Tonight in my capacity as head of foreign policy programs at the New America Foundation, I am hosting a dinner salon gathering to discuss the growing conflagration in the Middle East with Saudi Ambassador to the United States Prince Turki Al-Faisal.

His comments will be on the record -- and I will post them as soon as possible.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

An Israeli air strike has killed 54 civilians -- including 37 children. This after the strike against a UN observation facility where UN staff were killed -- and also after hundreds and hundreds of other innocent Lebanese have been killed in the exchanges between Hezbollah and Israeli military forces.

Tension is heating up -- finally -- between American negotiators and Israeli, but this is long overdue.

But back to John Bolton, who was part of a UN Security Council statement today expressing "extreme shock and distress" over the killings.

At his Thursday Senate confirmation hearings, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee majority staff passed out Ambassador Bolton's "official statement". In that opening statement, there appeared a controversial and provocative sentence that asserted that Israelis and Lebanese who become innocent casualties in this war are not morally equivalent. His argument is that Israeli innoncents are more important than Lebanese innocent casualties because the Israelis were attacked by Hezbollah.

It was a shocking sentence, and the moment I saw it, I blogged about it directly from the Senate Hearing Room.

The sentence read:

But it is a mistake to ascribe a moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct resulte of malicious terrorist acts, the very purpose of which are to kill civilians, and the tragic and unfortunate consequence of civilian deaths as a result of military action taken in self-defense.

Now, some have misunderstood what happened next. My surprise did not come when John Bolton read a script that was different than the one in hand. What happened was that just as John Bolton was beginning to read his statement, a new statement was distributed -- with only this line of text removed.

That is important as it highlights something that the Department of State was not ready to clear -- and shows something about John Bolton's views and personality that State was not ready to sign off on.

After this huge tragedy today -- 37 innocent children -- in a crude aerial assault, does John Bolton stand by the statement he wanted to give?

Someone in the press ask him.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Hagel's speech today -- posted below -- was quite superb in articulating a smart stragegy for American engagement in the Middle East.

I asked the Senator about his views regarding John Bolton's confirmation as the Senator was not able to attend the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearings yesterday.

Senator Hagel has stated unambiguously that he is now "undecided" on John Bolton.

Here is the exchange:

Steven Clemons: Senator Hagel. Thanks for a very inspiring and unfortunately very sober (given these times we are in) speech.

Yesterday you were unable to attend the foreign relations committee hearings on John Bolton. And it occurs to me that Ambassador Bolton probably does not share the same level of concern you do that the "world's trust and confidence in America's purpose is eroding." And I'm interested -- while I agree with virtually every word that you said in your speech -- I'm interested in how you maintain support for Ambassador Bolton's confirmation when he seems to be so at odds with the spirit of what you talked about today?

Senator Chuck Hagel: From now on no smart people can ask questions. It's a rule senators usually follow.

Let's take first the question on Ambassador Bolton. I was not there. And I think your analysis of where he would be in regard to my observations and thoughts presented in the speech I suspect are about right.

I've never engaged Ambassador Bolton on some of the specifics that I have presented here this morning.

But get to the heart of your question, which is a good question, I would answer this way: I have not decided, if Mr. Bolton comes up for a vote, how I will vote.

I have supported his nomination in committee prior which as you know was reported out and never got a vote on the floor because the votes weren't there. And I have generally taken a position. I've done this in the 10 years I've been in the senate where it's a democratic president like when I first came to the senate president Clinton was in office or a republican president, that presidents deserve their people and if the president has confidence in that person and that person is qualified and not under indictment or detox or any other considerations, then generally I would have supported the president's nominee.

And I think there's only maybe one or two times in ten years I've not done that.

In this case I want to revisit Mr. Bolton's performance. I think, just as you have noticed, if I actually believe what I have said, and I do, then there appears to be at least in your mind some disconnect in how I could support Mr. Bolton. And I think that’s a fair question.

