George Soros has published a significant truth-telling article in the Boston Globe this morning, "Blinded by a Concept," about some of the shortcomings of America's foreign policy and Israel's mistakes in its recent incursions into Lebanon and Gaza.

Soros's article convinces because it ticks through the challenges US policy faces in an unstable Middle East with surgical precision not only as to what started the current set of crises but which also sent Israel's security situation off the rails. Both America and Israel really did fail to set Mahmoud Abbas up for success, and that key mistake has generated enormous consequences that have cost lives and harmed fundamental security in the region.

While Soros provides three key weaknesses of the "war-on-terror" as an organizing principle of foreign policy -- much like RAND strategist James Dobbins did recently at a meeting I helped organize -- let me start at the third in his article. Soros makes a point about fine-tuning our approach to divergent groups and factions if for no other reason than to be effective. Recently, Flynt Leverett in an important American Prospect cover story makes precisely the same point.

Soros writes:

A third weakness is that the war-on-terror concept lumps together different political movements that use terrorist tactics. It fails to distinguish among Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, or the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi militia in Iraq. Yet all these terrorist manifestations, being different, require different responses. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah can be treated merely as targets in the war on terror because both have deep roots in their societies; yet there are profound differences between them.

Looking back, it is easy to see where Israeli policy went wrong. When Mahmoud Abbas was elected president of the Palestinian Authority, Israel should have gone out of its way to strengthen him and his reformist team. When Israel withdrew from Gaza, the former head of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, negotiated a six-point plan on behalf of the Quartet for the Middle East (Russia, the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations). It included opening crossings between Gaza and the West Bank, allowing an airport and seaport in Gaza, opening the border with Egypt; and transferring the greenhouses abandoned by Israeli settlers into Arab hands. None of the six points was implemented. This contributed to Hamas's electoral victory. The Bush administration, having pushed Israel to allow the Palestinians to hold elections, then backed Israel's refusal to deal with a Hamas government. The effect was to impose further hardship on the Palestinians.

Nevertheless, Abbas was able to forge an agreement with the political arm of Hamas for the formation of a unity government. It was to foil this agreement that the military branch of Hamas, run from Damascus, engaged in the provocation that brought a heavy-handed response from Israel -- which in turn incited Hezbollah to further provocation, opening a second front.

That is how extremists play off against each other to destroy any chance of political progress.

Israel has been a participant in this game, and President Bush bought into this flawed policy, uncritically supporting Israel. Events have shown that this policy leads to the escalation of violence. The process has advanced to the point where Israel's unquestioned military superiority is no longer sufficient to overcome the negative consequences of its policy. Israel is now more endangered in its existence than it was at the time of the Oslo Agreement on peace.

I highly recommend that those who want to think about how metaphors of war and conflict can be dangerously exploited, read Soros's book, The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror.

I have invited George Soros to speak about his book at a public meeting of the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program in Washington, and he has accepted.

For those of you interested in receiving an invitation, be sure to email me. The meeting will be taking place on the late afternoon of September 13 at the offices of the New America Foundation. We will have books there for sale -- and Soros has agreed to sign books and to engage in a "quality discussion" about fallibility and our current conflicts.

-- Steve Clemons

Want a lesson in real democracy -- as the founding fathers meant it?

Watch this video clip of Keith Olbermann taking on the administration and Donald Rumsfeld in the most compelling oratory I have heard in some time.

Keith Olbermann deserves our thanks and praise for taking Donald Rumsfeld to the woodshed for undermining our democracy. Turning historical conventional wisdom on its head, Olbermann compares Rumsfeld to Neville Chamberlain -- another pretender to omniscience-- and by implication really argues that the historical equivalent to Churchill, whom Chamberlin harrassed, is John Murtha.

Here is the text of Olbermann's awe-inspiring, profound commentary tonight -- which I hope helps knock Rumsfeld out of his Pentagon perch:

Chris Nelson who writes the bloggish "Nelson Report", rarely posted on the internet and just packed with great analysis and often good gossip, has a good report on Iran tonight. I post this in full with his permission.

I should note that when I last wrote about Iran, I stated that analysts I recently met with think that even if there is only a bleak binary option of either acquiescing to Iran's nuclear pretensions or bombing Iran, the diplomatic option must be 'credibly' pursued. Rumsfeld and Cheney are making the feat of credible diplomacy more difficult, but it is clear that even if he attends to strike Iran later, Bush must 'act' like he is pursuing non-military options.

Tomorrow though, Iran will spurn the UN Security Council deadline.

Here is Chris Nelson's superb analysis of the Iran mess as it is thus far:

The Nelson Report -- Samuels International Associates

Wednesday, 30 August 2006

BUSH IRAN FOCUS STILL TALK, NOT FIGHT, DESPITE US MILITARY FEARS

SUMMARY: Iran will not "meet the deadline" tomorrow at the UNSC to suspend its nuclear activities. . .that everyone accepts without question. So the US will follow-through with its determination to pursue a sanctions regime, via a second resolution, one with the continued support of the EU, Russia and China.

Also note that while Iran won't meet the deadline, it's response is not expected to be a clear "no", although this may be difficult to discern, given the usual rhetorical habits of President Amadenijad. More on Iran's possible negotiating position, below.

Further, say our sources, the White House fully understands that it is embarking on a process of weeks, even months, and that if the US pushes too hard, or demands the impossible, that both China and Russia will drop out of the international coalition, thus reducing US options, and raising international fears of a genuine crisis.

Full acceptance of the current White House posture remains to be gained, given continued opposition to serious negotiations with Iran held by Vice President Cheney, and DOD Secretary Rumsfeld. That's why mistrust of the motives and judgment of the Bush Administration remains strong, within the US military establishment quite as much as with US friends and allies, and in both parties on Capitol Hill.

Everyone should calm down a bit, while remaining vigilant of both Bush and Iran, say sources who feel they are familiar with the real intentions of the President at this time.

No one, of course, is comfortable predicting the internal workings of the Iranian regime. But it sounds like the President, at least for now, is listening to Secretary of State Condi Rice, who in turn is listening to Undersecretary for Political Affairs (and possible Deputy Secretary to be?) Nick Burns. The result: Burns will be in Europe next week, testing the waters to see just how far the EU is prepared to go on sanctions to pressure Iran.

The real conversation, of course, will be between Burns and the Russians, and the assessment of Moscow's willingness to allow anything more than very limited sanctions remains what it has been for months.

So, say sources familiar with the current White House thinking, Burns' task will be to keep the EU, Russia and China on the same page. The anticipated agenda will discuss specific, very limited sanctions such as partial travel bans, and possible bans on nuclear related sales, perhaps also weapons. . .all to be hammered out over the next few weeks.

This elastic sense of timing is key to understanding the nature of the current stage of the Iranian nuclear "crisis", our sources argue. While they understand that the US military community is aghast at the very notion of a shooting war with Iran (and Rumsfeld's latest bloviations show exactly why the brass detests and mistrusts him, not to mention Capitol Hill critics now being accused of "appeasement") our sources maintain that barring some dramatic move or provocation by Iran, the President's focus remains on a diplomatic track.

Assuming that Burns' negotiations start to bear fruit, and at some point this Fall the UNSC agrees to a program of limited, targeted sanctions, it still will take months, not weeks, to see what effect, if any, those sanctions are having on Iranian policy and nuclear programs.

This means that there will be ample time, and constant opportunity, for Burns and Secretary Rice to keep US allies calm, and to keep at least a façade of unity, while exploring quiet negotiations with Tehran over possible solutions to the crisis.

That's the current, hoped for scenario, our sources maintain. But of course there must be planning for "what if" the UN process starts to break down, or just fails quickly. That would seem to open the door for the more testicular thinking of Cheney and Rumsfeld, however much the President is represented as understanding the need for time and care.

But if the UN track seems to falter, then expect the President to authorize the "coalition of the willing" approach to more a more vigorous sanctions regime, one which will bring new pressures and tensions between the US and current allies.

Expect, for example, renewed emphasis by Treasury on going after trade credits, lending and investments in Iran, which means deepening the current dialogue with the EU and Japan (a replication of the current, increasingly successful efforts against N. Korea).

In short, sources maintain that military moves are not on the agenda, even as contingencies. . ..at this time. . .and despite Rumsfeld, Cheney and the neo-con die-hards who have learned nothing from Iraq.

That assessment relies on current intelligence estimates that even if Iran continues, without check, its current course of nuclear research and development, that it would not be able to produce a workable nuclear bomb any sooner than four years from now. Bearing in mind that all such estimates are guesstimates, four years is an eternity in politics, and it helps explain why President Bush, at least for now, thinks he has time to give diplomacy a real chance.

So that leads us to the question of whether Iran is simply playing a stalling game, and that it will stall right up to an announcement that a bomb is ready. . .something many observers of N. Korea now think is clearly the case for the DPRK.

About the only thing our sources agree upon is that the Iranians are immensely clever and sophisticated negotiators. But for every expert who thinks that a real Grand Bargain, or leveraged buyout of the Iranian nuclear weapons program is possible (you know the suggested "package", which includes full diplomatic relations, trade, etc., etc.) there are experts who continue to maintain it's all a trick.

Certainly, the State Department is willing to let time produce some of the answers, and to send interesting signals. . .see the decision to grant a visa to former President Khatami, who will deliver peace lecture, no less, at the National Cathedral in Washington, on Sept. 7. State claims there are no plans for private meetings with the presumed leader of Iran's presumed moderate faction, but you can be the judge of the likelihood of letting that opportunity go by.

Nick Burns is an extremely capable diplomat, but part of the problem in this particular diplomacy is that Iran's leadership weighs the value and consequences of a hot collision with America differently.

Former Iran President Khatami -- who will be in Washington on September 7 -- wants to avoid further aggravation and tension, but he's not going to run against the perceived will of the majority of the Iranian public and step away from nuclear energy. There are lots of options on how that path can be maintained in Iran without proceeding down a war path.

The problem, however, is that I feel that Ahmadinejad does invite war. It's the easiest way for him to validate himself as the new true leader of the Middle East. America must not give this guy what he wants. He's egging Bush on with the call for a debate, for christening the start of a major heavy water nuclear reactor, and other obnoxious moves.

More later. But thanks to Chris Nelson for this great thinking and writing.

-- Steve Clemons

I was up recently visiting Swallow Falls State Park in Maryland -- which claims to have one of the oldest unharvested spruce and hemlock forests in the region. Quite a beautiful place.

Just a bit of notice that I will be live on MSNBC at 1:45 pm ET discussing former Iran President Mohammad Khatami's visit to Washington as well as current Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's challenge to President Bush to a televised debate.

-- Steve Clemons

Talk about Orwellian thought control. This is one of the strangest political ads I have seen in a long time.

It's on YouTube; 29 seconds long.

Well worth watching. Relax, and think about good stuff. . .

-- Steve Clemons

The Forward is becoming a daily read for me. It does a superb job of captruing diverse views about issues related to Judaism and Israel -- and is one of the few American portals I know of where the debates taking place in Israel are published relatively unfiltered.

