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single weapon before the middle of the next decade, the assessment stated. It also expressed doubt about whether Iran 'currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.'"

This happy piece of information obviously puts our Saber-Rattler in Chief in a bit of a bind -- In a news conference this morning, he was reduced to spluttering, "'What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?'" What indeed...perhaps we should bomb them anyway, is that your point? Well, probably not. Says Slate's Fred Kaplan of the NIE: "If there was ever a possibility that President George W. Bush would drop bombs on Iran, the chances have now shrunk to nearly zero....Skeptics of war have rarely been so legitimized. Vice President Cheney has never been so isolated." Still, just to keep the timeline in perspective, Dubya made that dubious WWIII comment months after being apprised of this information. So, in effect, he was lying to us yet again.

As for the 2008 contenders, the campaigns are all taking the news pretty much in stride, although Chris Dodd got off a pretty good zinger on Clinton: "It's easy to say 'fool me once, shame on George Bush,' but when she's been fooled twice, shame on her."

"The consequences of Bush and Rice's passivity were disastrous. Israel didn't lose the war, but it didn't win, either, and that's what it had to do to maintain its image of invincibility, which has long deterred hostile neighbors from contemplating aggression. Hezbollah didn't win, but all it had to do was not lose, and it clearly achieved that goal, enhancing its reputation as the power that had stood up to the Zionists and faced them down." In his discussion of the recent Mideast summit in Annapolis (which publicly aimed to kickstart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and privately aimed to pry Syria further away from Iran), Slate's Fred Kaplan brings up a crucial -- and missed -- opportunity for diplomacy last year, during the Israel-Lebanon crisis. "(By the way, this may have been the genesis of a new Israeli verb, lecondel—in Hebrew, 'to Condel,' short for 'to Condoleezza' -- meaning, as the New York Times' Steven Erlanger has explained, to come and go for meetings that produce few results.)" And, speaking of political linguistics, it turns out that Annapolis, however picturesque, might not have been the best place to hold the summit -- In Arabic, "Annapolis" roughly translates to "I am the Police."

"In a series of internal musings and memos to his staff, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld argued that Muslims avoid 'physical labor' and wrote of the need to 'keep elevating the threat,' 'link Iraq to Iran' and develop 'bumper sticker statements' to rally public support for an increasingly unpopular war." The WP surveys the "snowflakes" composed by ex-SecDef Donald Rumsfeld during his tenure. "Rumsfeld, whose sometimes abrasive approach often alienated other Cabinet members and White House staff members, produced 20 to 60 snowflakes a day and regularly poured out his thoughts in writing as the basis for developing policy, aides said." Uh, Rummy, get a blog.

"'We screwed up and left Saddam Hussein in power. The president [then George H.W. Bush] believes he'll be overthrown by his own people, but I rather doubt it,' he quotes Wolfowitz lamenting [in 1991]. 'But we did learn one thing that's very important. With the end of the Cold War, we can now use our military with impunity. The Soviets won't come in to block us. And we've got five, maybe 10, years to clean up these old Soviet surrogate regimes like Iraq and Syria before the next superpower emerges to challenge us ... We could have a little more time, but no one really knows.'" According to Salon's Joe Conason, Wesley Clark's new book suggests the existence of a smoking-gun 2001 memo that outlined in full the neo-cons' delusional ambitions for the Middle East before the Iraq War. "'Six weeks later, Clark returned to Washington to see the same general and inquired whether the plan to strike Iraq was still under consideration..."Oh, it's worse than that," he said, holding up a memo on his desk. "Here's the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We're going to take out seven countries in five years." And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran.' While Clark doesn't name the other four countries, he has mentioned in televised interviews that the hit list included Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan."

"In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran...The President’s position, and its corollary -- that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians -- have taken firm hold in the Administration." With that in mind, and with Secretary of State Rice citing Iranian "lying" about their nuclear program, here's one from a week or so ago: The New Yorker's Sy Hersh evaluates the current prospects in the administration for a war with Iran. "I was repeatedly cautioned, in interviews, that the President has yet to issue the 'execute order' that would be required for a military operation inside Iran, and such an order may never be issued. But there has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning...'They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,' one recently retired C.I.A. official said."