And I think the United Nations is a very important institution. I think it's as important today as maybe it's ever been. And I think America needs to have a standing there, needs to have relationships there, and needs to be seen not just as the biggest donor nation, but we need to do more than that.

I recognize that there are differences of opinion just as I have stated here just as Franklin Roosevelt spoke about that sixty years ago. And I don't think we’ve done a very good job of factoring those differences into our policies and our relationships. That's partly why I think were in trouble in the world.

So, bottom line answer to your question is, I haven't decided yet how I'll vote on Mr. Bolton.

The debate about John Bolton is now back in play.

-- Steve Clemons

Chuck Hagel is giving an important, brave speech today.

Here is his full prepared speech:

"A Defining Time for 21st Century American Leadership"

July 28, 2006

I am honored to be invited to speak here today as a part of the Brookings Institution’s 90th Anniversary Leadership Forum. Brookings has been at the center of every important policy debate in this country for 90 years. Thank you to Strobe Talbot, Carlos Pascual and all the men and women of Brookings for your continued contributions to our national debate. I see Martin Indyk and Ken Pollack in the audience. Thank you for the fine work you do with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has a speech ready to go today at the Brookings Institution (11 a.m.) that is very significant -- and is focused on the Middle East crisis and on the question of American engagement in the world.

I have had the opportunity to read his prepared remarks, but my comments are embargoed until 11 a.m.

All I can and will say is that the speech formally titled "A Defining Time for 21st Century American Leadership" could just as easily be called Hagel's clarion call to "ENGAGE, ENGAGE, ENGAGE".

It's masterful in its implied criticism of the foreign policy floundering taking place now, but it is still hopeful.

I will be there and will report back. I'll also post the speech on TWN at 11 a.m.

-- Steve Clemons

OK -- Something interesting is going on with Lincoln Chafee. He just shoved John Bolton all over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing Room floor.

Must have had spinach and Wheaties this morning. Chafee was dogged in questioning John Bolton on his views about Israel-Palestine, about the root causes of the crisis in the Middle East, about Bolton's simple-minded use of the term "terrorism", and about Bolton's views of "shaping the Middle East" as one of the greatest challenges America faces.

Senator Chafee started off reading a Bolton statement that he made in the past where Bolton essentially blamed terrorism as the fundamental problem in the Middle East. Chafee said to Bolton: "You are a brilliant man. Terrorism is a device. Your statement makes no sense. Explain it."

Bolton gave a long and convoluted response but also stated: "There is no basis for peace in the Middle East now." He suggested that one of the reasons why the U.S. has resisted calls for immediate cease fire in the region is that it wants to generate a "comprehensive solution". He said "we need to use current circumstances as a fulcrum to move towards a more stable, longer term solution."

Chafee jumped back: "Can't you go any deeper? This isn't just terrorism. What about the history of terrorism in the region? What are the root causes?"

Bolton continued to duck the question. And jumped back to focus his answer on Hezbollah -- which he said has one foot in as political party, one foot in as military movement and that it would have to abandon its military part for peace to move forward.

Bolton sounded reasonable but still ducked Chafee's question.

So Chafee charged AGAIN.

Chafee said, "We have serious problems now. This is a conflagration. You are not answering my question. What are the root problems? What do we have to get to -- to get to a permanent peace? Is there anything deeper than just terrorism that you can identify as the root cause of the conflagration?

Bolton finally began to yield to Chafee's impressive pressure and focus.

Bolton said that the problem in the region is mostly that some nations continue to question "the right of israel to exist." Bolton stated that "the peace process is incomplete." He continued, "Israel is not able to complete full peace agreeements with its neighbors," and the leadership of Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

Chafee then told Bolton that the American Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad had recently testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and made the statement: "Shaping the Middle East is the defining challenge of our time."

Chafee asked Bolton if he agreed with Ambassador Khalilzad.

Bolton stated that he thought "shaping the Middle East" was 'one' of the significant challenges of our time, but intimated that WMD proliferation was another definining challenge that he worried about as much. He then turned his response into more criticism of Iran.

Then Chafee came out with a whopper on Palestine/Israel.