This editorial sees some parallels to 1973 when regional insecurity and change in geostrategic allignments produced opportunities for Israeli deals with some of its neighbors, achieving partial peace.

The article starts:

As Israelis began trying this week to make sense of their bruising five-week war in Lebanon, discussion has returned again and again to the traumatic Yom Kippur War of 1973. Then as now, Israel's vaunted military machine was caught with its pants down, locked into a strategic concept -- static defense lines then, air dominance now -- that had become obsolete. Then as now, the war ended in a victory that felt more like defeat, leaving Israel's enemies crowing and Israelis fearing for their very future. This time, with Israel's military deterrent exposed as lacking and jihadist rage mounting among the world's billion Muslims, the fears feel very real.

But there is another, more hopeful parallel between 1973 and now, for those willing to see it. Back then, the mixed results of the war reshuffled the strategic balance in the Middle East, opening the way for a diplomatic flurry -- tirelessly orchestrated by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger -- that ultimately led to a peace treaty with Egypt, Israel's most powerful Arab foe. This week, growing numbers of Israeli strategists are speaking of a similar opening arising from the latest war. They see an opportunity for Israel to reach out to moderate Arab and Muslim states, a chance to forge a common front against the extremist threat from Iran and Hezbollah. The price of admission: a regional peace accord, including a resolution of the Palestinian issue and genuine Arab recognition of Israel, that enables the moderates to unite and thus isolates the extremists.

"We need a realignment in the region," says veteran Labor Party lawmaker Ephraim Sneh, a reserve brigadier general and former deputy defense minister. "We need to create a new balance with the all the moderate countries on one side" -- and the extremists on the other.

By "moderate countries," Sneh is thinking first of all the nearby Arab states that have made peace with Israel or hinted at it clearly in recent decades, beginning with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinians. Not coincidentally, all of them are Sunni Muslim societies that view the Shi'ite Iran-Hezbollah axis with fear and loathing.

As it happens, every one of the target nations has sent urgent signals to Israel in recent weeks, making it clear that they want to do business. Israelis must now ask themselves what price they would have to pay to join the game, and what role they need their American ally to play to make it work.

The Egyptians, as usual, are leading the way. Their security services have been working frantically in the past month to separate the Hamas-led Palestinian government from its Hezbollah allies, to secure the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and to create a unified Palestinian negotiating partner for peace talks with Israel, under the clear leadership of the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas.

Hamas -- at least its local wing in the territories -- seems desperate to buy in; it has endorsed the Egyptian initiative and cracked down on rocket fire. This week it approved a unity government with Fatah and announced that it had "no problem negotiating with Israel."

I agree with much of this article -- but the key question is "where is the indefatigable Kissinger today?"

Does anyone see a top tier strategist in the making in the administration now?

No Acheson, Brzezinski, Kissinger, Scowcroft, Kennan, or Nitze in sight.

Stephen Krasner does impress me. He is now directing Policy Planning at the State Department but thus far lacks the inter-agency muscle to prevail in the battle he'd need to win to pull off a fundamental strategic reallignment.

One note on Ephraim Sneh, mentioned in The Forward piece -- General Ephraim Sneh to his friends -- he will be speaking at a New America Foundation event on the morning of September 15th in Washington, D.C. Daniel Levy will be chairing the meeting.

Email me if you'd like an invite.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

This is jarring news, positive news. I know very little about conservative Judaism and have the gut feeling that this line of Judaism differs from the orthodox.

But even then, what will Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell say about this? I can't wait.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm going to spend the day with friends and my dog, Oakley, fishing and kayaking on the Chester River in Chestertown, Maryland as I tick off another year today.

Lyndon Baines Johnson and Mother Teresa both share my birthday of August 27th. Confucius, Many Ray and Pee Wee Herman too. So do Nick Scogna and Brian Strom -- friends from high school and college respectively I haven't seen for years. Happy birthday guys.

Thanks again to the Washington Post for publishing this article today.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

(Yasukuni Shrine where the souls of Japan's soldiers who died on the battlefield -- as well as WWII class A war criminals -- are deified)

The Washington Post has just published an article of mine,"The Rise of Japan's Thought Police," that will appear in tomorrow's Outlook pages, but which is available on the web now.

The subject of the Japan-focused piece is the rise in intimidation tactics -- verbal and sometimes violent -- that hawkish nationalists in Japan are directing at intellectuals, journalists, business leaders, and even some politicians who have questioned Prime Minister Koizumi's flirtation with symbols of Japan's past manic militarism.

Last week, I wrote about an incident that triggered the oped earlier on The Washington Note. My latest piece starts:

Anywhere else, it might have played out as just another low-stakes battle between policy wonks. But in Japan, a country struggling to find a brand of nationalism that it can embrace, a recent war of words between a flamboyant newspaper editorialist and an editor at a premier foreign-policy think tank was something far more alarming: the latest assault in a campaign of right-wing intimidation of public figures that is squelching free speech and threatening to roll back civil society.

This battle between the editor-at-large of the Sankei Shimbun, Yoshihisa Komori, and Masaru Tamamoto, the editor of Commentary published by the Japan Institute for International Affairs has begun to receive wide-spread attention on blogs, in think tanks, in academic chat room focused on Japan, and in general discussion.

Some of the other resources to understand what is at stake are a PacNet forum article by Sheila Smith and Brad Glosserman, this blog post by Gen Kanai, the Japan-U.S. Discussion Forum on the website of the National Bureau for Asian Research, and this excellent site assembled by William Sturgeon that has actually recreated the materials (from cached archives) of the now suspended JIIA Commentary website.

I think that my Washington Post article will continue to underscore the seriousness of healthy debate and discussion in Japan about evolving national identity and nationalism issues.

It is important to understand that this battle is not just a war of words. On many levels, that would be worth applauding if the debate was robust -- even if it was nasty. But serious violence and harrassment is beginning to envelope those leading lights in Japan trying to promote healthy national discussion.

There are exceptions to this. The Yomiuri Shimbun, mostly a conservative paper in Japan has prepared an outstanding series of articles on "war memory". The project is headed by Akira Saito, a former Washington Bureau Chief of the Yomiuri who now heads the Yomiuri Research Institute. He is an internationalist and knows that Japan needs to find a new, healthy nationalism that will also be compatible with Japan's international relations.

I would also be remiss in not applauding the Sankei Shimbun -- the very paper in which the attacks on Tamamoto and so many others noted in this article began in writing -- for criticizing the burning of Koichi Kato's parental home. While Prime Minister Koizumi and his likely successor in September Shinzo Abe have said absolutely nothing about this arson incident against one of Japan's major politicians -- it was refreshing to see the Sankei speak out against this.

But the trends remain deeply troubling and fear is running high among many of Japan's best and brightest who now prefer generally to stay away from controversial topics rather than suffer substantial consequences trying to help Japan work through some of its biggest identity challenges.

Here is a bit from the piece that focuses on some of the other incidents that have occurred in recent years:

Emboldened by the recent rise in nationalism, an increasingly militant group of extreme right-wing activists who yearn for a return to 1930s-style militarism, emperor-worship and "thought control" have begun to move into more mainstream circles -- and to attack those who don't see things their way.

Just last week, one of those extremists burned down the parental home of onetime prime ministerial candidate Koichi Kato, who had criticized Koizumi's decision to visit Yasukuni this year. Several years ago, the home of Fuji Xerox chief executive and Chairman Yotaro "Tony" Kobayashi was targeted by handmade firebombs after he, too, voiced the opinion that Koizumi should stop visiting Yasukuni. The bombs were dismantled, but Kobayashi continued to receive death threats. The pressure had its effect. The large business federation that he helps lead has withdrawn its criticism of Koizumi's hawkishness toward China and his visits to Yasukuni, and Kobayashi now travels with bodyguards.

In 2003, then-Japanese Deputy Foreign Minister Hitoshi Tanaka discovered a time bomb in his home. He was targeted for allegedly being soft on North Korea. Afterward, conservative Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara contended in a speech that Tanaka "had it coming."

Another instance of free-thinking-meets-intimidation involved Sumiko Iwao, an internationally respected professor emeritus at Keio University. Right-wing activists threatened her last February after she published an article suggesting that much of Japan is ready to endorse female succession in the imperial line; she issued a retraction and is now reportedly lying low.

Japan does need a new nationalism -- but this nationalism that is silencing moderates is not characteristic of either a healthy nationalism or a healthy ally.

-- Steve Clemons

Editor's Note: For those of you interested in communicating your views about the hasty agreement to suspend JIIA Commentary and to censor ALL of the information on that website, please communicate your views to JIIA President Yukio Satoh through this website contact page, as yet not suspended.

-- Steve Clemons

Christopher Preble, Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, just published this on the Partnership for a Secure America's blog.

Preble and I are two of the three executive committee members of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.

Chris Preble has organized a good forum at an awful time -- 8 a.m. Saturday morning, Labor Day weekend -- in which Preble, Michael Desch, Peter Feaver (now on the staff of the National Security Council), Seyom Brown and I will be addressing national security conceptualizations and what a bipartisan foreign policy might look like (in 30 years. . .just joking) at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in Philadelphia.

Preble promises to publish notes from the session, but what he FAILS to say is that he has promised donuts to those who actually show up around the time the sun rises on a Phildelphia weekend morning.

-- Steve Clemons

UPI Editor Emeritus Martin Walker has put out a useful essay on a Royal Institute of International Affairs report on Iran and the U.S.

The Chatham House/RIIA report can be downloaded as a pdf here.

I love the line about American poker players and Iran's chess strategy.

Walker writes:

A detailed new report issued this week from Britain's top foreign policy think tank, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, says "Iran's influence in Iraq has superseded that of the United States, and is increasingly rivaling the U.S. as the main actor at the crossroads between the Middle East and Asia."

Moreover, the report says, the Bush administration has directly helped strengthen Iran to become a major regional power.

"The war on terror removed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein -- Iran's two greatest regional rivals -- and strengthened Iran's regional leverage in doing so," it says, adding that "Israel's failure to defeat Hezbollah has reinforced Iran's position as the region's focal point against U.S.-led policy."

Iran's role within other embattled areas in the region like Afghanistan and southern Lebanon has now increased hugely, says the report, which was prepared with considerable input from British officials and diplomats, as well as academics and regional experts.

"While the U.S. has been playing poker in the region, Iran has been playing chess. Iran is playing a longer, more clever game and has been far more successful at winning hearts and minds," says Nadim Shehadi, one of the report's authors and a fellow of the Institute's Middle East department.

The report stresses that the Bush administration and its allies have yet to appreciate the extent of Iran's regional relationships and standing -- a dynamic which is the key to understanding Iran's newly found confidence and belligerence towards the West. As a result, the U.S.-led agenda for confronting Iran is "severely compromised by the confident ease with which Iran sits in its region."