"If you're really worried about Iran, do you want to put your faith in the United States, the country that bungled Iraq? If you really care about Islamic fundamentalism, do you want to be led by the country that, distracted by Iraq, failed to predict the return of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan?" Why has the world soured on America of late? The real reason, argues Slate's Anne Applebaum and the data she surveys, is that, thanks to seven years of Dubya, we're starting to look incompetent. "And even if the surge works, even if the roadside bombs vanish, inept is a word that will always be used about the Iraqi invasion."

So, you'll never guess who came to campus today...It didn't get much press or anything, but Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad kicked off his NY tour this morning by being eviscerated in public by Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger. Normally, I'd say it's poor form to hijack an invited speaker like that, but: the national temper is running angry, Ahmadinejad's no angel by any means, and -- most importantly -- the questions Bollinger posed demand substantive answers. (Besides, a furor is what Ahmadinejad wanted anyway.)

All that being said, I still think it was a dumb political stunt (on both ends) to disinvite the Iranian president from visiting Ground Zero. A couple of points people seem to have forgotten lately: 1. Iran didn't have anything to do with 9/11, and 2. Whatever's going on on the Iraqi border, we're not currently at war with them. Most importantly, why wouldn't we want a man who's trying to obtain nukes to see the lasting consequences of a large-scale atrocity firsthand? If the sight of that still-gaping wound in the heart of the city gave him pause for even a moment, the world would be better for it.

Declaring that "the military objectives of the surge are in large measure being met" (an assertion which rests, of course, on how one jukes the stats and skews the benchmarks), Army General David Petraeus, Dubya's most recent man in Iraq, tells Congress he's recommending a drawdown of troop levels in Iraq to pre-surge levels -- around 130,000 troops -- by July of next year. [Transcript.] Not a huge surprise -- As Fred Kaplan noted both a few weeks ago and in his quality preview of today's testimony, the Army would run out of troops by April anyway, so this was a foregone conclusion. Also, obviously, not what you'd call a real withdrawal (although the WP story's cited experts suggest it may be taken as the "beginning of the end" by interested parties in Iraq...and Iran.) So, in effect, Petraeus punted to next July.

For his part, US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker backed Petraeus' "Things are Getting Better" remarks in his own testimony, and intimated that the surge had staved off a near-total collapse. He also warned the nation about the nature of our continuing commitment there: "'There will be no single moment in which we can claim victory,' and any turning point will be recognized only 'in retrospect.'"

Ratcheting up the sabre-rattling, the Dubya administration adds Iran's Revolutionary Guard to its official list of terrorist organizations. "The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization." Hmm. This ought to go over like gangbusters. "'It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue,' said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress...All of us want to back Iran into a corner, but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change."

With an international dispute over 15 seized British sailors simmering to a boil in Tehran and Ahmadinejad cancelling his trip to New York in protest, the UN Security Council unanimously opposes sanctions against Iran for its continuing nuclear program (details.) "'The impact is primarily political rather than practical,' said Abbas Milani, the director of Stanford University's Iranian studies program. The financial and military restrictions are 'rather limited and toothless,' but they are having a profound psychological impact on investors and eroding Ahmadinejad's standing in Iran, he said."

In a welcome bit of good news on the international front, negotiators strike a deal in North Korea that lays down a plan for nuclear disarmament by Kim Jong Il's regime. But all is not rosy yet: "In a harbinger of the potential for difficulties ahead, the official North Korean news agency said the agreement required only a temporary suspension of the country's nuclear facilities...The agreement also seemed likely to face opposition in Washington by conservatives who remain unconvinced that the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, ever intends to relinquish his nuclear weapons. Similarly, the Bush administration faced criticism from Democrats who charge the administration that broke away from the Agreed Framework in 2002 ended up five years later with a roughly similar accord."

Meanwhile, in related but considerably more depressing news, a European Union report argues that it is now too late to prevent Iran from developing its own nuclear weaponry. "The admission is a blow to hopes that a deal with Iran can be reached and comes at a sensitive time, when tensions between the US and Tehran are rising. Its implication that sanctions will prove ineffective will also be unwelcome to EU diplomats."

"Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." I'm still furiously playing catch-up, so I'm obviously a day or two behind on blogging this...Then again, Dubya's just as obviously three or four years behind in announcing it, so I'll call it a wash. Nonetheless, after finally admitting that his administration has seriously screwed up in Iraq, Bush --- sidestepping the suggestions of the Baker-Hamilton commission -- calls for sending 21,500 more troops to the region, in what's being billed as a "surge." (Re: "escalation.") When you get right down to it, Dubya's basic argument in his televised address on Wednesday was this: "Through wishful thinking and outright incompetence, I've dug two nations into a huge hole. Please, please, please let me keep digging..."

Here's the thing -- A massive troop increase would've made a good deal of sense in 2003, during those crucial days just after the fall of the Hussein regime. A show of power then -- and a quicker restoration of order and basic services -- would have paid huge dividends down the road. But, now, all these years later, after so much infrastructure has been destroyed and so many sectarian schisms have been allowed to fester? 21,500 troops -- many of them not fresh recruits but wearied soldiers returning to the region or having their tours extended -- isn't going to make a dent in the Whack-a-Mole game we've been playing against insurgents since 2003. At best, this escalation is a show of good faith to the al-Maliki government, which seems to be not much more than a brittle political arm of Shiite extremists (Exhibit A: the manner of Saddam's hanging; Exhibit B: the refusal to do anything -- until now -- to rein in Al Sadr's Mahdi Army.) Yes, folks, throwing more troops at a losing situation, backing a shaky government that can't handle its own security issues, rattling the saber at Cambodia/Iran...who says Dubya isn't a student of history?

Fortunately, for the first time since the beginning of the war, Congress isn't having it, with even some Republicans joining Dems in rallying against the proposed troop increase and today venting their wrath at Condi Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (No doubt the poll numbers against Dubya's plan is helping to stiffen some GOP spines.) Still, Dubya has some allies in this fight -- While the Dems are universally opposed to the escalation gamble [Dem Response by Durbin | Biden | Clinton | Dodd | Edwards | Feingold | Obama | Pelosi] and a not-insubstantial number of Republicans are balking, some key GOP pols are still supporting Dubya's move (most notably John McCain, who's been calling for a troop increase since day one, and Rudy Giuliani, likely trying to right the 2008 ship after his recent devastating document dump.)

"As for Iraq, it's no news that Bush has no strategy. What did come as news -- and, really, a bit of a shocker -- is that he doesn't seem to know what 'strategy' means." Slate's Fred Kaplan tears apart another dismal Dubya press conference. At this point, it's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?

"There's a broader lesson here, and it speaks to the Bush administration's present jam throughout the Middle East and in other danger zones. If the British had adopted the same policy toward dealing with Pakistan that Bush has adopted toward dealing with, say, Syria or Iran (namely, it's an evil regime, and we don't speak with evil regimes), then a lot of passenger planes would have shattered and spilled into the ocean, hundreds or thousands of people would have died, and the world would have suddenly been plunged into very scary territory." In light of yesterday's foiled plot, Slate's Fred Kaplan points out one of the critical flaws of Dubya Diplomacy (which, thankfully, the British do not share.)

"Once again, Bush demonstrated that he doesn't understand what makes young democracies flourish or why Hezbollah has appeal even to many nonterrorists. He doesn't seem to realize that democratic governments require democratic institutions and the resources to make them thrive. He evinces no awareness that the longer Israel bombs Beirut into oblivion, the harder it becomes for Siniora (who has few resources) to retain legitimacy -- and the easier it becomes for Hezbollah (which has many more resources) to gain still greater power." Slate's Fred Kaplan parses yet another dismaying press performance by Dubya regarding the current international scene.

Update: "Scholars who enter the chambers of power should use their training as a tool to help them make decisions. Condi Rice is using hers as a chant to wish away the consequences." In a related piece, Kaplan examines Condaleeza Rice's tendency to hide behind her PhD when faced with tough questions. Well, she may be a "student of history," but as Sean Wilentz noted earlier, she's never been a very good one when you get right down to it (although, to her credit, she has been very busy creating work for future members of the profession.)