He asked Bolton if "he believed in a viable, contiguous Palestinian state existing side-by-side Israel."

Bolton repied that he does believe in a Palestinian state, but then obscured his answer with more about Hezbollah and its destabilization of the current situation.

Chafee then came back, again: "What has the US done about a contiguous Palestinian state?"

Chafee asked John Bolton if he thought that one of the root causes of our problems in the Middle East is our failure to make progress on a viable, contiguous Palestinian state existing peacefully, side-by-side next to Israel.

This is a remarkable and brave statement and query for Chafee to offer in these times.

Bolton responded somewhat constructively suggesting that "This is the time to look at "broader solutions" that could very well make progress on the Palestinian front as well." Bolton stated that discussions at the UN regarding Lebanon often include as well the Occupied Territories (Bolton's term).

While I happen to think that these issues ought not to be lumped together -- the fact that Chafee compelled Bolton to agree that a comprehensive solution was needed that resulted in a viable, contiguous Palestinian state was a very important exchange.

I would have been thrilled with Chafee's performance just as it was -- but THEN HE WENT ONE BETTER.

Lincoln Chafee said to Bolton that "he disagrees" with Bolton and does not see the administration putting "the effort put behind the rhetoric" that Bolton provided today.

Lincoln Chafee seems back in play to me. It may not be enough for him to reverse his vote -- but Chafee has certainly done more to open new territory in this battle than anyone else this morning.

-- Steve Clemons

On "The Young Turks" Radio Show, Senator Dick Durbin says the Bolton bilibuster needs only one more vote to succeed.

Frankly, this is better than I thought we had, and we have until mid-September to wrangle that vote.

The temperature around the Bolton vote is different than last March when the fight had a different kind of political significance.

But remember -- preempting the confirmation of John Bolton as US Ambassador to the United Nations was the first kick-back in a foreign policy matter that the Bush administration had handed to it.

And behind the high stakes drama in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and then in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (on the controversial NSA intercepts) and then on the floor of the Senate when Bolton lost two cloture votes in a row were a great number of senior Republicans who opposed Bolton and kept fueling the stories that led to the gridlock.

We should be able to muster some of the same through August and early September -- and the Dems do not want to concede to a President who needs to be finally shown he is indeed a lame duck. For Dems to step back now will only confirm in the minds of many Americans a spinelessness and lack of resolve about principled and enlightened American engagement in global affairs.

For those interested, I will be speaking about the John Bolton hearings today on "The Young Turks" at 6:30 pm Eastern tonight.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Norm Coleman just asked John Bolton that now after he has been inside the UN whether his views of the institution and its role have changed at all.

John Bolton's response: "Not really."

On that basis alone, Senator George Voinovich should flip his vote again. If Bolton himself has not reconstructed his views of and approach to the UN as an institution -- which was essential for Voinovich -- why would he support him now. Makes zero sense.

-- Steve Clemons

I've just heard -- and read -- the http://lugar.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=259746">official opening statement of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar.

Perhaps its just Lugar's genteel and judicious manner, but there is NO endorsement of John Bolton in his statement.

I have no doubt that Lugar will vote on Bolton's side in the Committee, but I know from other sources that Lugar finds Bolton disagreeable, a bad example of diplomacy, and wishes he did not have to go through this process.

But there is no automotic embrace of the still uncomfirmed Ambassador Bolton by Senator Lugar.

-- Steve Clemons

Something weird just happened.

I received the first formal "opening statement" of John Bolton just before the hearings began and quickly read it.

I highlighted in my last post what I saw as the most shocking part of his statement and reported it. This section dealt with Bolton's comments about the "moral equivalence" or not of deaths on the Israeli side vs. the Lebanese side of the current conflict.

After John Bolton began reading his formal statement, we received an "updated" Bolton statement.

The section I highlighted was excised.

Here is what John Bolton was going to say originally -- and which disappeared from his script:

But it is a mistake to ascribe a moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct resulte of malicious terrorist acts, the very purpose of which are to kill civilians, and the tragic and unfortunate consequence of civilian deaths as a result of military action taken in self-defense."