"While the U.S. may have the upper hand in 'hard' power projection, Iran has proved far more effective through its use of 'soft' power," the report says. "The Bush administration has shown little ability to use politics and culture to pursue its strategic interests while Iran's knowledge of the region, its fluency in the languages and culture, strong historical ties and administrative skills have given it a strong advantage over the West."

What worries me about Iran's perceptions of American weakness -- and America has become weaker in the region and globally -- is that superpowers with swagger and considerable ego don't usually acknowledge their failings. In desperation and attempting to show that their resolve is solid and military strength robust, big nations having a bad time strike out to prove a point.

George W. Bush may strike Iran not only because of a military rationale that his advisors assemble but because he wants to reassure the world that America still has the backbone and capacity to hit other countries -- ironically undermining the very perception of power he is trying to transmit.

The combination of a weakened U.S. and pretentious Iran is highly dangerous, despite many who think that rational calculators will prevail at the end of the day.

But bottom line is America better not only start playing chess but better get to mastering the three-dimensional version.

-- Steve Clemons

UPDATE: The digitized video of today's event can be watched over the internet by clicking here.

My colleague Flynt Leverett has just published a superb American Prospect article that I discuss below -- but its sensibleness compels me to start with concerns about the President's key advisor on the Middle East, Elliott Abrams.

Few would question that Elliott Abrams is a brilliant guy. In many ways, he's a much more sophisticated version of the bombastic John Bolton, who has been quite successful in a pugnacious way at promulgating Jesse Helms' vision of American foreign policy -- as disagreeable and alarming as most find that to be.

But Abrams is a great strategist. Many like him, but he is a shape-shifter when it comes to figuring out who he ultimately works for and collaborates with. Sometimes his boss is Stephen Hadley. Sometimes it is Cheney himself or Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington. Other times, Abrams works hard to convince Condi's people that he is on their side -- though they know not to trust him. George Bush is so unclear about the direction he wants to go that in times when Abrams needs ambiguity, Bush is saluted as his task-master.

Abrams is Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy (with a special focus on Middle East Affairs), and he is one of Israel's protectors, defenders, and key stewards in the White House. Frankly, there are many defenders of Israeli security in the White House -- and I would be one as well, but not exclusively at the cost of long-term stability in the Middle East that secures 'both' Israeli and Arab interests.

If he was also concerned about America's state of relations over the long term with the Arab Middle East in addition to Israel's security, Abrams' hyper-closeness to Israel would not be a problem. But Abrams has done much to inculcate many in the White House that helping Israel ultimately means not yielding credible progress on an Israel-Palestine deal or not progressing on deal-making with other Arab neighbors.

Abrams has helpd turn the Middle East into a zero sum game between the US and Israel on one side and Arab states on the other. As Senator Chuck Hagel stated in a powerful speech at Brookings recently, juxtaposing Israel security against our interests in the Middle East is a dangerous "false choice" that must be avoided.

Elliott Abrams is pushing that so-called "false choice" in his current job and is undermining Condi Rice's efforts as well as long-term Israeli security. He is preempting moves that might lead ultimately to peace and stability in the Middle East, and in the end, he's harming America's foreign policy portfolio -- damaged as that already is from running into a quagmire in Iraq.

Abrams should be suspended in his current position; recused because of his bias and blind-spots on Middle East policy and assigned a new task -- like getting the federal budget balanced, or some other herculean effort that might satisfy Abrams' pretensions without causing the nation much damage.

The person the President should consult with in his stead is Flynt Leverett, my new colleague at the New America Foundation (and I should hasten to add here that Flynt Leverett not only does not know I am preparing this post but will probably object).

One chronologist has just noted that it has been exactly 1,800 days since George W. Bush said he would get Osama bin Laden.

What got in the way of Bush's plan? Two things -- Dick Cheney and Iraq.

Had Bush stayed on track, shut down bin Laden and gotten to work on redressing some of the bubbling grievances in the Middle East, the world might look substantially different today.

A few things.

First, remember this New York Times placed op-ad, "Uncle oSAMa Wants You!" that ran in the New York Times just before the invasion of Iraq? It's worth remembering.

Second, tomorrow night -- Wednesday -- catch my colleague Peter Bergen's brilliant two hour CNN special, "In the Footsteps of bin Laden."

It airs at 9 pm and 12 midnight eastern time. Christiane Amanpour narrates the thought-provoking and educational documentary. Peter Bergen's book that inspired this film production is The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader.

For those who did not catch it, Ezra Klein did a nice job in this Los Angeles Times oped building on a previous blogpost here on TWN.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

We have been so distracted by serious problems around the world -- and in Washington -- that we completely forgot that The Washington Note was founded on August 3, 2004.

Although we are past the date, we are still in the same month, and I thought that it is good to punctuate these things with a thank you to all of you who read this blog, and who engage in "mostly civil" exchanges in the comments sections.

For those of you who donate through the Pay Pal site, even bigger thanks.

(Japan's Prime Minister INUKAI Tsuyoshi who was assassinated in May 1932 in his official residence by a group of right-wing militarists who opposed Inukai's recognition of Chinese sovereignty over Manchuria and who was a staunch defender of parliamentary democracy in Japan)

Japan is making its way back as a topic of interest on the nation's front pages and editorials -- not for trade related problems which dominated the US-Japan relationship through most of the 1990s -- but mostly because of its creep towards a revived strident right-wing nationalism that promulgates obsessive cultural uniqueness as well as a sneering dismissal of historical accountability.

The latest prominent Japan-focused piece appeared under George Will's by-line this morning.

But what worries me is not the American press about Japan -- but rather the battle inside Japan among Japanese -- and the fact that the good guys are losing.

Masaru Tamamoto -- editor of an important on-line magazine, JIIA Commentary published by the Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs-supported Japan Institute for International Affairs -- is under attack from Yoshihisa Komori, the long-time DC-based former editor and now roving editor of Japan's right-wing newspaper, the Sankei Shimbun.

I know both of these writers/intellectuals -- and Komori has established a kind of franchise on the debate about Japan's historical memory. He is the authoritative right-wing commentator on the politics of Japan's war memory and on Japan-China relations. He's part of a group that understandably argues that Japan needs to get beyond its kow-towing to China and other nations in the region over World War II -- particularly given the behavior of the Chinese government towards its own people in the 1960s and 1970s.

Tamamoto is probably the smartest modern intellectual in Japan -- who sees beyond Japan's often-self imposed identity constraints. He reminds me a lot of the late Masao Miyamoto, whose tales of Japan's absurd bureaucratic rigidities made his audiences howl in laughter. But Tamamoto is not a comedic type. But he writes and thinks about Japan's place in the world in often startling fresh ways and has astonishing insights into the debates about Japan's evolving national identity.

I mostly agree with Tamamoto's analysis of Japan's foreign policy portfolio -- but Komori has put out the clarion call to zealots and fanatical right-wingers in Japan to protest Tamamoto as an an anti-Japanese, extreme leftist intellectual, according to one observer, "in essence a panda-hugging traitor."

While Tamamoto has critiqued the Prime Minister and the government for flirting with a wrong-headed strident nationalism that is more destructive than constructive in remarking about Koizumi's recent visit to Yasukuni Shrine, where the spirits of Japan's worst class-A war criminals are allegedly enshrined, Komori has unleashed the right-wing goons to pressure the Japan Institute for International Affairs to shut down his gig.

Don't do it. The President of JIIA is Yukio Satoh -- one of Japan's premier diplomats who secretly was the brains behind the ASEAN Regional Forum and who pulled off for Japan some of its few diplomatic coups. And JIIA's Director is Makio Miyagawa, well known to be the intellectual behind Ichiro Ozawa's famous Futsu no Kuni book (A Normal Nation) and campaign.

JIIA has already shut down the website on which Tamamoto's commentary was posted with a note:

TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED

These guys should not be push-overs for a history-denying cabal of right-wing thugs who want to take Japan back to the 1930s. But as things stand right now, word is that Satoh and Miyagawa are yielding to the pressure stirred up by the Sankei Shimbun's Komori. If they succeed in the campaign against Tamamoto, these right-wingers will find themselves intoxicated with success and think about what other public intellectuals they can savage and have pushed out of their jobs. It will become mechanical, outrageous, and disturbingly reminiscent of what Japan's right wingers did to public intellectuals in the build up to World War II.

If JIIA yields to those who want even what Tamamoto has written to be completely pulled off its site, sort of ERASED from memory immediately -- then those of us who value honest debate and discussion should register our shock and outrage about this censorship.

Those who are ticked off about this development in Japan -- and in my world (and yours), this does matter -- can email JIIA through its as yet unsuspended contact page or email directly jiiajoho@jiia.or.jp.

Just for the record and to establish complete transparency about my own views, I have written about Japan's competing nationalisms before and have always been a proponent that Japan develop a healthy and balanced nationalism that takes into account its past and its interest-based future. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that America's six-decade long military presence there is warping Japan's post-Cold War national identity.

Rather than these long term American military deployments stabilizing Japan and the region, they just as easily could trigger both anti-American sentiment among right wing zealots who think that America is constraining Japan's military capacity or alternatively, could give Japan a sense of such safety that it feels it can behave irresponsibly in the region -- particularly when it involves verbal, historical rhetoric and manipulation of symbols like Yasukuni Shrine -- without fear of serious military consequences.

I believe that a new "bargain" between the Japanese public and the U.S. needs to be struck about the strategic benefit and about the relative costs and benefits to our societies of the US-Japan alliance as currently structured before these bases become seriously cancerous to our bilateral relationship and undermine our security strategy in the region.

Masaru Tamamoto respectfully disagrees with my assessment -- but he has never unleashed a torrent of intolerant thugs on me for my views and has engaged them and me in a civil and healthy discussion about Japan's evolving nationalisms.

That defense of discourse is what JIIA should be deploying -- not censorship 1930's style.

-- Steve Clemons

For those in the DC area, I am hosting a brown bag lunch meeting on America's Foreign Policy Challenges in the Middle East on Thursday, 24 August, at 12:15 p.m. with Ambassador James Dobbins who directs RAND Corporation's International Security and Defense Policy Center. Dobbins previously served as Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Special Assistant to the President for the Western Hemisphere on the National Security Council, Special Adviser to the President and Secretary of State for the Balkans, and Ambassador to the European Community.

Daniel Levy, who is a new Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation and Director of a New America Foundation/Century Foundation Middle East Initiative and also the lead author of the Israeli draft of the Geneva Initiative as well as a former Senior Advisor to Israel's Prime Minister, Justice Minister and Defense Minister, will serve as a discussant after Dobbins' initial remarks.

I first met Dobbins at a very useful and thought-provoking forum on the future of NATO organized at the Aspen Institute Wye Conference Center by Simon Serfaty -- who holds the CSIS Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy. The Bolton battle was raging at that time last year -- and I was kicking the tires of many of those at the Serfaty forum on where they stood on Bolton.