"This has constrained U.S. foreign policy in many damaging ways...The United States does not have effective diplomatic channels for managing the situation, much less resolving it." Former members of Bush administrations past and present criticize the Dubya White House for their complete lack of diplomatic avenues with Syria, Iran, the Palestinians, or anyone else that might be able to mitigate the current Middle East crisis. "As unattractive as they are, the Syrians are in a position to affect U.S. interests in Iraq and Lebanon...We should be having a broad-based dialogue with them -- not as a favor to them but as a favor to ourselves."

"'It's difficult to think of many other times and many other presidencies when so many dangerous events were happening at once,' says Wendy Sherman, a State Department official under President Clinton. 'But there's so much going on in every global hot spot because the Bush Administration really opened up Pandora's box with little-to-no plans to support their actions.'" TIME Magazine composes a cover story obit for the Bush doctrine. Good riddance: "As it turns out, Iraq may prove to be not only the first but also the last laboratory for preventive war. Instead of deterring the rulers in Tehran and Pyongyang, the travails of the U.S. occupation may have emboldened those regimes in their quest to obtain nuclear weapons while constraining the U.S. military's ability to deter them."

"It's ironic that President Bush is now endorsing a diplomatic stance toward Iran so similar to the stance that President Clinton took toward North Korea. When he first took office, Bush so feverishly opposed the Agreed Framework with North Korea in large part because Clinton had produced it." Slate's Fred Kaplan wonders whether President Clinton's Agreed Framework with North Korea might help to contain Iran. The verdict? Possibly maybe, particularly given that we have no real alternatives.

"In short, [the letter] provides a perfect opportunity for Bush to do what he should have been doing for the last few years -- to lay out what America stands for, what we have in common with Muslim nations, and how our differences can be tolerated or settled without conflict." Also in Slate, Fred Kaplan offers some sage advice on how to respond to Admadinejad's recent letter. "Bush and Ahmadinejad -- two of the world's most stubborn, self-righteous leaders. It's at once hopeful and pathetic that the next step in their confrontation -- whether it intensifies or slackens -- could be determined by whether Bush answers or brushes off a goofy letter."

"We say that this fake regime [Israel] cannot ... logically continue to live." How 'bout some WWIII grandstanding to go with your Monday coffee? In a press conference early this morning (EST), Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes more freakshow statements about Israel, and Israel, rightly, is not amused: 'Of all the threats we face, Iran is the biggest. The world must not wait. It must do everything necessary on a diplomatic level in order to stop its nuclear activity,' [Defense Minister Shaul] Mofaz told a conference on Iran at Tel Aviv University. 'Since Hitler we have not faced such a threat,' he added."

TIME Magazine unveils Josh Bolten's new five-point plan for righting the Dubya presidency: 1) Act tough on immigration with "guns and badges"; 2) Humor Wall Street with extensions on capital gains and dividend tax cuts; 3) "brag more"; 4) Talk tough at Iran; and 5) play nice with the press. So, wait, we're going to war with Iran just so Bolten can squeeze six more months out of lame duck Dubya? Brilliant.

"Observers describe Bush as 'messianic' in his conviction that he is fulfilling the divine purpose. But, as Lincoln observed in his second inaugural address, 'The Almighty has His own purposes.' Invoking also Lincoln's remarks on the Mexican War, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. laments the rise of preemption, senses dark forebodings in Dubya's saber-rattling with Iran, and concludes that "there is no more dangerous thing for a democracy than a foreign policy based on presidential preventive war."

"There are two likely outcomes from serious American efforts to negotiate, both good. First, if Iran cooperates with the talks, then it might suspend its nuclear program in exchange for economic benefits. Second, if Iran doesn't cooperate, then the Bush administration will have made its case to China, Russia, and Europe that the regime is dangerous and untrustworthy. At that point it will be much easier to impose the economic sanctions that will scare the Iranians into better behavior." With the military strike option looking increasingly ill-conceived, if not suicidal, Slate's Fred Kaplan makes the case anew for a diplomatic solution to our current problems with Iran. Update: Dubya the Decider declares, "All options are on the table." (Yes, that includes nukes.)