So, which is it?

Does John Bolton believe this or not?

-- Steve Clemons

I am covering the John Bolton hearings from 216 Hart Senate Office Building.

Senator Lugar has just called the hearing to order and opened proceedings. So far, the Senators in attendance are Barbara Boxer, Richard Lugar, John Warner, George Allen, Chris Dodd, George Voinovich and Norm Coleman.

Joe Biden will be here shortly but is at the White House at a signing ceremony for the Voting Rights Act.

The most heartening item I have read this morning is a stunning reversal by the Washington Post that has essentially withdrawn its support from Bolton -- and takes serious exception to George Voinovich's reversal, which he declared in his own Washington Post op-ed.

My hunch is that neither Fred Hiatt nor Jackson Diehl wrote that Post editorial -- and that it was written by Sebastian Mallaby, who has brought real balance and objectivity to his mostly conservative commentary.

I just received John Bolton's prepared statement.

One paragraph that instantly jumped out at me dealt with the killing of innocents in Lebanon by Israeli forces.

Bolton states:

. . .These are all important questions currently under discussion by the Secretary (Rice) in Rome and the Security Council. The question of Israel's response has come up as well. Of course it is a matter of great concern to us, as President Bush has stressed, that civilian deaths are occurring. It is a tragedy, and I would not attempt to describe it any other way.

We have urged the government of Israel to exercise the greatest possible care in its use of force. But it is a mistake to ascribe a moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct result of malicious terrorist attacks, the very purpose of which are to kill civilians, and the tragic and unfortunate consequence of civilian deaths as a result of military action taken in self-defense.

It is somewhat staggering to see this in print -- not a misstatement. If John Bolton's daughter was killed accidentally in Southern Lebanon like so many other innocents have, I wonder if his calloused view of this tragedy would remain as firm.

The killing of innocents on the scale we have seen in Southern Lebanon is not only tragic, it's outrageous and sends a signal to the Muslim world that their lives "are worth less".

Hezbollah committed a criminal, terrible act that had to be responded to -- but Israel has now assured that it has many other families and peoples who fear it and have more desire for revenge than for peace.

Israel had choices in its options to defend itself -- and had Israel acted more judiciously -- I would be more sympathetic to Bolton's views. But the present flamboyant display of power by Israel and the harm done to innocent people, including UN observers, is something that Israel and John Bolton should be far more contrite about.

Chris Dodd has led the charge for Democrats and just called John Bolton a bully. A bully that was effective would be something that Dodd could support -- but he is outlining why and how John Bolton is an entirely ineffective bully. Very good statement overall.

Lincoln Chafee -- whose support of John Bolton remains inexplicable -- has just arrived.

-- Steve Clemons

Here are some very useful resources regarding the John Bolton confirmation hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.

First of all, The Washington Note will be there.

Second, for others who want to be there -- the hearing will be taking place in 216 Hart Senate Office Building (a big room).

I have been able to get copies of the talking points that the White House has distributed to both Jewish political advocacy groups as well as to other groups in favor of John Bolton's record:

1. Positive Press Clips on John Bolton (pdf file)

2. A Roster of Bolton Accomplishments (pdf file)

Those who are concerned about John Bolton's confirmation are amassing their own dossier on John Bolton -- and of course, there is an absolutely voluminous roster of material on TWN that can be easily searched to acquaint one with Bolton's full record, which extends way, way back.

Some golden oldies on Bolton include his close, and ultimately illegal relationship providing uncompensated legal counsel to Senator Jesse Helms, his presidency of the National Policy Forum -- a 501(c)3 non-profit institution founded by Haley Barbour that lost its non-profit status because of illegal partisanship in its programming objectives, his non-transparent relationship with Taiwan funding sources while providing testimony to Congress on Taiwan issues, his role in helping to promulgate the Niger Uranium story inside the State Department after it had been internally set aside by INR analysts, his efforts to beat and massage intelligence to fit preconceived political objectives in the build-up of the war against Iraq, his insubordination under Colin Powell and Richard Armitage and sabotage of America's North Korea diplomacy in 2001, and the list goes on and on.