I never put the question to Dobbins because I didn't need to. His analysis of what was happening abroad and his strong critique of the administration's strategy regarding Europe and the Middle East was all I needed to hear to know that whether he supported Bolton or not (which I doubted) his critique was one that wasn't partisan. His commentary seared through thin political rationalizations of either the right or the left -- and I think he was playing the role many of us should play which is that of the wise and informed foreign policy careerist who uses logic and realistic strategic thinking and vision to curb the (often reckless) enthusiasms of radicals and intellectual incompetents.

I was extremely impressed by Jim Dobbins -- and TWN readers are welcome to join the meeting at the New America Foundation in Washington if you email me.

My invitation to Jim Dobbins was prompted by a terrific oped that he wrote on America's Middle East quandary.

Dobbins' International Herald Tribune oped on "Moral Clarity in the Middle East" is available here.

To read more reaction to Dobbins article, Stirling Newberry has more.

-- Steve Clemons

Last time I checked, the Cato Institute's financials were in remarkable shape. Since I am also in the think tank business, the structure of financial contributions to 501(c)3 public policy organizations has always interested me, and I know from various Cato insiders that the pool of money flowing into Cato and other libertarian groups looks a lot like Howard Dean's enormous burst of diversified believer-contributors during his presidential campaign: huge and growing.

But my colleague Michael Lind has penned a thought-provoking Financial Times op-ed punctuating what he believes is the "end of libertarian politics."

It's a stimulating and complex piece -- best for junkies of cosmic political discourse -- but I'm not sure I agree with his framing.

While I agree with him that the two constructs most on the table today are "moderate social democracy and big-government conservatism", I'm not sure that the political realities Lind is diagnosing are static and stable enough to mark the end of a movement that seems to be growing rather than diminishing.

Lind not only pronounces the end of political libertarianism, but he also includes the demise of an activist, socialist left. To some degree, while the jury is still out that the Lamont win over Lieberman may prove more anomalous than trend-setting, a good deal of his support has come from a revived, passionate left whose ideals track closely with what Lind would characterize as the socialist left.

There are numerous movements that have gone into decline -- at least cosmetic decline in terms of political impact if not diminishment in funding and numbers of adherents. Liberal internationalism for instance has fallen from the skies, as has realism, in foreign policy circles -- though I am working with a number of people to help revive a hybrid of these in the form of American internationalism that may correct the downward trends.

Lind is to some degree documenting yet another realm in which George W. Bush has been impressively disruptive. It's about Bush -- and his impact on our world and social structures. Bush has exploited fear of terrorism to create a big-government, big-brother state, from which Americans are largely buffered from feeling the pressure of direct costs, and that is entirely antithetical to the tenets of classic Republican conservatism.

That's not the death of libertarianism as much as it is the failure of all competing political philosphies to stand strong against the will and determination of a would-be monarch who doesn't really believe in limits on federal, and particularly, executive power.

Michael Lind makes one think though. The real question about the libertarian movement is why so much of the libertarian crowd has been silent about the massive expansion of the state, of presidential authority, and the diminishment of "liberty" at home and abroad.

I have numerous friends at the Cato Institute, Reason magazine, and other bulwarks in the libertarian political and policy movement -- and there are some heroes out there who have spoken truth to power. But there are others who are closet big government, big brother radical/activists who are rather high up the libertarian hierarchy who have helped squelch libertarian outrage at what has happened to the domestic and foreign policy portfolios of this country.

My hope is that Lind is wrong and that the libertarian movement remains a vital part of the American political ecosystem and that they root out and expel those leaders in their institutions who worship at the throne of G.W. Bush and have forgotten what the pursuit and preservation of liberty are all about.

-- Steve Clemons

One of the things I really enjoy doing is meeting regular folks; TWN readers; students; would be Congressman, Senators, Presidents and US Trade Representatives (in an alternative universe); soldiers who have returned from Afghanistan and Iraq; mothers; and weimaraner lovers when I travel.

Frequently I meet people and kibitz with folks over politics and policy in local coffee shops and had a very nice gathering in Aspen recently.

One of the well-deserved complaints though -- particularly from readers recently in Vancouver -- is that I get these gatherings together too late for some who actually plan.

Here is an effort to plan ahead. And these are some cool spots -- where I really want to hear what is going on in folks' minds about our national political choices and challenges.

Friday, September 1 -- PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

attending American Political Association Conference -- speaking on APSA panel Saturday

Thursday/Friday, September 7 & 8 -- New York, New York

speaking at Pace University Forum on 5th Anniversary of 9/11

Monday, September 11 -- IOWA CITY, IOWA

speaking at a number of community forums but have coffee shop time

Tuesday, September 12 -- MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN

speaking at a number of community forums but have coffee shop time

Monday, September 18 -- NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

speaking for Nashville Committee on Foreign Relations but coffee shop time would work

Tuesday, September 19 -- BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA

speaking for Birmingham Committee on Foreign Relations but coffee shop time would also work here

Wednesday - Friday, September 20 - 22 -- NEW YORK, NEW YORK

TWN will be hard at work covering the Clinton Global Initiative -- but yes, a coffee break would be cool

Again, thanks to all of you who read and support The Washington Note. Your moral support and financial contributions help make this venture quite worth the effort.

And for those of you I am fortunate enough to meet, I look forward to it.

As always, someone on your end needs to suggest a venue as I'm not that tuned in to the funky coffee shops that actually like clientele to hang out and chat.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

John Bolton spent four months and made approximately 70 journalist and editorialist calls setting low expectations for the embryonic UN Human Rights Council.

Had he spent nearly this amount of effort working to actually secure a Human Rights Council that met American expectations, we would probably have succeeded far beyond expectations.

John Bolton is now undermining the UN international force to be deployed in Lebanon.

Here is the latest:

U.S. involvement in a peacekeeping force is likely to be limited to just logistics support, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton suggested to reporters Tuesday that other nations are not eager to commit troops to the 15,000-man force.

"I think that obviously the decisions have to be made by individual countries and their taking into account the circumstances of the mission, the extent of the mandate, the operational difficulties. I did see a story from -- I suppose I should say one wire service from Rome today quoting an Italian military official as being rather skeptical of being involved in a U.N. force. But in any event, this really is a responsibility of the Secretariat. We're doing everything we can to help support the generation of new contributions, but that's what the Department of Peacekeeping Operations really is there to do," Bolton said.

John Bolton never misses a chance to set the UN up for failure. That's his job, as Dick Cheney sees it.

A successful operation in Lebanon -- before the November elections -- would be bad for the President, and John Bolton knows who butters his bread.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Of all the Democratic presidential candidates for 2008 now in the field, the one that Republican strategists most want is Hillary Clinton. That doesn't mean that she is an easy win for them and doesn't mean that she won't clobber her challenger -- but the Rove-minions want her.

But who do Dems want?

In my view, the most challenging Republican contender is Senator John McCain. McCain is a complicated person, but he's no duplicate copy of George W. Bush and he appeals to many Democrats and Independents -- as well as a broad cross-section of Republicans. I have admitted many times on this blog that there are many characteristics and positions of John McCain I admire.

But put my views aside for a moment. I think McCain is the toughest challenger Dems have before them.

A smart strategist would do all he could to maneuver McCain's opponent(s) to a win in the Republican primary. While always tough to rig outcomes in either party, McCain's biggest opponent for the time being is George Allen. I'd place Brownback next actually despite the euphoria among some moderate Republicans for Mitt Romney.

George Allen is getting pilloried in the press for referring in a crowd to a Jim Webb election worker as "Macaca," which some have tried to argue is a racist and demeaning term. You can watch the video and learn more here.

I'm not that impressed by George Allen's intellectual faculties and have a hard time believing that he would knowingly call someone a racial slur while he knew the camera was going.

But the bigger issue here is that Allen is divisive. He's not all that smart. He allegedly hung a Confederate flag and noose in his old office to remind himself of his state's history.

I don't think he's a flaming bigot, but he is the right guy for Dems to try and run against.

So, what to do?

Stop demonizing McCain, and start demonizing George Allen.

I have no idea whether Allen will win against Democratic Senate challenger James Webb or not -- but odds usually favor incumbents and George Allen is hungry for the presidency.

The best thing bloggers and progressive journals of opinion could do right now is to give John McCain a big embrace, highlight the good stuff in his past (and I think there is a lot), give him a pre-endorsement if progressives and liberals were choosing a Republican candidate.

I'd love to see a split cover on both The Nation and The American Prospect on why they endorse John McCain for the Republican ticket and loathe and despise Senator George Allen.

Put George Allen on every magazine cover and blog with horns and a devil's tail.

Dems should really, really, really want to run against George Allen.

But thus far, most Dems I encounter don't have the Rovian gene and are doing little to maneuver whom they most want to run against and to undermine those who they should most fear.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: One of my favorite Republican bloggers, Robert George, tackles George Allen too. Allen is bad -- real bad. Dems just need him to win the Republican presidential primary.

My friend John Aravosis has just tipped me off to a disconcerting and irritating bit of news that AP has reported.

Apparently, all of us who have been "optionally" removing our shoes at the airport and putting them through the X-ray machine might just as well have had them packed with some sort of incendiary material as many of the screening machines have not been upgraded to detect explosives.

We all know that these shoe screenings were not really optional either -- and now, after the foiled London airplane bombing plot -- they are mandatory. But previously, if you elected not to remove your shoes -- even though not officially required to do so -- you'd be subjected to a full search.

As reported by AP:

The government's new order that all airline passengers put their shoes through X-ray machines won't help screeners find a liquid or gel that can be used as a bomb

The machines are unable to detect explosives, according to a Homeland Security report on aviation screening recently obtained by The Associated Press.

The Transportation Security Administration ordered the shoe-scanning requirement as it fine-tunes new security procedures.

Those procedures were put in place after British police last week broke up a terrorist plot to assemble and detonate bombs aboard as many as 10 airliners crossing the Atlantic Ocean from Britain to the U.S.

Among the new procedures are a ban on liquids and gels in airline passenger cabins, more hand searches of carryon luggage, and random double screening of passengers at boarding gates.

On Sunday, the TSA made it mandatory for shoes to be run through X-ray machines as passengers go through metal detectors. They were begun in late 2001, after the arrest of Richard Reid aboard a trans-Atlantic flight when he tried to ignite an explosive device hidden in his shoe. The shoe scans have been optional for several years.

I've always thought that a committed band of terrorists who wanted to smuggle dangerous materials into the country would do so through cargo ships and planes, but civilian aircraft have been and are terror targets because of the ability to create high-shock impact with the destruction of a few or even a single aircraft.

But all this time, we have not had the scanning detectors in place that would deliver "real" rather than "artificial" security. I noticed recently some very impressive, new airport screening machines at Reagan National Airport that help "sniff" the passenger as well as screen for metal. However, only the US Airways wing has these screeners. All the rest of the airport wings have the old X-ray and metal detection systems.

Thanks to TSA for the long lines and screening charades.