While the Pope, Kofi Annan, Richard Clarke, and others try to stem the increasing saber-rattling over Iran, more trouble brews in Tehran: Along with possibly expanding their nuclear fuel plants and upgrading their centrifuges, the "Iranian government has intensified efforts to illegally obtain weapons technology from the United States." Well, let's at least hope the White House isn't helping them this time...

"God may smile on us, but I don't think so. The bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons state. The problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear state can they defend themselves against the U.S. Something bad is going to happen." Although Dubya is personally dismissing the report as "wild speculation", The New Yorker's Sy Hersh argues in a terrifying piece that the administration is actively planning for "regime change" in Iran, and -- no joke -- the use of tactical nuclear weapons (particularly "bunker-busters") is on the table.

No doubt about it, this is trouble. A nuclear Iran would represent a grievous threat to the region (and particularly Israel), and must be prevented by diplomatic means if at all possible. But, after the Iraq WMD debacle, this administration has become the boy who cried wolf, and -- just as the US is facing perhaps its thorniest diplomatic issue yet, neither our European allies nor many US observers trust Dubya's motives or credibility any more, to say nothing of his basic competence. ("Speaking of President Bush, [one] House member said, 'The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.'.") And, needless to say, if Dubya and the neocons screw this one up, the consequences for both the entire Middle East and the war on terror -- as well as our own homeland security -- could be nightmarish. "If we move against Iran, Hezbollah will not sit on the sidelines. Unless the Israelis take them out, they will mobilize against us...If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle."

Update: ""I'm announcing officially that Iran has now joined the countries that have nuclear technology." The situation darkens with Iran's successful (increased) enrichment of uranium. "Iran had previously enriched uranium to a level of about 2 percent, using a smaller cascade, and separately enriched uranium to about 15 percent during laser experiments in 2002. Bomb-grade uranium must be enriched to a level of well over 80 percent...Though it is technically possible, most nuclear experts agree it is unlikely Iran would be able to make bomb-grade uranium with the[ir current] 164-centrifuge cascade." Still, Russia and Britain are decrying the advance, and Secretary Rice wants "strong steps" by the UN Security Council in reply.

"It is sometimes convenient, for purposes of rhetorical effect, for national leaders to talk of a globe neatly divided into good and bad. It is quite another, however, to base the policies of the world's most powerful nation upon that fiction." In a must-read LA Times editorial, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright witheringly dissects Dubya Diplomacy. (Via Medley.)

"'It seems to me the United States is not studying the history of Iran very carefully,' Pourostad said. 'Whenever they came and supported an idea publicly, the public has done the opposite.'" As Fred Kaplan pointed out several weeks ago (and as indicated by the results of the last Iranian election), many democratic activists in Iran believe that Dubya's ham-handed approach to promoting reform is backfiring in a big way.

"The bigger problem is that U.S. funding will discredit the very people we seek to encourage. Many Iranians, perhaps even a majority, despise their rulers. They yearn for democracy. To a degree unmatched in any other Middle Eastern nation besides Israel, they even like the United States. However, as anyone who knows anything about Iran's history would emphasize, these same Iranians deeply distrust outsiders -- including American ones -- who try to interfere in their domestic affairs...By openly calling for regime change and backing it up with money (however trifling a sum), the Bush administration is playing into Ahmadinejad's hands." Slate's Fred Kaplan assesses the Dubya administration's new Iran strategy, and finds that they're repeating the same amateurish tone-deafness that helped propel Ahmadinejad into office in the first place. (Perhaps Dubya might get it if someone reminded him of the Guardian's experiment in Ohio in 2004.)

"So, here's the big question: If diplomacy is the only rational solution to this problem yet the Iranians just want nukes -- in other words, if there is no deal (or at least no deal that the United States would realistically offer) that would compel them to give up their dream -- what's the next step?" Slate's Fred Kaplan admits to being stymied on the troubling question of Iranian nukes.