Familiarize yourself with the record. Search the TWN site. It's all there.

But on Bolton's UN performance -- ONE SIMPLE QUESTION NEEDS TO BE ASKED.

Why are we to believe that John Bolton, who has now had a lot of time on the clock, is any good at all at getting what America wants done at the UN? He has had no successes.

He has failed to get America what it wanted on a new Human Rights Council. He failed to be a full and successful strategist and negotiator on other UN reform issues. He has failed to secure the support needed for more effective resolutions dealing with Iran and North Korea. He's known for being more of a tempest than a stabilizer. To many, he is seen as a brilliant architect of American failure at the UN. And remember, essentially, John Bolton seems for the most part to want to set up failure.

He has been extraordinarly successful at making himself look like a gladiator taking on the stifling and incompetent bureaucrats at the UN -- but I am aware of very few times when John Bolton invested his time and "political capital" in achieving a real success for America at the UN.

Some of the materials of those opposed to John Bolton's confirmation include:

1. A Report Card on John Bolton

2. Key Quotes from John Bolton

3. A Chronology of John Bolton's First Year at the United Nations and His Activities and Objectives

4. A "White Paper" on Why John Bolton is the Wrong Person to Serve as America's Ambassador to the UN

5. A Citizens for Global Solutions document on John Bolton Undermining U.S. Foreign Policy Interests

6. A new StopBolton.org website

7. Visit the "Bolton Watch" website at TPM Cafe

There is a lot to digest here -- but this is an important battle. This is a cynical move by the White House to appeal to those "domestically" who are emotionally and politically involved in Israel's crisis and also an effort to throw "red meat" to those Jesse Helms acolytes around the nation who detest all international institutions, particularly the United Nations, and are essentially pugnacious isolationists.

The first round in Bolton Battle 2.0 is tomorrow. There will be a minor scuffle trying to get a vote next Tuesday at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's next business meeting -- but the Democrats will give more time and Senator Lugar has indicated privately to various groups and donors that the Bolton vote in Committee will probably take place in mid-September.

Much to do.

Read the material in favor that the White House is sending out -- and then READ THE REST OF THE STORY.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

On Thursday, 20 July (last week), former National Security Advisor and one of America's top strategic thinkers, Zbigniew Brzezinksi, spoke at a public policy dinner salon that my colleagues and I at the New Amerca Foundation organized.

Brzezinski's presentation and responses to questions were riveting. He framed the stakes of what was evolving in the Middle East as well as the basic motivations of all the players in ways that many policy intellectuals and senior foreign policy writers had not considered.

I am posting Zbigniew Brzezinski's comments here. The Q&A was not fully on the record, so I will be working to digest the best material from the Q&A to protect the identities of those posing questions or making comments -- and will post that material at a later time. But I wanted to get Zbigniew Brzezinski's opening remarks on line now.

Some of the notable points made by Brzezinski were:

1. America's "policy in the Middle East is the basic test of America's capacity to exercise global leadership." This is similar to "what transpired during the Cold War when the ultimate test of America's capacity to act as a defender of the free world was its ability to conduct a meaningful policy in Europe."

If America does not do well in its Middle East challenge, the U.S. will lose its capacity to lead.

2. Neither the United States nor Israel "has the capacity to impose a unilateral solution" to Israel's problems in the Middle East. "There may be people who deceive themselves of that. We call them neo-cons in this country and there are other equivalents in Israel as well."

3. Israel and its neighbors alone "can never resolve their conflict peacefully, no matter how much they try, now matter how sincere they may be." When one party is sincere, the other's intentions are not synchronous.

4. Brzezinski stated: "I hate to say this but I will say it. I think what the Israelis are doing today for example in Lebanon is in effect, in effect -- maybe not in intent -- the killing of hostages. The killing of hostages."