-- Steve Clemons

First of all, as Jeffrey Gedmin is frequently known to say, "I'm overstating for effect." I am going to debate some points that Gedmin raises in an interesting op-ed in today's Financial Times, and I -- in no way -- mean to assert that Gedmin is stupid. He is a well-informed and capable public intellectual serving as Director of the Aspen Institute Berlin after serving as the founding director of the New Atlantic Initiative housed at the American Enterprise Institute. Gedmin has been important for Germany and Europe as he, like Robert Kagan, is an authentic neoconservative voice that they needed to hear to really understand the genuine direction of U.S. national security policy.

Jeffrey Gedmin was also a person I wrote about some time ago, as he was John Bolton's choice to serve as one of his deputies, an Ambassadorial position, at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. Although there were other reasons that this appointment did not go through, this blog's exposure of that appointment created some push-back inside the State Department that contributed to squelching Gedmin's U.N. appointment. I want to make clear that I think Gedmin would make valuable national contributions as a public servant in any arena of government where he was not coupled with his former AEI colleague, John Bolton.

Bolton -- as one of the leading forces of revived Jesse Helms-ian pugnacious, flip-off-the-world nationalism -- and Gedmin as one of the most capable and intelligent, if not the best known, neoconservatives, was too toxic a combination to inflict on the collective pool of envoys from the world's roster of nations.

I go into such length about Gedmin here because I do consider my relationship with Gedmin as one of mutual respect. We are friendly, at least at last meeting, and my differences with Gedmin are entirely about policy and national security strategy. This preamble is designed in part to ameliorate the tensions that my and Gedmin's mutual friends feel when I mention him on this blog. Some were not pleased when his appointment to the United Nations did not go through, and some of them wrongly hold The Washington Note responsible -- when there were other reasons that the Gedmin nomination failed to move forward.

In Jeffrey Gedmin's "The Lessons from London's Terror Plot and Lebanon," he makes a fundamental mistake in prescriptions against terrorism and sets up a false argument. He starts by dispelling the notion that the Bush administration "is to blame for terrorism." Of course, he is right. There have been terrorist incidents for decades back. In fact, terrorism has always been a device of war, a tactic that groups have used against established power centers.

The issue that Gedmin fails to wrestle with is one that Donald Rumsfeld tried to on one occasion. Why has the Bush administration's policy failed on all levels to ameliorate al Qaeda style terrorism -- and why in the military response the administration has pursued should it not be held to account for igniting wide-spread, sectarian civil war in Iraq -- which threatens to expand through the region?

Gedmin writes:

These things [terrorist incidents in the 1990s] were happening back in the heady days of Oslo talks, when there seemed to be a real chance for peace in the Middle East, and a popular US president named Bill Clinton had sent American troops to stop the slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia. It is worth noting that Americans and Europeans fought twice in the 1990s against Serb Christians in the Balkans to save Muslim lives, in a region with no oil, far from the state of Israel.

Before Mr. Clinton, George H.W. Bush had sent Americans to freed starving Muslims in Somalia. Again, no oil, no Israel. But none of this seemed to diminish the bloodlust of Islamist extremists.

I agree with Jeffrey Gedmin that the masterminds of terrorist groups -- like Bin Laden and Zawahiri -- are not driven by the failure of the U.S. to pressure Israel and its neighbors into a final, two-state deal between Israel and Palestine -- even though that grievance is regularly waved in America's face as the one that motivates these people.

I'm not sure what to think about bin Laden's motivations. I think he may want to be a Muslim pope; that he may see himself as a modern-day version of the Mahdi who led Muslim resistance against British colonial control over Sudan; or that he wants to lay the groundwork for organizing the Middle East politically under his brand of extreme Islam.

What I do know about bin Laden is that he and other terror-masters exploit the perception of grievances among the citizens they are attempting to appeal to and eventually govern. Without grievances, terrorism is a pathetic act. With grievances, terrorism has fuel.

Gedmin asserts that there is ample evidence that American foreign policy efforts that had nothing to do with either oil or Israel nonetheless produced no diminishment in the determination of Islamic terrorists to cause harm. He is right to a point, but he is not being serious if he thinks that American efforts in Bosnia or Somalia were designed in any way to respond to broad Muslim grievances.

We have few tests of how significant resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem would be because we have never delivered, no matter how close resolution may have seemed in the past. We have not delivered -- and we must. A majority of Israelis desire a negotiated, final status negotiation with the Palestinians, and Palestinians desire the same -- according to numerous, credible polls.

In addition, the leadership of nearly all Arab Muslim "states" in the region have told America privately that peace with Israel is achievable if the land and border disputes are solved.

Israel's, America's, and the Arab Middle East's problem is not so much with misbehaving states as it is with a growing population of fanatics that ebb and flow within and among Arab states and who are increasingly independent of state control. This is a true problem -- and it needs to be contained -- as this kind of power is one that is very hard to squelch.

Gedmin believes that the UN Resolution on Lebanon and the cease-fire are a bad turn. He writes:

. . .the emerging ceasefire in Lebanon may turn out to be a disaster, producing the worst of all possible policy outcomes. Hizbollah has not been disarmed. This will embolden the extremists. It will allow Iran, Hizbollah's chief sponsor, to claim victory. Once again, America's image has taken a blow.

There is good reason to believe the west has missed an opportunity to push through critical changes. Lebanese opinion, especially among non-Shia Muslims, was initially critical of Hizbollah. Other regional governments -- Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan -- openly criticized Iran's proxy. How different this ceasefire would have looked had Israel been willing from the beginning to send in the ground troops necessary to crush Hizbollah's forces.

Gedmin points out that Israel had the moral high ground after Hezbollah's incursion into Israel and the kidnapping and killing of IDF soldiers and that the U.S. and Israel had a moment to tie mutually shared concerns about Hezbollah with the leading states of the Arab region.

But just as the United States somehow lost the world's outpouring of support and empathy after 9/11, the U.S. and Israel lost connection as well with this powerful opportunity to ally with Arab support.

Gedmin is wrong that a powerful ground force would have been acceptable to other Arab states -- not unless it got some tacit permission from them to do so. If consulted, I think that the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians would have played along -- as long as on the side, Olmert promised to open negotiations on with Mahmoud Abbas on Israel/Palestine at some agreed date in the future -- not too far off but not so soon as to look linked to the permission to crush Hezbollah.

There is no doubt that Hezbollah had acquired sophisticated weapons and command and control systems that needed to be confronted. If anything, our collective intelligence in the region -- American, Israeli, Saudi, Jordanian, and Egyptian -- missed this build-up of capacity.

But the manner in which Israel challenged Hezbollah, turning its assault against Southern Lebanese armed militants into a real war against Lebanon proper, lionized Hizbollah -- rather than delegitimating it.

Gedmin is right that bad guys need to be dealt with, often militarily, but he just gets the broader legitimacy challenges wrong -- and his impulse to advocate military action while giving no space in his argument whatsoever to America's and Israel's "audience disconnect" in the broader Middle East helps rationalize bad policy.

Gedmin -- according to this piece -- would have been at personal odds with the Resolution that the UN Security Council passed unanimously on Friday. I have my own concern about the fragility of the terms of the Resolution and the willingness of all parties to abide, but it's clear that Jeffrey Gedmin is not a fan of John Bolton's official position.

One might assume that John Bolton himself is not a fan of the official John Bolton position.

But to suggest that the way forward is an escalation in the military response -- while not robbing the "grievance agenda" from the ruthless thugs that are driving terrorist organizations -- helps empower terrorists.

That's right -- when Joe Lieberman, Vice President Cheney, and Sean Hannity are out there suggesting that a vote for Ned Lamont helps support terrorists -- they have it backwards.

The way to confront terrorism is not an abandonment of national security capacity or all military responses -- but without solving fundamental grievances -- while at the same time checking and pushing back the militants -- America accomplishes precious little in its so-called "global war on terror".

-- Steve Clemons

Completely independently of my recent post acknowledging France's diplomatic maneuvers in securing UN Resolution 1701 calling for an end to the violence between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, I have agreed to help organize a new U.S.-France group of public affairs and policy intellectuals called Le Cercle Lafayette.

With the enthusiastic support of French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte, we will be launching this new group at the Ambassador's home September 6th on what is Marquis de Lafayette's 249th birthday.

I need to read up on Lafayette, whose important role and contributions to America's independence and its history I know in thin form. I know we have some revolutionary era officianados reading this blog, and I'd appreciate any notes or materials that might bring Lafayette and a contemparary appreciation for his role to life.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Around the United States and the world, there are high school, community college, and university exercises called "Model United Nations". Basically, students divide themselves into different national and regional clusters. There are NGOs in the simulated exercises -- usually crises that the students need to work through -- as well as students assigned to perform U.N. Secretariat functions.

At the end of the multi-day meetings, prizes are distributed to college teams and students for exemplary performance. The best prizes go to those players who out think and out maneuver better resourced nations and rival universities or high schools.

In the case of the UN Resolution likely to be voted on tonight establishing a cease fire in Lebanon and compelling both an Israeli military withdrawal and a sizeable "Hezbollah-free zone" as well as the deployment of a joint United Nations/Lebanon military force in Southern Lebanon -- French diplomacy has been the pace-setter.

I'm about to go on Air America's "The Majority Report" with Sam Seder and will be back shortly to fill in why the French deserve a prize for all the string-pulling and maneuvering they pulled off behind the scenes.

On a break during the show -- but here is the scoop on France's impressive, Machiavellian diplomacy.

First, during the first UN Resolution that was cobbled together, the French signed on to the U.S. language. While that first resolution favored Israeli interests disproportionately and did not call for an immediate Israeli military withdrawal from Southern Lebanon, it laid the groundwork for a ceasefire and for a deal on the Shebaa Farms.

The French encouraged the Arab League and Lebanon to object to the resolution -- particularly over the failure to call for an immediate Israeli withdrawal. The French then jumped ship and sang in unity with Lebanon and the Arab League -- and then pushed Hezbollah to accept something reasonable between the original US/French position and the later French/Arab League position.

In the end, the French maneuvered American agreement on the ceasefire and Israel's troop withdrawals -- and left Israel diplomatically cornered.

If John Bolton wants to take credit for any of this, let him -- but it was the French all the way.

The situation is still incredibly fragile -- but what the French did to outrun and outmaneuver Americans and Israelis who could not set the pace or terms of an endgame was needed and impressive.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

I just had a call from Jerusalem and have been informed by a senior source inside the Israeli government that Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will abide by the terms of the UN Resolution which has support of all the key members of the UN Security Council.

This Resolution -- while only a Chapter 6 non-binding resolution -- calls for withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon while a 15,000 member Lebanon military force monitors Israel's pull-out. The Resolution also calls for Hezbollah and Israel to immediately cease hostilities and offensive military operations.

More on this later, but Israel's nod of deference is positive, even if fragile. And we still need to see if Hezbollah behaves or defies this diplomatic effort out of the mess that Hezbollah's incursion into Israel helped trigger.

-- Steve Clemons

I was flipping through the channels briefly this evening and caught Sean Hannity saying that if the Connecticut primary race had been held next Tuesday rather than yesterday, Lieberman probably would have won.