"The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets." In the world-gets-even-scarier-department, Iran's hardliner president publicly indulges in Holocaust denial. Clearly, Iran is living up to its axis-of-evil appellation these days, but remember: Ahmadinejad's election was in part blowback from Dubya's amateurish and tone-deaf Middle-East policy in the first place. At any rate, it's clear that our Iran situation is worsening, and that Iranian possession of nukes is a truly frightening scenario.

"The Arab states agree on one thing: Iran is emerging as the big winner of the American invasion, and both President Bush's new strategy and the Democratic responses to it dangerously miss the point...[T]he Shiite clerics in Iraq have achieved fundamental political goals: capturing oil revenues, strengthening the role of Islam in the state, and building up formidable militias that will defend their gains and advance their causes as the Americans draw down and leave. Iraq's neighbors, then, see it evolving into a Shiite-dominated, Iranian buffer state that will strengthen Tehran's power in the Persian Gulf just as it is seeks nuclear weapons and intensifies its rhetoric against Israel."

By way of Dangerous Meta, former Dem candidate Wesley Clark argues for a revised strategy in Iraq, one centered on border control, the reduction of Iranian influence in the region, and the use of carrots rather than sticks to defang insurgents.

As if the revelations of Syria's role in the Hariri assassination weren't disturbing enough, now the recently-elected president of Iran, a state with nuclear ambitions, is making nightmarish and freakshow statements reasserting the goal of Israel's destruction. With rhetoric escalating and five years of Dubya's "with-us-or-against-us" diplomacy helping to shore up hardliners across the Middle East, it seems Iraq may soon be the least of our problems in the region.

"'Unknowingly, (Bush) pushed Iranians to vote so that they can prove their loyalty to the regime -- even if they are in disagreement with it,' said Hamed al-Abdullah, a political science professor at Kuwait University." As per the usual with this tone-deaf administration, it appears recent remarks by Dubya may well have spurred support for the Iranian ultraconservatives and further weakened reformers in Iran. "The sharp barbs from President Bush were widely seen in Iran as damaging to pro-reform groups because the comments appeared to have boosted turnout among hard-liners in Friday's election -- with the result being that an ultraconservative now is in a two-way showdown for the presidency."

Despite inducing peals of laughter with his "ridiculous" doublespeak on Iran, Dubya's "We're Team Players" European tour continues to generate mostly good international press for the administration. Along those lines, I particularly liked this gem from the LA Times: "Talk of Bush is often imbued with suspicion. But unlike two years ago, German critics are less likely to compare him to Hitler." Hey now, that's progress.

I was at the movies during Dubya's State of the Union address -- I tried to watch it online this evening after my Radicalism sections, but Quicktime died in mid-sentence, so I just ended up reading it. And, while I thought it was very well-written as per the norm, my thoughts on the address have been colored even more than usual by the punditocracy. So, with that in mind, I'll avoid being derivative and just direct y'all to the following:

• Fred Kaplan: "Some of the president's statements on national security were simply puzzling. Again on Iran, he said, 'We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium-enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing.' This is just false."



• Chris Suellentrop: "You could call Bush's idea the Screw Your Grandchildren Act...This was the Greatest Love of All speech, in which Bush asserted that The Children Are Our Future. But before you sign on to Bush's proposal, be aware that what he's offering is pretty tough love."



• Will Saletan: "Tonight's State of the Union Address demonstrated again that President Bush is a man of very clear principles. He's just flexible about when to apply them."



• Joe Conason: "Although George W. Bush and the White House aides who craft these public spectacles become increasingly adept at manipulating the feelings of his audience every year, their underlying method remains the same: to shade inconvenient realities with rhetorical vagueness and outright deception."



• E.J. Dionne: "Our country could profit from an honest debate about the future of Social Security. Judging from President Bush's State of the Union address, that is not the kind of debate we are about to have."

Alright, enough partying...let's get it on! In keeping with the conclusions of Sy Hersh's recent New Yorker piece, Cheney stops by Imus before the inauguration to rattle the saber at Iran (using Israel as the bad cop.) I can see it now -- Iran: We're really pretty sure this time they've got WMD. Update: Iran rattles back.