"Because when you kill 300 people, 400 people, who have nothing to do with the provocations Hezbollah staged, but you do it in effect deliberately by being indifferent to the scale of collateral damage, you're killing hostages in the hope of intimidating those that you want to intimidate. And more likely than not you will not intimidate them. You'll simply outrage them and make them into permanent enemies with the number of such enemies increasing."

5. "The solution can only come if there is a serious international involvement that supports the moderates from both sides, however numerous or non-numerous they are, but also creates the situation in which it becomes of greater interest to both parties to accommodate than to resist because both of the incentives and the capacity of the external intervention to impose costs. That means a deliberate peace effort led by the United States, which then doubtless would be supported by the international community, which defines openly in a semi-binding fashion how the United States and the international community envisages the outlines of the accommodation."

6. It's becoming increasingly difficult to separate the Israeli-Palestinian, problem, the Iraq problem and Iran from each other.

7. "The Iraq problem, look what Prime Minister al-Maliki said today -- it's an indication of things to come. The notion that we're going to get a pliant, democratic, stable, pro-American, Israel-loving Iraq is a myth which is rapidly eroding and which is now being contradicted by political realities."

8. "And that leads me then to the proposition beforehand, namely that we have now, we're not only committed to what I said earlier, regarding the Israeli-Palestinian process, but more deliberately by terminating our involvement in Iraq. And I have put forth a four-point program which [I am sure] I have discussed in one of the rare occasions within the last year administration has talked to me, some top level people in the administration. They listened to this:

That we start talking to the Iraqis of the day of our disengagement., We say to them we want to set it jointly, but in the process, indicate to them that we will not leave precipitously. I asked Khalilzad what would be his definition of precipitous and he said four months and I said I agree. Are you saying to the Iraqis, we intend to disengage by some period? We need to."

9. "As far as Iran is concerned--and with this I'll end--thanks to Iraq, I think we have made an offer to the Iranians that is reasonable. I do not know that Iranians have the smarts to respond favorably or at least not negatively. I sort of lean to the idea that they'll probably respond not negatively but not positively and try to stall out the process. But that is not so bad provided they do not reject it.

Because while the Iranian nuclear problem is serious, and while the Iranians are marginally involved in Lebanon and to a greater extent in Syria, the fact of the matter is that the challenge they pose to us, while serious, is not imminent. And because it isn't imminent, it gives us time to deal with it. And sometimes in international politics, the better part of wisdom is to defer dangers rather than try to eliminate them altogether instantly, because the later produces intense counter-reactions that are destructive. We have time to deal with Iran, provided the process is launched, dealing with the nuclear energy problem, which can then be extended to involve also security talks about the region.

In the final analysis, Iran is a serious country, it's not Iraq. It's going to be there. It's going to be a player. And in the longer historical term, it has all of the preconditions for a constructive internal evolution if you measure it by rates of literacy, access to higher education, the role of women in society, a sense of tradition and status which is real.

I'm convinced that the mullahs are part of the past in Iran, not its future. But that process can change in Iran, not in a confrontation but through engagement. I think if we pursue these policies, we can perhaps avert the dangers that we face but if we do not, I fear that the region will explode, and for that matter, Israel will be in the long run in great jeopardy."

Again, the transcript of Zbigniew Brzezinski's opening comments is available by clicking here.

There was an amazing small group assembled to participate in this discussion.

Those who attended the dinner included (not complete list):

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, his wife the artist EMILIE BRZEZINSKI Hauser Foundation President and International Peace Academy Chair RITA HAUSER, Financial Times Diplomatic Correspondent GUY DINMORE, American Prospect Editor in Chief MICHAEL TOMASKY, Middle East blogger and University of Michigan professor JUAN COLE;

AP Diplomatic Corresponent ANNE GEARAN, Correspondent for The Nation ARI BERMAN, New America Foundation Whitehouse Senior Fellow MICHAEL LIND, Inter-Press News Service correspondent JIM LOBE, New York Times Diplomatic Correspondent HELENE COOPER, Juniper Financial CEO RICHARD VAGUE, Open Society Institute Founder and Chairman GEORGE SOROS, New America Foundation Geopolitics of Energy Initiative Director FLYNT LEVERETT;