Just think, Joe Lieberman might not then have been blasting his constituents and the Democratic Party as well as Ned Lamont as appeasers of terrorism. Those words are going to be tough for Lieberman to walk back when he realizes he's ticked off a good number of Dems and Independents who thought Lieberman was more judicious and thoughtful than his knee-jerk outbursts demonstrated.

But Hannity's comment was actually useful.

Can Lieberman win without FEAR? Can Cheney and Rove win another election without FEAR?

Can Fox News stay in business without FEAR?

When Joe Lieberman can't win a race in a party for whom he was nominated to run as its Vice Presidential nominee without stoking fear, it's time to go.

Lieberman's complicity in the Bush Middle East crusade in addition to a startling lack of compassion for the victims of this war on all sides and introspection about the mistakes made has contributed to the worsening of our situation abroad, has undermined America's stature and capacity to influence world events, and has helped fuel terrorism.

The Brits and Pakistani intelligence services deserve enormous thanks and applause for their good work in catching those involved with trying to bring us another round of shocking airline terrorism. But this attack -- though thwarted -- shows that we have done precious little to actually undo the dynamics that lead young men into complex suicidal attacks on our society. Bush and his team should be held accountable for this lack of progress -- and Lieberman is part of that team.

Again, when fear is all Cheney or Hannity or Lieberman have, it's time to show them the exit.

-- Steve Clemons

This in from a "White House Pool Report" just sent to me by a friend:

POOL REPORT

KARL ROVE CAME BACK to pool and talked on record

ON LIEBERMAN ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE

SAYS HE CALLED LIEBERMAN..AND SAID HE'S A PERSONAL FRIEND

Rove. Called lieberman TUESDAY AFTERNOON AT ABOUT 5 PM AND WISHED HIM Well.....election day

Just adding it all up. . .

-- Steve Clemons

Ed Note: Thanks to MB for forwarding this report.

Vice President Cheney and his team are masters at exploiting the dynamics of fear to try and move American political sympathies.

Already, Cheney and others in the White House are exploiting the foiled London terror plot to shake up U.S. citizens and to make them think that Democrats would concede to terrorism while Bush & Co. are there fighting every day on the front lines.

John Aravosis has laid out the cynical commentary from the White House quite nicely here. But here's the zinger from an AFP piece:

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.

-- AFP, August 11, 2006

I'm about to spend an hour discussing political exploitation of terrorist activities with Christopher Lydon on his National Public Radio show, "Open Source".

Feel free to listen over the internet. The show starts at 7 p.m. Eastern.

-- Steve Clemons

(Al Jazeera Washington DC Bureau news producer Mysa Khalaf)

I have been in back-to-back meetings and doing quite a number of interviews, including on Air America's "The Al Franken Show". I am now at Al Jazeera's DC studios, with the renowned producer Mysa Khalaf, preparing for "Hassad" (The Harvest: The News Hour).

At 7 p.m., I will be on with former National Intelligence Officer for the Middle East and Georgetown University Professor Paul Pillar, Brown University scholar and Info Tech War Peace Project Director James Der Derian, and University of Chicago scholar and expert on "suicide terrorism" Robert Pape on Chrystopher Lydon's excellent think-radio show, "Open Source" discussing the domestic political gaming triggered by this foiled terrorist plot.

More soon -- a lot more.

-- Steve Clemons

Yesterday, I returned to Washington, D.C. after helping to organize a thought-provoking session on Iran jointly sponsored by the New America Foundation, Aspen Strategy Group, and Aspen Institute. The meeting lasted three hours and was intense.

I'll be drafting a report for the meeting, which after review by the principals involved, will be made publicly available -- but which will also help articulate the areas of investment -- financial and intellectual -- needed in generating options OTHER than bombing Iran or, alternatively, acquiescing to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

The comments in the report will not be attributed to any specific person -- Chatham House rules -- but the participants in this useful meeting, in which one prominent participant said "there was much heat -- and yet some light" (which I take as both a compliment and as hopeful), included:

Harvard University's and former Clinton administration Pentagon official ASHTON CARTER, General WESLEY CLARK, CSIS Senior Vice President and Aspen Strategy Group Director KURT CAMPBELL, Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School Dean ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER, Newsweek International editor FAREED ZAKARIA,

Booz Allen Executive and former Bush administration Pentagon official DOV ZAKHEIM, Open Society Institute founder GEORGE SOROS, former Harvard University Kennedy School Dean and former Clinton Administration Chairman of the National Intelligence Council JOSEPH NYE, New York Times White House correspondent DAVID SANGER, College of William & Mary Associate Provost and former Director of Policy Planning at the State Department MITCHELL REISS,

National Journal columnist BRUCE STOKES, Armitage International executive and former Bush administration State Department official RANDALL SCHRIVER, Scowcroft Group Principal and former Pentagon official ARNOLD KANTER, U.S. News & World Report proprietor and Boston Properties CEO MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, New America Foundation Senior Fellow Geopolitics of Energy Initiative Director and former Bush administration National Security Council official FLYNT LEVERETT, New York Times columnist NICHOLAS KRISTOF, Institute for Near East Policy director and former Presidential envoy on Middle East affairs DENNIS ROSS,

Barbour Griffiths & Rogers President and former Bush administration National Security Council official ROBERT BLACKWILL, Aspen Institute President WALTER ISAACSON, New America Foundation foreign policy programs Director and Senior Fellow STEVEN CLEMONS, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democratic Staff Director ANTONY BLINKEN, former Clinton Administration State Department Spokesman JAMES RUBIN, and some others.

Some will note that the gender balance was way off in this meeting and not to my preferences. However, at exactly the same time we were meeting, a session organized by former Clinton administration Secretary of Defense William Perry of the "National Security Strategy Group" was taking place in Aspen which pulled away such participants as Albright Group Principal and former State Department Counselor WENDY SHERMAN and former State Department official and Brookings Senior Fellow SUSAN RICE.

I hope to solicit their views as well as some others in the evolution of a project we are hoping to launch on Iran, the Middle East, and proliferation challenges.

This group had a full diversity of views on how to approach the Iran nuclear question -- and the single most important consensus that did seem to emerge from the discussion is that at some point in the not too distant future, President Bush will be handed a bleak, binary choice: either to authorize and launch an attack against Iran's nuclear capacity and assets or to acquiesce. Developing other options is the challenge of the day -- and those other options must be credible.

I will be writing more on the Iran issue in coming months, but I wanted to at least notify TWN readers that this meeting held in Aspen, Colorado occurred and accomplished the important objective of not only clarifying the competing paradigms that existed in serious policy circles regarding Iran -- but that there are potential alternative negotiating strategies and policy courses that might give the President more than these two bleak options.

Strangely, a senior national security official whom I notified of this meeting counseled that while the topics I was promoting were "alluring", they were also premature. The other point of consensus in the room of diverse political and policy players above is that considering the ultimate "unthinkables" on Iran today was not only "not premature" but was overdue.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

I have to run and give a lecture at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies this morning, so no long-winded analysis (right now) of last night's dramatic upset of challenger Ned Lamont over Joseph Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Primary race. The end was dramatic as well with Lieberman greatly diminishing their distance in the final hours of vote counting.

My friend Michael Tomasky who is editor of The American Prospect said on WNYC's "The Brian Lehrer Show" last night that this race was an anomaly -- no real impact on other races. I disagree with him. Whether Lieberman wins or not running as an Independent, this successful insurgency has powerful symbolic impact regarding the "defining character and policy objectives" of the Democratic Party.

As Tomasky has written and said before, the Democratic Party needs to revitalize itself and needs to sort out what it wants to be during its next phase. Topping Joe Lieberman is a vital part of that revitalization.

More on this later. I'm off to talk about "bleak binary choices" and the need for "third options" in national security decision making.

-- Steve Clemons

TWN will be on WNYC's "The Brian Lehrer Show" at about 8:40 p.m. tonight commenting on the implications of the Democratic primary contest that took place today in Connecticut.

There is a great two hour show that has been on for a while and a good roster of interview segments with other interesting political observers. Audio clips are posted, and folks can listen to the show live over the internet.

-- Steve Clemons

Publisher's Weekly has just issued a positive review of my colleague and friend Michael Lind's new book on American foreign policy strategy.

I commend the book to you in part because the nation is in need of a serious discussion of what vision of the future we collectively have -- what the terms of American engagement in global affairs will be, and how prosperity, justness, and stability are going to be achieved in a world that has become increasingly convulsive, disordered and messy.

The American Way of Strategy will hit the stands around October 1st, but I will be inviting Michael Lind to do some talks and to do some guest-blogging on the themes of his important new book.

Here is the review from Publisher's Weekly:

The American Way of Strategy: U.S. Foreign Policy and the American Way of Life

MICHAEL LIND

(October 2006, Oxford University Press, 208 pages)

Since the first Gulf War, American foreign policy has undergone a dangerous shift against its tradition of preserving "the American way of life" -- the civil liberties assured by a system of democratic republican liberalism -- argues author and journalist Lind. The strategy has changed in style over time, from the "isolationism of the first hundred years to 20th-century global alliances and "temporary alliance hegemony" against mounting empires.

But keeping security costs down while "promoting a less dangerous international environment" has largely permitted the public to avoid trading liberty for security in moments of crisis, he argues. By contrast, the emergence of a post-Cold War bipartisan consensus around permanent U.S. global dominance (championed by neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney) is a perilous anomaly, says Lind (The Radical Center).

His lucid if sometimes reductive focus on international strategy and power politics as a primary engine of history can obscure as much as it clarifies. But Lind's advocacy of a "concert of power" or shared primacy among several nations gains a persuasive momentum, exposing the folly of the current imperial strategy while forcefully examining the neglected role of foreign policy in the shaping of American politics and society. (Sept.)

Concerts of power will be something that American foreign policy thinkers and strategists will need to begin to mull over seriously as we sort out the phenomenal diminution of American power and prestige occurring today.

-- Steve Clemons

Col. Pat Lang (US Army, Ret.) has one of the most interesting national security/military policy blogs around. It's tough-minded and unsentimental.

This morning, he sent some of his friends a roster of four issues and questions to consider when debating the so-called US-French agreement on and Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire.

They were:

1. France and the United States are not at war with each other. They cannot agree to end the fighting.

2. Hizbullah thinks it is winning both tactically and strategically. Why will it agree to anything other than a cease-fire in place?

3. Such a cease-fire will be a victory for Hizbullah.

4. Who will disarm Hizbullah if it accepts such a cease-fire?

These are good questions -- but the first resonates with me most. It's not clear that the US and France are willing to use their leverage to wrestle the warring parties down.

Where I disagree with Pat Lang is that a ceasefire is necessary to build alternative possibilities for regional deal-making and that whether such a ceasefire is perceived to be a victory for Hezbollah or not, it gives all parties the opportunity to stand down and for Arab states and Israel to consider the abyss they all could plunge into if fundamental problems aren't resolved -- particularly progress on the establishment of Palestine -- but also the declawing of Hezbollah.

Have to run and catch a plane to Colorado. I will meet those who have emailed tomorrow morning in Aspen.

-- Steve Clemons

I will be in Aspen, Colorado Sunday and Monday returning to Washington, DC Tuesday. I'll be organizing a foreign policy discussion on U.S. Policy Towards Iran that's unfortunately off-the-record but co-sponsored by the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program, the Aspen Strategy Group, and the Aspen Institute.

For Aspen TWN readers, I can meet Sunday afternoon or Monday morning. Pick a coffee shop.

-- Steve Clemons

One of these pups will be Annie the Amazing Weimaraner, the sister of Oakley whom many of you know -- so we will have Annie and Oakley.

-- Steve Clemons

In the four years from 1941-45, America fought two wars on different sides of the earth; developed, built, and deployed atomic weapons; and thought through those important words, "What comes next."

Nearly five years after bin Laden, despite an American occupation, Iraq is about to blow. We are still engaged in fighting -- and the problems are increasing, not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan.

Let's just forget for a moment that some in the Bush administration advocated Israel striking Syria -- and that we have a hot crisis in the Middle East between Israel and Lebanon, a bleeding ulcer in the Palestine-Israel conflict, and a brewing set of problems with both Iran and North Korea.

This exchange today at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Do you agree, General, that -- with the ambassador from Britain to Iraq that Iraq is sliding towards civil war?

GEN. ABIZAID: I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.

-- Steve Clemons

Some high level Democratic Party political insiders have shared with TWN details of a potential shift in vectors for several of the major political stars in that party.

First of all, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, whom most give high marks for the manner in which he has stewarded the Dems in the Senate despite the absence of a clear Democratic Party chief, has sent private signals to Senator Hillary Clinton and other stalwarts of the party that he "would like to" step down from his post in early 2009. Reid has not stated definitively that he will -- but he apparently prefers "whipping" the Party from behind and the side rather than serving as commander-in-chief on the Senate floor.

What Reid is offering Senator Hillary Clinton is his total, robust support to succeed him as Senate Majority Leader if she elects not to pursue the Democratic nomination for President.

Many are realizing that the electoral map is not something one can wave a magic wand over and reverse the views of 42% of Americans who believe that they know Hillary Clinton well and have strongly formed views of her and will not vote for her under any conditions -- according to recent polls. Reports are that Senator Clinton herself knows this and that her own enthusiasm for running actually trails that of her husband, her advisors, and her staff -- whose enthusiasm for the race is ranked in that order with Hillary the least enthusiastic.

Some Republican Senators have been privately queried -- not by Reid but by high level Republican Party funders (Northeast Republicans) who are frustrated with Bush, unsure of McCain, and considering supporting alternative candidates like Mark Warner -- what they think of Hillary Clinton serving as either Senate Democratic Leader, either in the Majority or Minority. Senators such as Senator Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, and Lindsay Graham have reportedly said that they would welcome Senator Clinton in such a role, albeit from the other side of the aisle.

The other bit of change in the Democratic Party game has been the emergence of Nevada and South Carolina as important gambits for the Democratic presidential bid contenders.

The Iowa Caucus now leads as the first Democratic Party contest followed by Nevada with the second caucus. New Hampshire will still lead with the first primary but following these earlier caucuses, and South Carolina will immediately follow New Hampshire.

This line-up of races puts enormous pressure on Hillary Clinton and any Northeastern Democrat. It's the anti-Kerry plan, and might also be a resist-Hillary plan, if not a strategy to completely deter the campaign juggernaut she is building.

The clear winners from the new allignment of caucuses and primaries are candidates like Mark Warner and John Edwards. Edwards is out harnessing labor. He's everywhere Labor is, and many fear that Mark Warner while appealing on paper has a lot of hurdles to overcome to get ready for prime time.

So, the Reid-Clinton dance around the Majority Leader position (if the Dems do take back the Senate) could be an attractive one for the New York Senator.

-- Steve Clemons

UPDATE: Senator Reid's blog envoy -- who is part of the Reid press office -- has called me this morning and asked that I post on this note that Senator Reid denies this case -- and denies it in the strongest possible sense.

I respect Senator Reid greatly, but TWN will stand by the comments above for the time being as the sources involved are impeccable from my point of view. There are nuances in conversations and political intentions that often permit some to make offers while at the same time maintaining an option not to move. I can't tell whether that is what is happening in this case with Senator Reid. But I want to respect his right to deny.

-- Steve Clemons

UPDATE 2: Raw Story has secured a 100% denial from Senator Reid's office regarding the story that Reid offered Hillary Clinton a "deal" regarding the Senate Democratic Caucus's leadership. Washington -- and powerful political players -- are specialists in deniability.

Based on the conversations in which I have participated, I am standing my ground on the story; though i want to echo Raw Story's report that Senator Reid's staff have denied the TWN report. Denials do matter, even when one expects denial more than affirmation on something like this. In any case, still sticking to it.

-- Steve Clemons

An intelligence source of mine in Israel, subsequently confirmed by a Pentagon source has confirmed to TWN that the July 15th missile attack on an Israeli warship was an Iranian-made C802 Nur missile.

This is actually not "new" news. The type of missile was reported the day after the attack. I had just not seen the missile type and confirmation by our intellligence services.

This type of missile was originally designed and produced in China, but the technology was transferred to Iran where this particular missile was produced.

The mystery is not that Hezbollah has sophisticated weapons produced by Iran. The mystery is that this missile was marked in such a way as to make it appear of British and/or American origin.

Strangely, the missile has markings in English language such as "Warning", "Flat Surface", and "Do Not Touch". There may be a logical explanation for the English language markings -- but my sources find the markings puzzling and not consistent with other such Iranian produced missiles.

I don't know the implications of this information -- just passing on what I have learned.

-- Steve Clemons

American soldiers shot civilians in Haditha deliberately, an investigative probe has just announced. This news should make America's task in the Middle East easier. Not.

This war is deflating America's purpose. Senator Max Baucus's nephew was killed on July 29th -- and announced yesterday. Perhaps he can bring it home to others in the Senate and House that this just doesn't feel like "spreading freedom" to use George W. Bush's words.

-- Steve Clemons

Slate's John Dickerson has published an article, "Turki Dinner: A Revealing Evening with the Saudi Ambassador" that explores both the substance and nuances of Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Turki Al-Faisal's comments at a dinner I helped organize on Monday evening.

In his piece, Dickerson writes:

The Bush administration has been faulted for not acting quickly enough after the recent violence started, but Prince Turki criticized Bush for not acting to solve the tension long before the recent flare up began.

Two months ago, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, brought a letter to Bush from King Abdullah advocating the steps necessary for implementing Middle East peace. "The president expressed excitement and willingness," said the ambassador, "but, alas, there was no follow through." The inactivity contributed to the current crisis: "The decisions made yesterday bear their bitter fruit today."

The president and his advisers have said that the current violence is helping clarify the choices for all Middle Eastern leaders. When Saudi officials first spoke out against Hezbollah's actions, the Bush team pointed to their remarks as proof that the new Middle East they have promised was coming to life. No longer would the Saudis and other Arab states react with knee-jerk anti-Israeli sentiment; instead, they were speaking out against the extremists.

Monday night, Turki continued to criticize Hezbollah, dismissing their "reckless adventure under the guise of resistance," but the criticism was not the sign of a new worldview. It was almost a rhetorical device, an obligatory sentence that prepared the way for his larger, full-throated condemnation of Israel and, by proxy, its American ally.

He placed the blame for the recent violence not on the extremists but on Israel, which he claimed was engaged in a "war on Lebanon" and a "siege of Palestine." The Israeli "occupation of Palestine and Shebaa is the causus belli of all that is happening today in Lebanon and Palestine," he began. He then went on to belittle Israel's military: "Hezbollah and Hamas have captured three soldiers of the vaunted Israeli army, whose incompetence was clearly displayed by these captures. The same vaunted Israeli army has struck back with surgical accuracy in killing innocent civilians and U.N. observers in Lebanon and Palestine, further demonstrating their ineptness and brutality."

Turki urged a return to the peace plan proposed by Abdullah in 2002 as offering Israel the most comprehensive solution, including an end of hostilities and normalized relations in return for total Israeli withdrawal from Arab occupied territories, including Jerusalem. "The United States must play the role of pacifier and lead the world to peace and not be led by Israel's ambitions," he said, characterizing the Bush administration not just as inactive, but as such a supine thing that it can be led around by Israel.

And remember, Saudi Arabia is our ally.

John Dickerson's characterization of the Saudi Ambassador's comments rings true to the evening -- and the fact is that while Prince Turki did solidly condemn Hezbollah, and while I think his condemnation was more genuine than Dickerson gives credit for, the Ambassador essentially mocked Israel's military and was a bit over the top in his clear disdain for Israel's government -- even giving room for fair criticism of Israel's recent actions.

I found much of what Ambassador Turki said that night useful in the sense that one could see how a regional deal that included the Saudis as partner with Israel and the US -- as well as buffer from less constructive parts of the Middle East -- might be accomplished.

But I part company from the Ambassador on the mockery of the Israeli army and for not at least acknowledging that while Israel's response to the provocations by Hezbollah and militant Hamas members has been dramatically overdone, the fact is that Hezbollah was developing a significant military capacity that was threatening to Israel.

There is something quite worrisome about the fact that Israel has not succeeded in quickly shutting down Hezbollah in a manner somewhat like the Israelis accomplished against three national armies in the Six Days War.

Israel, the Saudis, everyone in the region has been surprised by the quality of Hezbollah's command and control structure and the sophistication of its weapons. An intelligence source of mine reports that Hezbollah hit an Israeli warship with a sophisticated Iranian-made missile -- that strangely was modified to try and appear as if its markings and serial numbers were American made. (This has not been reported in the press, and I hope to have more on this story tomorrow.)

But Israel has a similar problem to the United States facing it now -- no matter what the content of an eventual cease fire arrangement looks like.

The mystique of Israel's superpower status in the region has been somewhat deflated.

The combination of a dramatic, massive response to Hezbollah and Hamas that has in both cases largely failed to either secure the soldiers who were abducted or to quickly incapacitate its enemies have emboldened some foes of Israel who now perceive Israel to be weak. America's perceived weakness is a function of our floundering in Iraq -- and now Israel is facing hard realities of its own that there are limits to the kind of power it has been deploying.

This is a real problem -- because Israeli security is something that does need to be maintained.

Prince Turki acknowledged that Israel had seriously eroded Hezbollah's military capacity -- despite the fact that Hezbollah was enjoying significant political success throughout the Middle East because of the perception of surviving Israel's onslaught. But Israel needs to find a balance between the substantive goal of declawing Hezbollah while at the same time behaving in such a manner that it does not undermine its political position or perception of its power in the region.