McGuire Woods attorney MARK BRZEZINSKI, journalist and NYU Center on Law & Security Senior Fellow SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL, Los Angeles Times Diplomatic Correspondent PAUL RICHTER, Washington Post columnist DAVID IGNATIUS, Georgetown professor and Council on Foreign Relations Fellow CHARLES KUPCHAN, CNN Washington, DC Bureau Chief DAVID BOHRMAN, former Hill & Knowlton Chairman FRANK MANKIEWICZ, "The Week" Washington Editor MARGARET CARLSON;

Dallas Morning News DC Bureau Chief CARL LEUBSDORF, Slate Chief Political Correspondent JOHN DICKERSON, Trammell & Co. CEO JEFFREY TRAMMELL, Washington Post intelligence correspondent DANA PRIEST, New Yorker correspondent JANE MAYER, Department of State analyst HILLARY MANN, Johns Hopkins University/SAIS professor FRANCIS FUKUYAMA;

New America Foundation/Century Foundation Fellow DANIEL LEVY, Washington College professor ANDREW OROS, Wall Street Journal political correspondent NEIL KING JR., Time Magazine diplomatic correspondent ELAINE SHANNON, New York Times investigative correspondent and "State of War" author JAMES RISEN, Financial Times Correspondent HOLLY YEAGER, EDS Executive BILL SWEENEY, and others.

-- Steve Clemons

There have been several thousand UN observers stationed in Lebanon for 28 years. Their role was not peacekeeping -- but they have been at least an institutional "toe in the door" in Lebanon and the neighborhood around Israel.

Today, at least two UN observers were killed in a strike by Israel. Kofi Annan called the Israeli strike "apparently deliberate" -- and Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Daniel Ayalon called Annan's comments "outrageous."

Tensions are high in every corner of this conflict, and the deaths of innocent people in this conflict assure future waves of blowback.

And besides, what nations want to contribute to an "International Stabilization Force" now? It will be hard enough to convince UN member nations to contribute troops to such a force -- but also tough to get them to continue to disarm and incapacitate Hezbollah militants. Add Israeli air strikes to the mix, and the incentives to get such a force together are nearly impossible to imagine.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

For those of you in the Washington area, I am chairing a book event and public policy discussion with two-time Pulitzer winner and Washington Post Pentagon correspondent Tom Ricks, whose new book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq is hitting the book stores today.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, long-time aide to Colin Powell and former Chief of Staff at the Department of State, will offer comments on Rick's presentation.

The meeting is open to the public -- as long as you RSVP in advance. It will take place Friday, 28 July, 1:00 pm until 2:30 pm. Books will be available. It's a brownbag meeting, so feel free to bring your lunch -- but also note that the meeting will be packed.

RSVP to Elizabeth Wu at wu@newamerica.net -- and say that TWN sent you. The site of the meeting will be the conference room of the New America Foundation at 1630 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 7th Floor, Washington D.C.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

The most interesting item I came across tonight on the Middle East crisis came by way of an email from former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and former Asst. Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Chas Freeman.

Freeman provides a fascinating look at the "game behind the game" -- and rather than committing the error that so many analysts do of mirror-imaging decision-making, he starts with a lucid articulation of the view of things from Israeli shoes -- and then from Arab shoes.

(This note is printed with permission from Ambassador Freeman).

Chas Freeman writes:

The assumption in Israel and here is that Iran and Syria put Hezbollah up to its provocative gesture of solidarity with the beleaguered Palestians in Gaza. The assumption in the Arab world is that the U.S. put Israel up to what it is doing in Gaza and Lebanon. Both assertions remain politically convenient assertions that are almost certainly wrong. There is no evidence for either.

The relationship between Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran is analogous to that between Israel and the United States. Syria is the quartermaster and Iran the external financier and munitions supplier to Hezbollah; we play all three roles in support of Israel.

There is no reason to believe that Hezbollah, which is an authentic expression of Lebanese Sh'ia nationalism birthed by the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon in 1982, is any less unilateralist or prone to consult its patrons before it does things it sees as in its interest than Israel, which is an authentic expression of Jewish nationalism birthed by European racism, is in relation to us.

Remember the assertions that Vietnamese expansionism was controlled and directed by the Chinese? similar stuff. Chinese backing for the Viet Minh and the Hanoi regime did not equate to Chinese control or direction of North Vietnam, its armed forces, or its agents in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Consider the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese war.

The irony now is that the most likely candidate to back Hezbollah in the long term is no longer Iran but the Arab Shiite tyranny of the majority we have installed in Baghdad. But that will not mean that the successors of Nouri Al-Maliki control Sheikh Nasrullah. Sometimes clients direct the policies of their patrons, not the other way around. This is a point exemplified by the dynamic of Israeli-American relations but far from unique to them.

This short statement is insightful and nuanced and reflects the thinking of someone with comprehensive undestanding of regional dynamics.

I agree with Freeman that there exist "authentic nationalisms" competing with each other for status and identity in virtually the same spot on the globe. Despite Israel's remarkable show of force and incursion into Lebanon -- a well-planned operation that was apparently waiting for any small crisis to launch it -- these competing "nationalisms" won't disappear.

Ultimately, a political bargain is going to have to be struck. At least in the not too old days when the Israel crisis was mostly defined by its interaction with Palestinians, a majority of Israelis and Palestinians preferred a "negotiated" final status arrangement.

Matters are messier now, but radical instabilities -- and the kind of missteps that Hezbollah, the militant wing of Hamas, and Israel have made -- could prompt some new global "adult supervision" in the region that could very well lead to a new, pragmatic grand bargain.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Like many Americans I guess, I received an email from George W. Bush this morning asking for my contribution to the Republican National Committee.

Bush's appeal starts out:

Republicans have a record of dealing with some serious economic times during my presidency. We have had a recession, a stock market collapse, terrorist attacks, corporate scandals and major natural disasters.

Because Republicans acted and had an economic recovery plan, we have created strong economic growth and nearly 5.3 million new jobs in the last two and half years; the national unemployment rate has dropped to 4.6% -- that is lower than the average rate of the 1960s, 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s; productivity is up and household net worth is at an all-time high.

Republicans understand that by cutting taxes people will have more of their own money to save, spend and invest as they see fit, not as the government wants. So our Party and GOP members of the U.S. Congress stood squarely for tax relief for everybody who pays taxes.

We have a lot of work to do to make sure America remains a prosperous country, so that every single citizen can realize the great promise of America.

America is at war -- a few wars if you add up the so-called Global War on Terror, the fight against Iraq's insurgency, a brewing conflict with Afghan warlords and emerging Taliban forces, and perhaps next Iran, and that's leaving out challenges with North Korea and Israel's mess in the Middle East -- but yet George Bush mentions "nothing" about the need to sacrifice to manage these challenges.

On top of this, the Doha global trade talks collapsed today -- yet another indication of a long list that America's role and status in the world are rapidly deteriorating. We seem unable to achieve our objectives -- and these failures are not registering with the political class in Washington yet.

Gambling away America's moral credibility in Iraq is one crime -- but the bigger one that the Bush administration has committed is overtly showing the LIMITS of American power in the world. America's mystique has been shattered. Our military and financial limits put on open display. Friends are not counting on America as much as the case before. Foes are maximizing agendas Americans oppose.

These are dangerous times because those who are fundamentally and substantively weakening often lash out in a desperate attempt to demonstrate resolve and strength.

These are toxic matters. Bush is asking nothing of Americans. We will go on with our wars and commitments abroad without regard to domestic impact or cost -- and Americans can continue to enjoy their Wal-Mart subsidized high quality lives.

But the Doha Round failing is a big deal. It's a foreshock.

-- Steve Clemons