Israeli power and the perception of American guarantees of Israel are what compel the Saudis to keep trying to broker some sort of long term deal between the parties in conflict. If Israeli power lessens, and if the US is made to look impotent in the region (which occurred when the promised 48 hour cease fire by Israel was violated as soon as Condi Rice's plane left Israel), that kind of long term peace won't be pursued by the Saudis or any other Arab states.

I am thinking of inviting Israeli Ambassador to the US Daniel Ayalon to speak in my program as I think it's very important to connect with Israel's envoys about what is possible beyond the current conflict.

Stay tuned.

-- Steve Clemons

(Steven Clemons and Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Turki Al-Faisal)

A Saudi Perspective on the Middle East Crisis and America's Stakes in the Region

New America Foundation/American Strategy Program
Session Chairman: Steven Clemons
Monday, 31 July 2006
Restaurant Nora, Washington DC

Good evening ladies and gentlemen.

I appreciate the generosity of the New America Foundation's American Strategy Program and to Steven Clemons for hosting this event. Thank you.

Tonight, I was asked to deliver some remarks about the Middle East. There is a great deal occurring in the region today, but I believe Lebanon is the topic of greatest concern. So this is what I will address.

First and foremost, ladies and gentlemen, it needs to be recognized clearly that the imperative before the world right now is to achieve peace and stability in a region that is historically unstable. Not just for today, or tomorrow, but for decades to come. We require a sustainable peace. One in which the countries of the region are at peace with themselves and the world -- as well as the other way around.

I do not think there is much disagreement on this point.

However, what path we take to achieve this peace requires further deliberation. Robert Frost wrote: "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -- I took the one less traveled by." The path of aggression is well worn in the Middle East. What if we decide to take the path of peace -- the path less traveled? It may make the difference -- not just for today, but for tomorrow and the next day.

The decisions we are making will have long-term consequences. The decisions made yesterday bear their bitter fruit today. As we have seen time and time again, our choices indeed influence the stability of the region and of particular countries -- as well as the sentiment and opinions of people -- the men and women and children throughout the region who live each day with these issues.

We need to listen to these people -- the people of Lebanon, and of Palestine, and of Israel, who desire only to live in peace. They are the ones who will stand up for peace, just as they are the ones who will become the involuntary victims of the next act of violence based on how the world's problems play out in their back yards. And so we need to engender -- no, I believe, demand -- a new sense of allegiance on the part of our leaders to the virtues of tolerance, understanding and the path of peace, lest even our best intentions let slip the dogs of war.

As King Abdullah said the other day, "If the option of peace fails...then the only option remaining will be war, and God alone knows what the region would witness in a conflict that would spare no one."

This is a frightening prospect -- not just for Saudi Arabia, not just for the greater Middle East, but for the world. The lives and livelihoods of billions of people in the global community are tied into the geopolitical machinations of the region; from an economic standpoint -- because of energy and trade and landgrabbing; from a security standpoint, because of how hostilities feed anti-Americanism extremism and terrorism; and, especially, in terms of religion, the region is tied into every corner of the globe -- Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.

For all of these reasons, Saudi Arabia continues to strive for peace. In Lebanon and Palestine, the Kingdom believes the answer is a comprehensive peace. This will allow the international community to broker a lasting solution to this crisis. Realistically, the parties involved in Lebanon, Palestine, and Israel, are incapable of brokering a truce among themselves.

Saudi Arabia feels it is incumbent on international leaders, particularly the United States and the United Nations, to restore peace through the creation of an international force to help the Lebanese government extend its sovereignty and authority over all Lebanese territory. This will redress the balance and allow the Lebanese government to negotiate in the interest of the Lebanese people.

We are further confident that for a lasting peace to come, it is imperative the world community shoulders the responsibility of protecting the Lebanese people, moving rapidly to halt the Israeli war on Lebanon, and providing support for the Lebanese government as it strives to preserve national unity, maintain its sovereignty, and exert control over its territory. In addition, it is just as critical the Israeli siege of the Palestinian people end.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Please, let there be no mistake about this position. Saudi Arabia holds firmly responsible those who first engaged in reckless adventure under the guise of resistance. They have brought much damage and danger to the region without concern for others.

However, these unacceptable and irresponsible actions do not justify the Israeli destruction of Lebanon or the targeting and punishment of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations. These actions are without consideration for international pacts, conventions, and norms. This is not the way of peace.

And if the idea is somehow to create conditions that will leave Lebanon stronger, the stakes of this gamble are enormous. We are gambling with the people's lives, their livelihoods, and their homes and families. In the end, we are all standing witness to the killing of the body and soul of Lebanon to cure the cancer of occupation that we all agree need to be excised.

To achieve a lasting peace we need to balance the interests of all the conflicting parties in such a way that they all feel they have achieved something of importance without a loss of face -- only then will they remove their collective fingers from the trigger. The question for us today is how to arrive at that point of balance -- through the continued ruthless exercise of power or under the umbrella of a cease fire.

Two months ago, Prince Saud, our Foreign Minister, brought a letter to President Bush from King Abdullah, advocating an end to the process and instead, an implementation of peace. The President expressed excitement and willingness but, alas, there was no follow through.

Currently, Saudi officials are working diligently to generate support for a cease--fire and a lasting resolution. Prince Saud and others have been meeting with world leaders. One week ago, Prince Saud delivered another letter from King Abdullah to President Bush requesting he act to help save Lebanon and its people from the terrible ordeal they are suffering. The actions of the U.S. in this matter are of vital importance. And we continue to press for an immediate peace.

And certainly, we cannot stand by as our neighbors and friends suffer brutal transgressions born of a war not of their own making.

So to help alleviate the misery, Saudi Arabia has been providing aid to the affected areas. Last week, King Abdullah approved $50 million for emergency relief assistance for the Lebanese people. In the last few days, an additional $500 million was earmarked for a grant to form the nucleus of an Arab and international fund for the reconstruction of Lebanon. The King has also directed $1 billion to be deposited with the Lebanese Central Bank to support the country's currency and liquidity. And the Palestinian people will receive a $250 million grant from Saudi Arabia for reconstruction and relief.

The Kingdom is doing what it can -- brokering peace and providing aid. We understand that we live in an age in which the problems of one nation or one people are the problems of the world. It is, therefore, critical that we truly consider how our political decisions impact the people -- not just of our particular nations -- but those of the entire global community. In the Middle East, today, this consideration is truly important. Let us now recoup and look at the problem holistically. The Israeli occupation of Shabaa and Palestine is the casus belli of all that is happening today in Lebanon and Palestine. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine have captured three soldiers of the vaunted Israeli army, whose incompetence was clearly displayed by these captures. The same vaunted Israeli army has struck back with surgical accuracy in killing innocent civilians and UN observers in both Palestine and Lebanon, further demonstrating their ineptness and brutality.

The Arab world has offered the most comprehensive peace plan to Israel, The Abdullah Peace Plan of 2002. The plan offered Israel, the end of hostility and normalization of relations in return for total Israeli withdrawal from Arab occupied territories, including Jerusalem. The United States must play the role of pacifier and lead the world to peace and not be led by Israel's ambitions.

The poet Yuhuda Amichai wrote: "They'll beat swords into plowshares and plowshares into swords, and so on and so on, and back and forth. Perhaps from being beaten thinner and thinner, the iron of hatred will vanish, forever.

We can only hope this will be the case. In the mean time, let us all continue to work tirelessly to promote peace, tolerance and understanding among our neighbors and friends.

Thank you. (end)

(Acusis CEO Bill Benter, blogger Steve Clemons, and NPR "Talk of the Nation" Host Neal Conan)

For those interested, here is the dinner list of those able to join us. It was an incredible group of people, fascinating discussion -- and somewhat energized by the sense of consequence that Condoleezza Rice's plane had only just recently landed before dinner. While she was discussing the Middle East crisis over dinner with President Bush, we were discussing the regional conflagration with the Saudi Ambassador.

However, those in attendance included Time Magazine's TIM BURGER, Slate's Chief Political Correspondent JOHN DICKERSON, Nixon Center President DIMITRI SIMES, New America Foundation Fellow AFSHIN MOLAVI, New York Times Correspondent THOM SHANKER, Chief Speechwriter to Condoleezza Rice CHRISTIAN BROSE, CNN Washington DC Bureau Chief DAVID BOHRMAN, former AT&T Cable CEO and DNC President candidate (and winner of the 2005 Le Mans Tourney) LEO HINDERY. . .

(Saudi Embassy Media Advisor to the Ambassador Jama Khashoggi and C-Span editor and producer Robb Harleston)

University of Michigan Middle East scholar and blogger JUAN COLE, Economist Magazine Washington Correspondent and author of the "Lexington" page ADRIAN WOOLDRIDGE, Atlantic Monthly Deputy Managing Editor JAMES GIBNEY, NPR "Talk of the Nation" host NEAL CONAN, Foreign Policy Advisor to Governor Mark Warner and McGuire Woods attorney MARK BRZEZINSKI, Former State Department Chief of Staff Col. LAWRENCE WILKERSON, Financial Times Washington Bureau Chief EDWARD LUCE. . .

(State Department Policy Planning Dep Director Matthew Waxman, Washington Post correspondent Walter Pincus, Washington Post correspondent Dana Priest, and Chief State Department Speech Writer Christian Brose)

Daily Telegraph Washington Bureau Chief ALEC RUSSELL, Lehrer News Hour Senior Foreign Policy Producer MICHAEL MOSETTIG, Asst. Secretary of Energy ALEXANDER KARSNER, Los Angeles Times Chief Diplomatic Correspondent TYLER MARSHALL, USA Today Chief Diplomatic Correspondent (who is now writing a book on Iran at the Wilson Center) BARBARA SLAVIN, 2006 Pulitzer Prize winner Washington Post intelligence correspondent DANA PRIEST. . .

(Barclays Bank/Juniper Financial CEO Richard Vague and Informed Comment blogger Juan Cole)

C-Span Congressional and Foreign Policy Editor & "Washington Journal" producer ROBB HARLESTON, celebrity Bush administration antagonist and former foreign service officer JOE WILSON, Senior Policy Advisor to Senator Chuck Hagel REXON RYU, State Department Deputy Director of Policy Planning MATTHEW WAXMAN, Barclay's Bank/Juniper CEO RICHARD VAGUE, National Journal/Atlantic Monthly writer and editor PAUL STAROBIN and others.

(Businessman and "It Takes a CEO" author Leo Hindery and CNN Washington DC Bureau Chief David Bohrman)

Very cool group actually. More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Carol Giacomo of Reuters has a piece up on the dinner I organized with Prince Turki Al-Faisal, Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. Her take on the Ambassador's talk captures the flavor of an important evening.

The bottom line to Prince Turki's talk is that at the core of many of the problems in the Middle East is the Israel-Arab conflict, and America must re-engage and move expeditiously to solve this problem. If America fails to do so, the governments in the region who are otherwise largely allied with American interests will have great difficulty sustaining their pro-U.S. positions in light of worsening popular anti-American and anti-Israel sentiment.

I will post his on-the-record comments later today and share some of the other key questions raised without violating an agreement as to what was on and off the record.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons