Caroline Esser is a research intern at the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program.

In Tuesday's Washington Post, Joshua Partlow and Haq Nawaz Khan highlight the numerous flaws in House bill S.496: Afghanistan and Pakistan Reconstruction Opportunity Zones Act of 2009, which has passed the House and is being reviewed by the Senate.

The bill was originally conceived as a way to facilitate economic development by designating specific reconstruction zones in Afghanistan and Pakistan as areas from which all exports would be granted duty-free status in the United States.

However, rather than risk upsetting American industries by allowing duty-free status to foreign goods also produced by American businesses, Congress has created a bill that would give this status only to a very limited number of products, most of which neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan have any experience producing.

Instead of proceeding with this compromised bill, the U.S. government should rethink its approach to economic development and consider the recommendations of Atlantic Council South Asia Center Director Shuja Nawaz.

At a recent public forum at the United States Institute of Peace on the possibility of reconciliation with the Taliban, Nawaz emphasized the importance of economic development and job creation in Pakistan as a way to combat the Taliban. But instead of creating reconstruction opportunity zones, Nawaz recommended financing public infrastructure projects.

Nawaz argues that foreign investment in infrastructure construction would provide immediate benefits for the area. As New America Foundation experts Bernard Schwartz and Sherle Schwenniger have long proposed in the American context, investment in infrastructure is "a proven way to stimulate private investment and job creation and, at the same time, distribute more widely the capital and skills for wealth creation."

The roads would help connect the marginalized FATA region to the rest of the country, promote commercial activity, and aid the military's counterinsurgency efforts (see Gilles Dorronsoro's report on the Taliban in Afghanistan for a further discussion of the importance of road networks for the military).

Furthermore, in addition to creating much needed wells, roads, and bridges, the infrastructure projects would curtail Taliban recruitment by providing alternative sources of income for the roughly 300,000 Pashtun youth who are now the targets of Taliban recruiters.

Unlike the American-dictated details of the reconstruction opportunity zones, the infrastructure projects would be shaped and executed by the people of FATA, making them stakeholders invested in the projects' outcomes.

Let's not waste our limited foreign aid money on inefficient projects that will be ill-received, when we can implement highly useful economic development projects that could both weaken the Taliban and help to assuage divides within Pakistani society.

-- Caroline Esser

Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton appeared Wednesday this week on The Daily Show for a third time and got a 'friendship bracelet' from Jon Stewart for doing so.

Bolton is a smart war-monger who is careful with words and couches his cheerleading for an Israeli strike against Tehran in lots of buffer material like calling his wanted Iran strike an "unattactive option".

Given his typical lawyerly shrewdness that I have come to expect and never underestimate, I was stunned when he abandoned his support of Israel's nuclear weapons stash.

At 6:58 into this eight minute long Daily Show clip, Bolton said that he is close to the anti-nukes liberals of the world because he wants "only one country to have nuclear weapons" -- the United States.

He definitely left every other nation of the list, including Israel.

Here is the exchange:

Jon Stewart: Best case scenario in your mind, really, heart of hearts, do you see a World War III? Because every scenario you write in your papers seems like it triggers massive confrontation on a global scale and at that point we are involved with World War III in a hot way....

John Bolton: The purpose of statesmanship is to look into the future, look at the risks and opportunities and try and shape developments to get us into the optimal situation. Looking at all these very dangerous scenarios, what it should argue to us is the continuing importance of the strategic reality in the world that we have to try and deal with.

Every country that gets nuclear weapons is an additional threat to our friends around the world.

Jon Stewart: Who -- and this is your final question -- maybe this is an easier one. . .Who wouldn't you bomb?

John Bolton: There's not that much difference between me and the people who want a world where no government has nuclear weapons. There's not much difference. I only want one government to have nuclear weapons...

Jon Stewart: I know....Switzerland! Uh...hold on....

John Bolton: You're sitting in it...[the United States]

Given Bolton's typical precision, whether deployed bluntly or with a lighter touch, John Bolton not standing up for Israeli nuclear weapons might be considered "progress".

-- Steve Clemons

This is an email from Tehran drafted by a young woman protester who is a friend of a friend of mine. I have agreed to run it on TWN and know that it may run elsewhere in ther intenet. I have confirmed its authenticity. It is interesting to note the relatively soft posture of the police -- Steve Clemons

This is going to be a slightly disjointed email, I'm sorry in advanced. It's already well passed midnight here and we just finished returning from the streets protesting. But I wanted to make sure to get this out tonight.

Today marked the 40th day anniversary of the killings of such youth as Neda Agha Soltan and Sohrab Aarabi in Iran's post-election demonstrations. We headed to Behesht Zahra Cemetary in the afternoon to join the 4pm ceremony at their gravesites.

Behesht Zahra is about a one hour drive south of Tehran and as we neared the cemetery, about five police cars and officers were directing traffic. Waiting to enter the cemetery compound in the traffic, one of my companions pulled down the window and half jokingly asked the police officer what was going on. He smiled back and said, "nothing, just go towards row 257."

For those not familiar with Behesht Zahra, it's an enormous cementery with wide avenues and squares. Knowing it would take us a while to find our destination, the police officer decided to help by telling us in which row we could find Neda's grave (others in Behesht Zahra would help lost drivers by directing them to Neda. That's all people said: "Neda ounjast" (Neda is there), pointing in the direction of her grave). Throughout the ceremony it was obvious the police force was very sympathetic with the people (as opposed to the anti-riot police and the revolutionary guard factions that were present in large numbers and were standing by the graves of both Neda and Sohrab).

By the time we arrived to their graves, it was 4.30pm and about 150,000-200,000 had gathered there. Most had on green ribbons and shouted in unison: "Neda-ye ma namordeh, ein dolat-e ke morde" (Our Neda is not dead, it is this government that is dead).

Her grave was covered in flowers and candles, as was the grave of Sohrab, just a few feet away. The demonstration was held about 75 feet from the graves and was where the majority of the people had gathered. The main difference between this gathering and the other gatherings in the past two months was that the slogans for this gathering were very highly charged and at times extremely revengeful. People shouted: "ma bache-haye jangim, bejang ta bejangim" (we're the children of war, fight and we'll fight back); "mikosham ani ke baradaram ra kosht" (I will kill he who killed my brother).

There was no more talk of reclaiming the vote, but of getting rid of this "coup" government; the most numerous chant was "Death to the dictator." The anger could be felt at this gathering (which for me was a very ominous sign of worse things to come) and there was a very palpable lack of fear among people. Both Mir Hossein Moussavi and Karoubi had shown up at the gathering earlier in the afternoon.

We stayed for nearly two hours and decided to leave when we saw the security forces getting larger in number. As we left, we heard that they had hit some with batons and we could feel the tear gas in the air. A few minutes later reports emerged that Jafar Panahi, the award-winning filmmaker was arrested, as was Mahnaz Mohammadi, a documentary filmmaker and a women's rights activist. They have both been taken to an unknown location.

As we left the cementery, the honking of the cars began: most cars were heading into Tehran to try to get as close to Mosallah as possible (the large mosque in central Tehran where Mousavi and Karoubi had asked to hold a ceremony of those killed last month --- the interior ministry did not give the permission for the gathering, but people had decided to show up there at 6 regardless).

Every car driving out of Behesht Zahar was honking their horns and all drivers and passengers had their hands out of their cars in the peace sign. The police tried to discourage drivers from driving the main highway that would lead to central Tehran, but very few listened. Soldiers standing along the streets flashed the peace sign back at the honking cars with large smiles on their faces. It was obvious the soldiers and police forces were with the people.

As we reached my grandmother's house, which is just a few streets away from Mosallah, we saw people running from motorcycles (the Basij), who tried to taser them, and the protestors encouraged us to turn our windows up so the tear gas wouldn't hurt us. Residents came out of their homes and began small fires on the corners (to help against the tear gas). The streets were completely overtaken by protestors who were in a cat and mouse game with the security forces, all on motorcycles. We parked the car and went onto Valiasr Street (the main boulevard in Tehran that runs from north to south). The city was covered in a haze from all the tear gas and fires started on the corners. All roads leading to Mosallah were witness to huge confrontations between people and the security forces.

As we arrived on Valiasr people were spilt on different sides of the sidewalk: one side would shout slogans, the anti-riot police would attack with their batons and paint-ball guns (to mark the protestors to pick them up later), then the other side of the side-walk would start the chanting, so the anti-riot police would be forced to come to this side. As they attacked one side of the sidewalk, the protestors on the opposite side would come out of the side streets they had just run into and gather, regroup, and chant again.

This continued for hours. When the anti-riot police disappeared for a bit, people lit candles and put them on the sidewalks, to commemorate the deaths of Neda, Sohrab, and the others. At one point we had managed to cover one section of the street in candles. As soon as the plainclothes militia saw the sidewalk lit in candles, they approached, stomped them out, and began hitting people. No one turned away.

They would attack us, we'd run into the side streets and reemerge less than one minute later. The most haunting scene was when protestors had gathered at the beginning of Takht-tavvos Street and were shouting "Death to the Dictator." The anti-riot police gathered on their mothercycles (two per motorcycle, all in cameflouge uniform, with full riot gear) in the middle of the street and their leader began pumping them up (it looked like a huddle during a football game---it was disgusting).

He got them riled up, spun his baton in the air three times, and then they attacked (there were about 30 motorcycles, all in full gear). As they attacked the protestors in the street, some from the side began throwing stones at them, and all began cursing.

The anti-riot police would also drive up in cars and try to get people to move along and not congregate. People would walk slowly, then turn right back around. There was no more fear. They attacked, people retreated in the side-streets, then would come back out in less than one minute as soon as the motorcycles had gone off. There were so many protesters, and they were spread out all throughout Tehran (Valiasr Square, Fatemi Square, Yousefabad, Vanak Square, Mosallah, Sanati Square, Amirabad, Revolution Square, Tajrish Square....all the main streets and squares of Tehran were full of people and it seemed for the first time that the forces simply were not enough).

The security forces were using batons, chains, whips, tasers, paint-ball guns, and I saw handguns in the hands of three of them. There was a rumor that a few were shot at in Vanak Square.

Two people were picked up near us and people tried to chase after the security forces to get the young men back, but it was a futile chase. Until around 11pm the streets were full of people. At 10pm the shouts of Allah-o Akbar and Death to the Dictator were being screamed from the rooftops all over the city until 10.30pm.

Friends in Isfahan also reported that 4-5,000 people had gathered there and there were no security forces at all present This was the first such gathering on a large scale in Isfahan since the first week after the election. Reports also came of gatherings in the thousands in cities of Rasht, Shiraz, Mashad.

People of all ages, sexes, and socio-economic groups were out today. We ran into many at the cemetery who had driven in from the provinces to attend the 40th day ceremony. Religious men and women were numerous at the gravesite, as were non-religious men and women.

Children were out (at one point on the street back in Tehran I saw a group of two brothers and one sister, the youngest about 7 and the eldest 14, walking hand in hand down the street). Middle aged and older people would turn to us and say "we're out on the streets for you guys, this is for your future, for your generation."

One mother told a soldier who asked her to go back home "I'm not going anywhere. Don't you know that we brought you guys into power by doing just this: by being out on the streets for nights on end. We brought you to where you are today, and we're going to take you out by being on the streets. I'm not going anywhere."

-- Anonymous Observer in Iran

I have a piece up this morning on World Politics Review that advises both Europe and Turkey to exercise patience in their accession negotiations.

From the article:

Ankara is currently enjoying a moment of self-satisfaction. Its economy has fared well in recent years, and it maintains friendly relations with nearly all of its feuding neighbors. Turkey's potential as an energy hub, its role as a diplomatic interlocutor between its neighbors and the West, and President Barack Obama's high-profile visit in April have further highlighted Turkey's emergence as a significant regional power.

But these positive developments have led to an inflated sense of confidence in Ankara. Turkey lives in a dangerous neighborhood in which it has no natural allies. And the deep mistrust between the government and the military, as well as the fact that Turkey's economy contracted 13.8 percent in the first quarter, reveal that both Turkey's political and economic systems rest on shaky foundations. In 10 or 20 years, those foundations are likely to be much sturdier should Turkey remain committed to the accession process. And Ankara is likely to find itself in a stronger international position if it enjoys the security and stability that Europe provides.

Things may look different from Europe's perspective in a decade or two as well. Europe's population is declining, and economic growth among the developed, Western European states is likely to be low. Turkey will be in a position to provide the labor that Europe needs, while serving as a destination for investment and an engine for economic growth.

But the benefits that Turkey offers Europe go beyond economics. Turkey's army -- the second-largest in NATO -- could play an increasingly significant role as the United States gradually pulls back from its overseas security commitments, at the same time that European governments struggle to modernize their militaries while providing for aging populations. Incorporating a Muslim country may also help Europe to integrate its large and growing Muslim minority.

Most importantly, Europe will have to engage with Turkey as a large, influential country on its borders whether or not it becomes part of Europe. The accession process offers Europe the opportunity to ensure that its southern neighbor is as stable, prosperous, and friendly as possible.

So the challenge for Ankara, Brussels and European capitals is to get Turkey to a place where it is prepared to join the Union, even if continuing the accession negotiations until Turkey is actually ready is a difficult diplomatic and political dance.

You can read the entire article here.

-- Ben Katcher

Jon Weinberg is a research intern at the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force.

Over the past week and a half, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has lost over half his cabinet (twelve out of twenty-one original appointees) as well as the support of many of his conservative allies, most notably the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Ahmadinejad's recent difficulties began after a rare letter of condemnation from the Supreme Leader was read on national television and forced Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie - Ahmadinejad's nominee for vice president - to resign.

Mashaie's resignation appears to reflect a rift within Iran's conservative leadership. Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami (not to be confused with former reformist president Mohammad Khatami), was outraged by the appointment, saying it "will test Ahmadinejad's loyalty to the supreme leader.'' Meanwhile, ABC News notes that the president received a letter from 200 members of Iran's majlis (parliament), more than two-thirds of the body, asking that he "correct his behavior [and] follow the leader's opinion seriously."

Almost immediately after Mashaie's resignation, the president renamed him chief of staff - a bold move considering that the backlash against Mashaie's appointment had less to do with his position than his character.

Since then, Ahmadinejad's cabinet has begun to fall apart. On Sunday, Ahmadinejad dismissed his Intelligence Minister, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejeie. BBC's Jon Leyne claims that Ejeie was sacked after "what sounds like a heated argument in a cabinet meeting over Mr Mashaie's appointment." According to Reuters, Ejeie raised questions about Ahmadinejad's and Mashaie's allegiance to the supreme leader.

Robert Baer and Omid Memarian suggest that as Intelligence Minister, "Ejeie customarily reported directly to the Supreme Leader, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, rather than to the President," suggesting Ejeie was dismissed as a consequence of his closeness with Khamenei.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad's minister of culture, Mohammad Hossein Saffar-Harandi, also resigned on Sunday. Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency reports that Harandi's resignation brought the number of changes in the president's cabinet to more than fifty percent of its original members which, according to article 136 of Iran's Constitution, requires the government "to seek a fresh vote of confidence from the parliament."

While it is unlikely that Ahmadinejad will be removed from office, he appears to have lost a tremendous amount of credibility among the Iranian elite.

-- Jon Weinberg

Steve Clemons standing next to statue commemorating Xu Xiake (1587-1641), who chronicled his travels throughout China during the late Ming Dynasty. This picture was taken at Liyuan Park on the edge of Lake Taihu in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, China. (photo credit: Peter Pi)

For those interested in US-China relations, here is a digital clip of a discussion in which I participated on the Diane Rehm Show yesterday.

Others on the panel including Albert Keidel, former acting director of the Department of Treasury's Office of East Asian Affairs; Ambassador Stapleton Roy who now directs the Kissinger Institute on China and the US at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and myself.

Susan Page of USA Today moderated the discussion.

-- Steve Clemons

President Obama is going to help mend the rift between African-Americans who have experienced a life of racial-profiling and misunderstood policemen with an early evening White House therapy session involving beer consumption.

According to this report, Henry Louis Gates has ordered "Red Stripe". Cambride, Massachusetts police sergeant James Crowley will have "Blue Moon". Barack Obama wants a "Bud Light".

Bud Light?

After reading Richard Wolffe's interesting, Obama-instigated and approved book Renegade: The Making of an American President, Obama really comes off as someone preferring a fine pinot noir.

Wolffe quotes political commentator and analyst Ronald Brownstein, now with National Journal and the Atlantic Monthly, on his observation that during the campaign slugfest between Obama and Hillary Clinton, Obama was following a "wine track" strategy to attract supporters and Clinton was on a "beer track".

While they are swilling beer this evening and patching things up between cops and those on the fickle edge of police enforcement, I have a complicated evening involving wine, beer, and perhaps some fruity cocktails.

I'll be at the National Geographic Society event featuring Philippines President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo speaking about conservation and preservation efforts in the Coral Triangle. I plan to have Diet Coke there.

Then I will be dropping by the Singapore Embassy to pay respects to Singapore Ambassador Chan Heng Chee at a party celebrating the 44th Anniversary of the founding of the Republic of Singapore. I'll have a fruity something there. Maybe a Singapore sling.

Then, I am going to the home of Australia Ambassador to the US Dennis Richardson who is throwing what probably will be the best party in DC tonight for the members of the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue. No question -- Dennis will make sure I am having a great Australian beer.

And then, I am going to the home of Yemen Ambassador to the US Abdulwahab Abdulla Al-Hajjri, an excellent host and friend, for a dinner honoring Martin Indyk who is now acting Vice President and Director of Foreign Studies at the Brookings Institution and former Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. I assume the "acting" part of Martin's title will be retired fairly quickly.

I never know what I'm going to have at Abdulwahab's home. It's always something of Yemeni origin and has a cultural significance that the Ambassador explicates during the dinner. What I drink there will be the most memorable -- no matter what I have before.

But best of luck to Skip Gates and to Sgt. Crowley in teaching all of us how to be a bit better to each other than we normally are.

-- Steve Clemons

Just enjoy. . .

Hat tip to HuffPost.

-- Steve Clemons

The monthly food ration for a Cuban adult. Photo credit Javier Galeano/AP.

Patrick Doherty directs the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba 21st Century Policy Initiative.

One of the most hopeful signs that both the U.S. policy of regime change and the Cuban policy of total resistance is melting was the joint military exercise at the Northeast gate of Guantanamo earlier this month. It is just really hard to maintain that the other side is all that bad if our armed forces are training to save each others' lives rather than kill each other.

Imagine that happening in North Korea or Iran.

So it stands to reason that if regime change is no longer our policy and that it is being replaced by a more pragmatic policy of engagement over mutual interests, the codified conditionality embedded in the Helms-Burton legislation that requires Cuba to become a Jeffersonian democracy before we change our policy -- contradicts what is essentially our de facto policy (not to mention being anachronistic).

In its place, I would argue that a pragmatic policy of engagement over shared interests should focus on the economy of Cuba, for that is where the vast majority of the suffering of the Cuban people has its root. Indeed, recent reports say that across Cuba over 50 percent of infants are suffering from anemia caused by malnutrition brought on by poor agricultural productivity, high international food prices and last year's devastating hurricane season.

That the old way of running the Cuban economy is unacceptable also happens to be something that Washington and Havana can agree on. This article by Marc Frank of Reuters, entitled, "Cuba Ponders Reduced State Role In Economy" tells the story of how agricultural deficits have forced the Cuban government to shift farm production into the hands of farmers, and in the process, rethink the role of property in the Cuban system.

That sounds like significant progress to me, progress that Washington should be taking as a sign of the kinds of change we can embrace...and believe in.

-- Patrick Doherty

Former AIG Chairman Maurice "Hank" Greenberg waited outside the Ritz Carlton in a very long line of well-heeled Washingtonians waiting to be allowed by the organizers to access air-conditioning and get into the event ballroom. I clicked my iPhone weather application and it was 89 degrees outside -- high humidity. Lots of old people in that line.

The event was organized by the National Committee on US-China Relations, the US-China Business Council and a long roster of co-sponsoring groups.

Some DC political players in the line deserved the heat -- others didn't.

But what the powerful and connected were there for was the power dinner of the two day long US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.

The luminaries were out in full force. One seasoned observer of American foreign policy and a probable heavyweight Obama emissary one day told me before the dinner began: "Never have so many of the great and mighty been assembled to hear so little. . ."

Another Democratic national security icon there told me before the dinner doors finally opened after an extensive reception, "Very little will be said here -- but what is more interesting is to note what is not said. . ."

Those I connected with or saw at the dinner included Ambassador designate to China and Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr., former US Ambassador to China and Indonesia and Wilson Center Kissinger Institute Director Stapleton Roy, Henry Kissinger himself, former Beatles super aide and global impresario Peter Brown, US Institute of Peace chief and key player in opening China Richard Solomon, uber political/poll commentator Charlie Cook, Carlyle Group co-founder David Rubenstein, former Secretary of the Treasury and chief spear-carrier for hyper-neoliberalism (aka "Rubinomics") Robert Rubin, State Department Policy Planning Director Anne-Marie Slaughter, former State Department Chief Legal Counsel and David Addington-foe inside the Bush administration John B. Bellinger III. . .

. . .former New Jersey Governor and "What Happened to my Republican Party" Republican moderate Christine Todd Whitman, former AID Deputy Administrator Ambassador Hattie Babbitt and her former presidential candidate husband Bruce Babbitt, newly appointed IFES President William Sweeney, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chief International Economics Advisor to Senator John Kerry Heidi Crebo-Rediker, former Hong Kong Chief Executive and CPCC Member CH Tung, Center for Non-Violent Conflict patron Peter Ackerman, former US Trade Representative Carla Hills, Peterson Institute for International Economics President C. Fred Bergsten, former Middle East Quartet Chief and World Bank President James Wolfensohn (who was also out in the stultifying heat in a long line outside the Ritz for a long time), global finance expert and former Citigroup Vice Chairman Michael Klein, US-China Business Council Chair and Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris, Former State Department Counselor and Clinton Envoy for North Korea negotiations Wendy Sherman, National Journal economics columnist Bruce Stokes, and a whole slew of others. . .

I took a bundle of notes for the dinner -- hoping something memorable worth writing about would be said.

It happened only once in real terms. China Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Dai Bingguo said:

Don't Lose Any Sleep over China!

The crowd sort of chuckled, and that was the most tense moment of the evening. The rest was an incredibly upbeat, tummy-rubbing night of mutual admiration.

But it was valuable to be there and to see starkly clarified what the priorities of Barack Obama and China President Hu Jintao are: make the US-China relationship as smooth as possible -- no public expression of distance or difference on anything from climate change to human rights to defense concerns to currency levels.

Both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner shared charming vignettes about their counterparts -- Dai Bingguo in Clinton's case and State Council Vice Premier Wang Qishan. Clinton talked about agreeing with Dai to always bring pictures of their kids and grandkids to these meetings to remind themselves and their delegations of the importance of what they were discussing and its impact on the future.

Geithner, whose father Peter Geithner used to be the Ford Foundation's China director and was known to Wang Qishan, laid out the only substantive note of the evening. He said that the US and China coming together the way it had in the last two days would send "positive market signals" to the rest of the world -- and that America knew that it could no longer live beyond its means while China would have to rewire its economy to boost domestic consumption, expand services, and build greater basic demand there.

Wang Qishan commended the US for finally fully committing to have a national pavilion at the 2010 World Expo in Shanghai as Wang Chairs the World Expo Committee much like he chaired the 2008 Beijing Olympics Committee.

Hillary Clinton in one of the funnier moments of the night talked at substantial length about the US Pavilion that she'd been working hard to encourage private sector support of -- thanking General Electric, Pepsico (I saw the Coca-Cola rep at the dinner shift in her seat at that moment), Marriott, Chevron, and other firms for supporting the project. She said that she was going to build the Pavilion herself if that is what it was going to take to get the thing done on time. Ambassador Elizabeth Bagley was saluted by Clinton for getting this all together.

And Clinton who apologized for going on so long about the Shangai Expo US Pavilion said:

Shameless I know -- but that is part of the job. . .

Henry Kissinger, who was on the edge of sentimental tear-ing up while reflecting on China's opening nearly 40 years and where the relationship has come through eight presidents and four generations of Chinese leaders, was treated by both sides as the Deng Xiaoping of the night -- the elder whose vision started it all.

This was a remarkable night when compared to the high-stress start in US-China relations under Bill Clinton's term when Warren Christopher was hammering on human rights issues, or the equally stressful start under George W. Bush who ratcheted up tensions quickly (because Paul Wolfowitz pushed it) with China in April 2001 when an American EP-3 spy plane collided with a Chinese jet fighter.

Last night was a love fest -- and it is clear that unlike what Barack Obama said the other day: "the US-China relationship is as important as any other of our bilateral relationships," there is no doubt that Obama and Hu Jintao and their retainers across the political spectrum view the US-China relationship as the single most important relationship of the early 21st century.

The next of these high level dialogues will be held in Beijing -- and Dai Bingguo expressed concern about being able to generate the same level of warmth, hospitality, and good feeling that was abundant during the last two days and last night at the Ritz Carlton.

In my view, the US-China relationship needs to be central, but we need to discuss problems in the broad context of both the bilateral game and global challenges. Issues of concern -- about currencies, manufacturing, strategic objectives, non-proliferaton, economic management, human rights, and the like -- should be there along with the pleasantries.

That kind of approach wasn't accomplished last night -- but hopefully there was some serious talk behind closed doors that we didn't get much access to at the gala.

-- Steve Clemons

China's State Councilor and Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs Dai Bingguo said last night at a large dinner in honor of the US-China Strategic & Economic Dialogue:

Don't Lose Any Sleep Over China.

The crowd rumbled a little bit -- but the rest of a dinner was a love fest -- perhaps too much of a love fest.

I'll be discussing this and other aspects of the US-China relationship on National Public Radio this morning on The Diane Rehm Show on WAMU 88.5 at 10 am EST.

You can listen live over the internet. Also, the show plays in many markets around the country at different times.

Also on the show will be former US Ambassador to China and Wilson Center Kissinger Institute Director Stapeleton Roy and Albert Keidel who used to run the Department of Treasury's East Asia operation. Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief of USA Today will be standing in for Diane Rehm who is out this week.

-- Steve Clemons

Even as the entire country shifts gears to health care, some people are still concerned about the devastating numbers of unemployed persons and the government's efforts to get people back to work. CNN has just run a piece I wrote cautioning the Obama administration on its optimistic assumptions about creating green jobs.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After the release of a miserable June jobs report, President Obama stood with a group of green company CEOs and told reporters that "men and women like these will help lead us out of this recession and into a better future."

But if the White House puts too many eggs in the green recovery basket, we may all be disappointed. The green sector is simply not large enough or competitive enough to be a major engine of job creation.

The CEOs who stood with Obama lead smart, innovative and, in many cases, rapidly growing firms. But green firms in the United States are small and employ relatively few people.

Applied Materials, one of the larger companies at the meeting and a producer of solar cells, employs 13,000 people worldwide and only 6,000 in the United States. Hara, a smaller company at the table, uses computer models to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions. Hara employs 30 people in the United States.

Moreover, data on production of green technologies globally show that the United States is becoming less competitive. Looking at the "green trade balance," or the balance of trade in goods for reducing pollution, increasing energy efficiency and producing renewable energy, the United States moved from a trade surplus of $14.4 billion in 1997 to a trade deficit of $8.9 billion in 2008.

Thus, job creation for production of green technologies may occur far more outside than inside the United States. Investing in green energy will create jobs, but many of these jobs may be created elsewhere.

This is not to disparage these innovative companies. They may one day revolutionize energy generation and consumption the way Google revolutionized the Internet.

But green industries will not achieve this goal in the near future and will probably remain dependent on government subsidies for the short- to medium term. Since the Carter administration, activity in the green sector has waxed and waned as the green economy has come into vogue and fallen out of favor with politicians.

Currently, large federal subsidies go to the renewable energy sector. According to estimates by the Energy Information Agency, solar energy receives $24.34 in federal subsidies per megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity produced. Electricity generated by wind receives $23.37 per MWh. By way of comparison, natural gas receives 25 cents per MWh and nuclear power receives $1.59 per MWh. The stimulus law -- and the climate change bill, should it pass -- will increase the subsidies for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

And because the green sector is heavily dependent on subsidies, its growth potential is self-limiting. As more money is invested, the government goes into more debt. In other words, in the short term, the green sector can grow only as much as you subsidize it.

Furthermore, a focus on green investment may even neglect or underfund other areas of the economy that have greater potential to grow the economy. Money spent on infrastructure, more aid to state governments and boosting exports by cutting corporate taxes would do more to help our economy recover than pouring money into a relatively small number of green jobs.

The White House certainly has high hopes for the green sector. Obama said during the campaign that $150 billion in green investments would create 5 million green jobs over 10 years. Vice President Joe Biden also puts a lot of stock in the green recovery. He chose green jobs as the first topic to address as the head of the Middle Class Task Force.

But, relying heavily on the green sector for job creation will probably disappoint. According to a study conducted by Global Insight, the total of all green jobs in the United States equals half of one percent of total employment (about 750,000 jobs). This is roughly the same number of jobs that the economy shed in January. The same study projects the potential to create 4 million green jobs, but says it will take 30 years to do so.

Even if the green energy sector were to grow 50 percent overnight, it would be able to do so only on the back of heavy government subsidies and with limited returns to the economy. This 50 percent increase in green employment would not even make up for the jobs lost in any single month of 2009.

To be sure, the United States should develop its green energy sector. Green technologies can help protect the environment by reducing pollution, and investments in the green sector today are likely to pay off in the long run. At the same time, the president should recognize the limits of the green sector to contribute to the job creation the country will desperately need during the next few years.

-- Samuel Sherraden

To discuss the importance of making manufacturing a part of the Obama team's "New Economic Foundation," the New America Foundation/Smart Globalization Initiative is hosting a public forum today.

The forum features InterMedia Partners Managing Partner and Smart Globalization Initiative Chairman Leo Hindery, Manufacturing and Technology News Publisher Richard McCormack, Economic Strategy Institute President Clyde Prestowtiz, and Alliance for American Manufacturing President Scott Paul.

Michael Lind will moderate the discussion, which will STREAM LIVE here at The Washington Note.

-- Ben Katcher

Rory Stewart, director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard and author of The Places in Between, makes the case against escalating the war in Afghanistan in the pages of the London Review of Books.

In what I found to be a very entertaining and original piece, Stewart exposes the linguistic confusion, moral misunderstanding, and strategic contradictions surrounding the U.S./U.K approach to the "good war" in Afghanistan.

Here is the nut graph:

When we are not presented with a dystopian vision, we are encouraged to be implausibly optimistic. 'There can be only one winner: democracy and a strong Afghan state,' Gordon Brown predicted in his most recent speech on the subject. Obama and Brown rely on a hypnotising policy language which can - and perhaps will - be applied as easily to Somalia or Yemen as Afghanistan. It misleads us in several respects simultaneously: minimising differences between cultures, exaggerating our fears, aggrandising our ambitions, inflating a sense of moral obligations and power, and confusing our goals. All these attitudes are aspects of a single worldview and create an almost irresistible illusion.

Stewart's analysis is one of the best reality checks that I've seen on this subject since the Obama administration decided to double down on Afghanistan earlier this year.

For the other side of the story, see Peter Bergen's "Winning the Good War" in the current issue of The Washington Monthly.

-- Ben Katcher

My good friend Bill Blansett used to drive this Wienermobile featured above in this dog rams house story.

Just thought that this would tickle a few folks. Oscar Meyer has said that it is going to pay for the damages to the lady's house.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a video clip of a public event I chaired with Al Jazeera Director General Wadah Khanfar -- who was simply outstanding. Anyone interested in Arab media and current trends in the Middle East should spend some time watching this clip.

Khanfar is currently Director General of Al Jazeera but was previously Baghdad Bureau Chief when the US bombed that news bureau during the Iraq invasion.

Really fascinating talk and good discussion.

This event -- titled "Pushing Reset on America's Relationship with Al Jazeera and the Arab World" is also available at C-Span.

-- Steve Clemons

(photo credit: Andrea Neighbors)

This picture of wearable Sarah Palin memorabilia was sent in by a TWN reader in Alaska.

The note that came along with it said "So Long".

It does disturb a bit that some folks out there are probably wearing this shirt right now.

-- Steve Clemons

Two quick media alerts for this morning.

At 11 am EST, I will be chatting with WNYC's policy sophisticate Brian Lehrer about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy initiatives and positions. You can listen live through the web if you like.

Then, at 12:15 pm EST, I will be chairing a session with Al Jazeera Managing Director Wadah Khanfar at the New America Foundation. The meeting will stream live here at The Washington Note -- and will also appear live today on C-Span 2.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Douglas Rediker is the Director of the Global Strategic Finance Initiative at the New America Foundation. Taiya Smith is a Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and was the lead negotiator for the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue at the Department of the Treasury under Secretary Paulson.

Tomorrow, senior government officials from the U.S. and China will meet in Washington for the inaugural Strategic and Economic Dialogue, a.k.a. the S&ED, which is the successor to the Bush Administration's Strategic Economic Dialogue - or SED.

The meeting, at which top level delegations from the world's two most powerful nations get down to business and discuss some of the world's most pressing issues side by side - or at least across the same table, represents far more than a shift in punctuation. It is a test of whether the Obama Administration can present a unified front and demonstrate that it is serious about working together to improve and expand the U.S.'s relationship with China.

The original SED was the vision of then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson in 2006. Pre-dating today's calls by some for a "G-2", the SED reflected Paulson's belief that that China views strategic issues, outside Tibet and Taiwan, primarily through an economic lens.

The SED provided a single, comprehensive, high level forum at which the U.S. and China could discuss issues as disparate as the Doha round, Iran, energy policy and climate change from a similar (economic) vantage point. By getting multiple cabinet departments in the same room, it provided both governments with access to nearly every aspect of the other's policy making apparatus - each speaking with one voice.

The Obama Administration has taken this precedent and made several structural modifications, the most significant of which is that while the SED was solely led by the U.S. Treasury Secretary and Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan, the S&ED includes both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo as joint leaders of their delegations.

This shift appears to be the result of an Obama Administration compromise to avoid choosing between Secretaries Clinton and Geithner as to which would take the lead in handling our most important bilateral international relationship.

As a consequence, instead of looking at strategic issues from an economic perspective, "strategic" issues are now formally separated out from "economic" ones, thereby dividing the dialogue into two separate discussions under two distinct sets of leadership.

This division risks undermining the basic thesis of the original format - that, when dealing with China, economic issues are themselves inherently strategic. It also adds a complex and political layer of domestic coordination to the already difficult international one. With four principals speaking on economic issues rather than two, the risks of inconsistent messages and misunderstandings increase significantly.

To maximize the chance of a successful outcome from this initial S&ED, we recommend:

1 - Secretaries Geithner and Clinton should become very close friends. So should their deputies and cabinet colleagues. The U.S. needs to ensure that each speaker delivers a consistent message. In dealing with China, economic, foreign policy and other issues are often indistinguishable from one another. There cannot be any discord between senior members of the delegation. Further, participating U.S. Cabinet departments should consider how their individual agency agendas can contribute to the success of the broader dialogue.

2 - Ensure the right people are at the table. Each side should have Cabinet level participants and other key players in attendance and ready to deal with their individual counterparts. The U.S. team should understand who plays what role from the Chinese government side and foster the right bilateral relationships from the outset. On climate change, for example, an issue which spans multiple agencies, the two sides should ensure that their top climate change officials are present and actively participating in the conversation, regardless of whether they are from similar agencies or ministries.

3 - Listen to what's being said. Many Americans find it difficult to listen to formal Chinese presentations. Yet, these speeches represent the messages that China wants to send. Our delegation must listen carefully and make sure that they fully understand what is being said. Instead of furtive bathroom breaks and phone calls, they should ask questions and demonstrate engagement.

Lack of coordination, consistency or other missteps at the S&ED will not end the U.S.-China relationship. The SED built a strong foundation and there are numerous other dialogues and forums through which China and the U.S. can meet and discuss important issues. But, the potential undermining of this one harmonized meeting would be a setback to how effectively that relationship can be managed.

At some point down the road someone may seek to redefine the relationship and call it the "G-2". In the meantime, a tightly coordinated, well-executed S&ED may be just the format to advance the world's most important bilateral relationship.

-- Douglas Rediker and Taiya Smith

Leo Hindery and CNN Washington DC Bureau Chief David Bohrman at New America Foundation Dinner; photo credit; Sam Sherraden

Matt Stoller from Representative Alan Grayson's (D-FL-08) office put out a public request for comments about executive compensation related legislation that Congress will soon be considering.

I asked InterMedia Partners Managing Director Leo Hindery to respond as this is a subject he has spoken about frequently. Hindery is the former CEO of AT&T Broadband Networks and former CEO of the Yankee Entertainment Sports Network. He also Chairs the US Economy Initiative at the New America Foundation.

Leo Hindery writes:

Steve: This is a very important piece and I appreciate the reference.

President Obama was absolutely right a couple of weeks ago when he demanded that the compensation of the executives, managers and traders at the failed financial institutions that received bail-out cash be scrutinized by a new "oversight council". He was right because these are the people who saddled the rest of us with a staggering $2.8 billion or more of trading and credit losses, and yet wanted to be paid as if everything was just swell.

But he and especially his advisers were wrong not to impose specific limits on executive compensation, rather than (mostly) just guidelines. They were especially wrong not to enact permanent limits that apply to all regulated financial institutions and all public companies.

The evidence is clear that excessive executive and management compensation lies at the root of all corporate crimes and misbehavior, of most of corporate America's inattention to creating and preserving high-quality domestic jobs and fair overall employee compensation, and of almost all of the recent massive trading and credit losses.

In his speech, Obama also said that government's "role is not to disparage wealth, but to expand its reach". He absolutely should have added that its role is also to "ensure wealth's fair and equitable distribution".

For the 35 years following the end of the second world war, CEOs generally viewed responsible and fair business behavior as a critical component of the American dream. And during all those years, and in fact during most of the past century, corporate leaders in the US earned 20 to 30 times as much as their average employees. Even today, the ratio of chief executive pay to average employee earnings in all other main developed countries has remained near this level. The ratio is still only about 22 times in Britain, 20 times in Canada and 11 times in Japan.

Beginning in the 1990s, however, many US executives, with the complicity of their boards, began to treat management as a separate constituency, often the primary one. Suddenly, fair executive compensation was abandoned in hundreds of corporations and financial institutions.

In America now, the average public company chief executive earns an almost unbelievable 400 times what his average employee makes, and his officers and senior managers aren't far behind in their own compensation. And now we know that executives and senior managers in the financial services industry drink just as heartily from the same frothy trough.

Obama and Congress need to enact three changes in executive and management compensation practices, not just hope, as one of his senior advisors recently said, that some (not even all) corporations will voluntarily "assess risk induced by [their] compensation practices".

First, Congress needs immediately to grant public shareholders the right to call shareholders' meetings, to vote out the current board and to pass binding (not simply advisory) votes on executive compensation.

Second, Congress should establish, for all public companies, a ceiling on individual executive compensation as a reasonable multiple of average employee compensation - say, 35 times - and then penalize through tax policies those companies that elect to pay anyone in excess of this multiple.

Third, Congress should empower the Treasury to oversee the compensation practices of any entity that is regulated, whether or not it currently relies on government guarantees. This should apply to employees at the individual trader level, too.

-- Leo HIndery

These are Leo Hindery's own views. Interestingly, he wrote a book some years ago titled It Takes a CEO: It's Time to Lead with Integrity in which he also discusses the executive compensation challenge facing the country.

-- Steve Clemons

After Al Jazeera's Baghdad headquarters was bombed in April 2003, reports surfaced that George W. Bush had joked about making Al Jazeera a deliberate target of U.S. attacks.

Wadah Khanfar was the bureau chief of Al Jazeera's operations in Baghdad at that time.

Al Jazeera has emerged as one of the world's indisputable global heavyweight news networks. If political and policy leaders want to reach Arab populations and Muslim people throughout the globe, Al Jazeera really can't be effectively sidestepped.

Given this bombing kerfuffle and other Arab media-US government tensions, the US has been resistant to offer Khanfar easy access to American audiences and has repeatedly refused to issue him a visa to enter the US. The Obama State Department, however, is pushing reset -- and just granted Khanfar's visa.

Khanfar is now Managing Director of Al Jazeera and will visit New York and Washington - and will speak at a number of forums. This trip coincides with the significant expansion of Al Jazeera English on American cable networks, moving from rather insignificant timeslots to 24/7 coverage in many large cities.

To discuss how the United States might recalibrate its public diplomacy toward the Arab world, I will be chairing what will be a fascinating and politically significant public forum featuring Wadah Khanfar this Monday, July 27 from 12:15 pm - 1:45 pm at the New America Foundation.

The event will air live on CSPAN 2 and STREAM LIVE here at The Washington Note.

I will post the YouTube video for later viewing here for those who can't watch the real time discussion.

-- Steve Clemons

Two months ago, I spent some time in Japan and visited a terrific ryokan in Izu, Japan.

A number of us went on the trip, but a couple there who were camera fanatics just sent news this week to me that they eloped and got married in Japan.

They took this quite interesting pic of baby swallows in a nest just outside a little convenience store door in the Izukogen train station. I was there and asked them to take the shot -- while the mama swallow kept diving at us.

What is it with birds and where they choose to build their nests?

Congrats to my friends on their marriage and thanks for this great picture.

For Japan watchers, I will be back in Tokyo from August 17 - August 20.

-- Steve Clemons

Matt Stoller, policy adviser to Representative Alan Grayson (D-FL-8), who is great on just about everything except the Middle East and Cuba -- which I hope to nudge him on a bit one of these days -- just sent me this request:

Next week, the Financial Services Committee is going to be marking up a bill on executive compensation, the so-called 'Say on Pay' bill. Among other things, this bill mandates a nonbinding shareholder vote on executive compensation. Now, the vote is nonbinding, so the board could theoretically just ignore a shareholder 'no' vote.

Let's say that the legislation were changed so that the shareholder vote were binding. What would happen if shareholders vote 'no'? Would the executives then be paid nothing? That seems unreasonable and unworkable.

How could this be structured so that the shareholder vote is binding, but there's some process to determine executive pay if management is voted down?

I am posting this for public comment here. Congressman Grayson will review the serious comments made.

I am also going to ask Leo Hindery, a CEO who has long been talking about the need to get executive compensation under control in this country, to consider posting a comment as well.

HIndery happens to be speaking along with Economic Strategy Institute President Clyde Prestowitz, Manufacturing and Technology News publisher Richard McCormack, and Alliance for American Manufacturing Executive Director Scott Paul at a New America Foundation forum titled "Manufacturing a Better Future for America" on Tuesday, 28 July, 12:15 - 1:45 pm EST. The event will stream live here at The Washington Note.

My own view is that controlling or constraining executive compensation requires a delicate fix -- and I'm not sure one exists. I think that creating accountable boards and accountable committee structures that do have sensitivity to stockholders is healthy -- but I agree with Stoller that binary votes by shareholders on executive compensation could produce unworkable logjams that produce outcomes more akin to command economies than market economies.

I look forward to reading your comments.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a political pitch video with Center for American Progress President and former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta introducing Judd Legum at a fundraiser at a cool restaurant-bar, Local 16, just around the corner from my house. Unfortunately, I was in Berlin and couldn't be there.

I don't often post this kind of thing on my blog -- but I totally support Judd Legum, who is running for the State of Maryland delegate seat that represents Annapolis.

Legum built with now famed Huffington Post Iran live-blogger Nico Pitney and some other of his colleagues what is perhaps the most valuable, influential and consistently incisive piece of daily progressive commentary in the blogosphere -- ThinkProgress.

In my view, as I have written before, he is one of the best political and policy researchers in the country -- and he's an extraordinarily good and honest guy.

Judd also happens to be running against Republican incumbent Ron George -- whose fundamentalist conservatism is tilted in divisive and unconstructive directions.

Thus, if you can support him with your vote, please do.

If you can support his campaign financially -- even better. I know he'll thank you personally as I will.

-- Steve Clemons

I've been pouring through the archives at King's College, London, preparing for several interviews that I have coming down the pike. Israeli journalist and professor Ahron Bregman houses his papers in the Liddell Hart library, and included in the records are transcripts of interviews filmed for the BBC's Elusive Peace -- It's the proverbial cutting room floor. And, as one would imagine, there's some fascinating material that didn't make the screen.

A pair of anecdotes from Shepherdstown, 2000:

Martin Indyk recalls riding with Ehud Barak on flights from Israel to Washington as often as possible in order to glean as much as he could about the prime minister's thinking. At the time, it was apparently a rather battered old 707, with a bedroom that had been hastily installed with little room for more than a bed. On the eve of the summit, Indyk, then an assistant secretary of state, was waiting for Barak's arrival at Andrews AFB. After the delegation filed off the plane the prime minister failed to emerge, Indyk climbed aboard and found Barak in his bedroom. Barak motioned for him to sit on the bed alongside him. He told him he couldn't cut a deal with Assad -- there would be no peace in exchange for the Golan.

Danny Yatom also recalls going to the gym with Barak and finding Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharraa there working out. Barak tried to make a joke, saying that he would follow al-Sharraa through the routine so they could see who was stronger; al-Sharra picked up his belongings and left without a word.

So where are we now, nearly a decade down the line?

While Washington seems to be content to quibble about whether Hillary was upstaged by the White House's decision to return an ambassador to Damascus -- apparently without a quo to match the quid -- the difficult question remains unanswered: can Damascus really offer what Israel's after?

Far more than recognition; more than a peaceable border -- Hezbollah seems to be the one issue looming in the minds of the Israeli leadership.

Hezbollah, the dominant Lebanese political movement, or Hezbollah the militant lung through which Iran breathes?

If Israel attacks next year, we'll certainly find out. But until then, post-election Hezbollah, the better equipped, more strategically positioned, and more internationally credible incarnation -- having proved willing to play both sides of the democracy game -- remains an insufferable ire for Netanyahu.

Bashar is looking for concessions that are quite tangible -- one can wrap the mind around 1,200 square kilometers of strategic high ground.

But networks of support connecting Syria to Nasrallah's army, contacts and friendships intertwined with intelligence and armament deals -- these are less concrete, less severable bonds.

If Bashar is as eager to get the Golan back as we've all believed -- and as David Lesch, who literally wrote on the book on the new lion, suggested while presenting a paper at the National Press Club last week -- he'll have to be less fixated on dangling his feet in lake Tiberias than his father was, and more devoted to delivering on the Party of God.

The Israeli leadership is rightfully wary of what the new lion can deliver.

-- Brian Till

I am off to Athens, Greece this evening to meet with some folks and to ponder what Socrates, Plato and Thucydides would say about Barack Obama's coming showdown with Bibi Netanyahu over East Jerusalem.

Netanyahu is very clearly Obama's Khrushchev.

Netanyahu is poking the Obama White House, ridiculing his foreign policy team, and launching preemptive strikes at the very necessary deal-making that Obama must move forward in the region to shore up America's power position and global relevance.

The Moskowitz-Netanyahu Plan to expand settlements in East Jerusalem, clearly over the red lines set by previous presidential administration and Israeli prime ministerships, is designed to pommel Obama and deflate his power in the eyes of other regional stakeholders.

Obama needs to politely crush Netanyahu -- and do it with a smile, without losing his temper, just as Richard Wolffe -- in his new book Renegade: The Making of an American President -- describes Obama doing to political foes he politely vanquished.

If Obama doesn't find a way to knock Netanyahu down off his perch, then Bibi will define Obama rather than Obama leading and setting the key parameters for a new, forward looking, stable Middle East equilibrium.

Netanyahu doesn't want to play along with any form of negotiations process -- even a fake one of the sort that Elliot Abrams generated in the past. He wants nothing at all to work on the Israel-Palestine front -- and believes he can wield Congressional power via his levers in the American Jewish community to create painful costs for the White House that ultimately constrain the President's latitude.

Obama has no choice. If he acquiesces to Netanyahu, which the Israel Prime Minister is counting on, then the game is over in the region -- and America will slide down a long, slippery slope of nations doubting America's global leverage and competence to accomplish objectives it sets out for itself.

If he creates costs, significant ones, for Netanyahu -- which I believe he must do to maintain a "no false choice" approach to the Middle East, then Obama has a chance to pull off some global re-ordering, but there will be domestic costs for him in Congress.

Khrushchev tried to define Kennedy -- and nearly succeeded.

Kennedy ended up making the right choices and scuttled Khrushchev, shutting down his antics and deflating his power.

Obama must do no less with Benjamin Netanyahu.

-- Steve Clemons

Jon Weinberg is an intern at the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force.

At first glance, Iran's new internet law - which stipulates that Iranian internet service providers (ISPs) are required to retain the entirety of their clients' data for at least three months - appears exceedingly intimidating.

According to the government sponsored English-language news network Press TV, the law's aim is to reduce "cybercrimes and providing surfers with more security in cyberspace" as well as to punish "specified illegal activities in cyberspace."

In some ways, Iran's internet policies are comparable to those of China, Saudi Arabia, and other autocratic regimes. In the past, including during the chaotic aftermath of the country's June 12 elections, Iran has blocked access to un-Islamic websites, intentionally slowed internet connections (in an attempt to thwart multimedia downloads from the west), and even imprisoned its own citizens for their online behavior.

The OpenNet Initiative (ONI) maintains that all told, "The Internet censorship system in Iran is one of the most comprehensive and sophisticated in the world" and that "human rights activists, bloggers and online media outlets, have become the target of government regulatory action and are subject to arrest, imprisonment and torture."

But this new law seems to pose the greatest threat yet to Iranian internet users: everything they say and do online will be on file for government authorities to search - there will be less privacy and anonymity than ever before. Or will there?

In their exhaustively researched article from yesterday's Washington Post John Palfrey, Bruce Etling and Robert Faris (all of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society) speak of the "sharp limits on what Twitter and other Web tools such as Facebook and blogs can do for citizens in authoritarian societies." They note, quite rightly, a "worldwide user population that skews wealthy, English-speaking and well-educated" as well as the regime's increasing power to push back.

In their conclusion, however, Palfrey, Etling, and Faris argue that countries like Iran "may be more concerned now about any move that pushes those watching -- or blogging or tweeting -- from the sidelines into the throngs of protesters already in the streets." I agree, but would take it a step further. Even if Iranians know they are being watched, they will find their way back to anonymity.

Clayton M. Christensen's theory of disruptive innovation argues that "low-end" technological innovations often occur when products' improvement rates exceeds the rate at which consumers can adapt, therefore allowing cheaper, simpler, lower-performance products to take their place. Such is the case with social networking: there is no better mass e-communication tool than email, but SMS texts, Facebook, and, ultimately, Twitter harness a less evolved version of text-based communication (Twitter, for instance, limits individual updates to 140 characters), which allow tech-savvy Iranians to better evade authorities.

The same type of innovation will inevitably undermine the new internet laws. Countless methods of fooling Iranian authorities online have been well-known for years, with their numbers, effectiveness, and sophistication constantly improving.

Because tech-savvy consumers will continue to innovate faster than the Iranian government can regulate, this law, like all other past Iranian internet laws, will quickly become obsolete.

-- Jon Weinberg

Check out this debate over at The Economist between Daniel Levy and David Frum on whether "Barack Obama's America is now an honest broker between Israel and the Arabs."

Given the United States' long-time alliance with Israel it is a bit ironic that this debate pits Levy on one side suggesting that the U.S. is an honest broker (or, more precisely, that the Obama administration is moving toward a place where it can be an honest broker while maintaining good relations with Israel) and Frum on the other saying that Obama's America is anti-Israel.

It seems like there should be a third-party arguing that the United States remains tilted too far toward Israel.

The part of Levy's opening statement I find most compelling is his suggestion that Israel needs the United States to provide the external incentive structure to force difficult changes on issues like settlements and occupation that its domestic political system is too immature to make on its own.

Perhaps the best example of the positive influence that outside actors can have is the European Union's success offering membership in its club as an inducement to liberalization.

I know that Steve Clemons will be posting on this David Frum-Daniel Levy exchange as well and look forward to his comments.

-- Ben Katcher

(Dordogne where Martin Walker is avoiding Joe Biden and where Bruno, Chief of Police is set; photo credit: Don Frood)

My recent vacation mates in Italy -- including Helene Cooper who covers the White House for the New York Times and Elise Labott who covers Hillary Clinton and the State Department for CNN -- would punish me and anyone else who happened to mention the name "Obama" or "Clinton".

I was reading Richard Wolff's new book, Renegade: The Making of a President, which was right on the line for them.

But journalist and AT Kearney Global Business Policy Dialogue czar Martin Walker is hiding out from Joe Biden and shared this delicious Facebook status tidbit from his vacation in France:

Martin Walker is in his house in Perigord, looking forward to dinner with friends on the vine-covered terrace, with foie gras to start along with a glass of Monbazillac, followed by courgettes from our garden stuffed with veal and mushrooms, accompanied by a bottle of La Colline 2004. Fresh strawberries to follow from my neighbor's garden. Not a giant squid in sight. And nobody here has ever heard of Joe Biden.

I love reading Walker's writing -- anything he writes. And this is his latest 'must read on a vacation' work. . .

-- Steve Clemons

Landrum Bolling, former President of the Lilly Endowment and Earlham College, has put together a collage of commentary from four outstanding American foreign policy giants.

They are former President Jimmy Carter; former Secretary of State and Treasury James A. Baker; former National Security Adviser to Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush General Brent Scowcroft; and former National Security Adviser to President Carter Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Two Democrats and two Republicans -- but they represent a convergence of pragmatic thinking and analysis about US foreign policy interests in the region rather than self-damaging ideological or emotional impulses that have recently kept the US from getting on the right course in Israel-Palestine affairs, which are consequential globally.

These vignettes harness a stockpile of major experience on American engagement in the Middle East peace process -- and Baker's comments in particular that the "absolutists on both sides need to be overcome" are right on target.

Scowcroft and James Baker very clearly state that the US has to 'offer to talk to Hamas.' Scowcroft notes that there is more than one Hamas -- and that if peace talks got going, Hamas would not allow itself to be left behind in the process.

These clips also get into the well-known Geneva Accord achieved via negotiations between Palestinian and Israeli political leaders, the Iraq Study Group recommendations, and other issues that must be squarely dealt with by the Obama administration and other interlocutors in the region.

Scowcroft and Brzezinski practically demand that Obama will fail in the Middle East unless he clearly articulates the vision of the United States for the region and pushes hard. Brzezinski is compellingly logical -- and his commentary implies disappointment in the current President and his team for not taking the bit more quickly and decisively.

I would add that Iran's internal tensions may make it a less robust patron for Hamas and other groups and states in the region -- at least for the time being -- and that there may be a pliable moment of opportunity with Hamas that may want to diversity its portfolio of interests and support and possibly adjust its posture.

The question of whether to deal with Hamas or not is just a part of the puzzle.

Israel's preemptive strike against Obama's dealmaking in the region by deciding to expand East Jerusalem settlements is a poke (worse than Facebook) at the President and his team. Israel, an ally of the United States, is testing Obama's strength and resolve as much as a number of American foes. I find myself in complete agreement with Scowcroft and Brzezinski that decisive, strong American engagement and agenda setting are required here.

Obama needs to be smarter, tougher and clearer about American views on Israel-Palestine resolution.

There are two segments of commentary in these YouTube clips -- roughly nine and a half minutes each. I've pasted the first above -- and the second in the middle.

-- Steve Clemons

Tom Kutsch is a research associate at the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force.

Two news items from Yemen yesterday - the kidnapping of a prominent Yemeni businessman, and the killings of 10 people in the city of Zahra - are the latest indications of growing violence and instability in a country already devastated by extreme poverty and sectarian disunity.

Yesterday's events come after three foreign aid workers were found dead last month after having been taken hostage along with several other foreign humanitarians.

This growing instability within Yemen has worried Western governments and counter-terrorism hands alike primarily because of the vacuum it has created for a resurgent al-Qaeda. Although it was under reported at the time, the al-Qaeda threat was the proximate cause of EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove's warning last month that international failures to assist Yemen might result in the country becoming "another safe haven [for terrorism] or another Afghanistan."

Under the leadership of Naser al-Wahishi, al-Qaeda has rebounded spectacularly from the defeats it suffered in the 2003-2005 period at the hands of the Yemeni central government (and its American benefactors) and has become more brazen and sophisticated in its extremism. Its ambitions are evidenced in part by the recent merger of cells in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, forming al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

Yet before Yemen invariably becomes the next country to have the 'al-Qaeda terror state' imprimatur thrust upon it, Western governments and regional actors in the Gulf must take the time to understand the complex dynamics at the heart of Yemen's unique political crisis.

There are two political issues that threaten the stability of the Yemeni state: an ongoing insurgency against the central government by the al-Houthi tribe in the Northern Saada governorate; and the recurring unrest in the South that has persisted since the unification of South and North Yemen in 1994.

As Greg Johnsen (whose blog Waq Al-Waq is an invaluable resource for developments in Yemen) has argued, the central government in Yemen considers these issues, not al-Qaeda, to be the preeminent threats to its solubility.

These 'stateness' problems are compounded by, or perhaps derivative of, Yemen being the poorest country in the Arab world (development indicators put Yemen at close to sub-Saharan Africa levels).

The analogy to Somalia here is a tempting one. Beyond their proximity (they are separated only by the Gulf of Aden), Yemen, like Somalia, has a political apparatus predicated on tenuous clan and tribal loyalties, tremendous economic and social problems, irredentist claims that threaten the unity of the nation-state, illicit weapons smuggling activities, and, to top it off, the interests of outside parties with overarching regional rivalries.

Yet Yemen, unlike Somalia, still has a functioning central government, and thus any parallels should be employed only to contemplate what failed policies in the present might mean for the future.

In order to halt the inertia of ongoing chaos, it is essential that regional and international actors act intelligently. At the regional level, it is vital that Yemen sees its potential membership in The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) as something more than a pipe dream. This will require Saudi Arabia to use its leverage within the GCC to encourage a viable path to membership that would convince the Yemeni state to abandon any moves toward entrenching internecine conflict.

In addition to encouraging the Saudis and the GCC to support this path, the U.S., E.U. and other international stakeholders must provide the Yemeni state with the political, economic, and social investment that it so desperately needs. This will require international actors to abandon their al-Qaeda-centric lenses and to deal with Yemen on its own terms.

In a region awash with so many other priorities for Western and regional actors, it won't be an easy sell for Yemen to start demanding our increased aid and attention, but the Middle East is full of examples aplenty of what happens when such stateness problems are dealt with only after the Rubicon has been crossed.

-- Tom Kutsch

This post also appears at The American Strategist.

This year's Failed States Index from Foreign Policy magazine is interesting not only for the questions the Index raises about failing states, but also for the questions it poses about the very act of measuring state stability (you can read about FP's methodology here).

One article released as part of the Index, written by Robert Rotberg of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, raises questions about the Index itself. Rotberg discusses some of the "puzzling" results, commenting that:

Zimbabwe is the second-most failed state, just ahead of Sudan, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Yet Zimbabwe has no discernible civil warfare. Its government does prey harshly on any opposition, but the Zimbabwean state has not lost its monopoly control of violence and should therefore not be considered failed. And though there are simmering pockets of conflict in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, these states have failed only if their provision of political goods to the entire population has conclusively fallen to the lowest ranking among regional peers...

...Finer and more accurate distinctions among states are always preferable, especially with the world's least effective--and most complicated--countries. A more objective system of rankings would better help policymakers analyze the options available and choose the prescriptions that best fit the country in peril.

It is equally difficult to say that Pakistan deserves its spot at number ten on the list, only three spots behind its neighbor Afghanistan, and somehow two spots ahead of Haiti. Undoubtedly, Pakistan's low ranking comes in large part from the violent Taliban insurgency that has reached uncomfortably close to the capital of Islamabad, and has engulfed the major city of Peshawar.

Moreover, the recent combat operations in the Swat Valley created over two million refugees, one of the categories that the Index tracks. And the prospect of Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists who hold sway in much of Pakistan's troubled tribal areas is, needless to say, terrifying.

But as Peter Bergen, the Co-Director of the New America Foundation's Counterterrorism Strategy Initiative, pointed out in April, it is a mistake to say that Pakistan is failing. As Bergen notes, despite Pakistan's economic and security problems, it is not on the verge of collapse. Pakistan's strong civil society, independent judiciary (recall the "lawyer's movement" largely responsible for the peaceful ouster of Pervez Musharraf), and new-found will to fight the Taliban are all encouraging signs.

Pakistan and many other states are hardly secure, and far from perfect. But it is important to remember that in measuring the stability of countries, statistics only tell part of the story.

-- Andrew Lebovich

As Leo Hindery points out on New American Contract's latest US Economy Talking Points, the Financial Times may be missing the point about a recently released report on TARP's impact on bank lending.

The headline of today's Financial Times cover story "Banks use Tarp funds to boost lending," could not be more misleading.

As the article itself makes clear, "Some 43 per cent [of banks] said that they had bolstered their capital cushion, 31 per cent made other investments, 14 per cent repaid debt and 4 per cent made acquisitions." Clearly, the 49 per cent of the TARP funds (31+14+4) that went to something other than "bolstering capital cushions" did not go to loan making, but that does not at all mean that the 43 per cent which did go to capital cushions materially "boosted lending", even though a large number of the respondents would have us believe it did:

First, one needs to measure the amount of TARP dollars not the number of TARP recipients, since of course a small distressed regional bank that received a de minimus amount of TARP monies is no comparison to, say, Citibank and BofA, and the article fails to make this distinction.

Second, a careful review of last week's bank earnings reports shows that in the first half of 2009, the major banks, which received almost all of the actual TARP monies, actually used their bolstered capital cushions and the exceptionally high 25:1 leverage ratio permitted under the Geithner stress tests mostly for renewed proprietary trading - and, according to their very own statements, specifically NOT for much new lending.

- Leo Hindery
Chairman, Smart Globalization Initiative, New America Foundation
Managing Partner, Intermedia Partners

If you'd like to get these must-read talking points in your inbox, click here to subscribe.

-- Samuel Sherraden

Joseph Nye, Harvard University International Relations professor and coiner of the term "soft power," has an interesting article on RealClearWorld asking "Will the U.S.-Japan Alliance Survive?"

Nye addresses various challenges to the U.S.-Japan alliance and makes a compelling case for its enduring importance.

The entire article is worth a read, but the part I find most interesting is Nye's discussion of transnational threats - and Japan's relative strengths in these areas. Nye says that

Although some Japanese complain about the unequal nature of the alliance's security components, owing to the limits that Japan has accepted on the use of force, in these new areas, Japan is a stronger partner. Japan's overseas development assistance in places ranging from Africa to Afghanistan, its participation in global health projects, its support of the United Nations, its naval participation in anti-piracy operations, and its research and development on energy efficiency place it at the forefront in dealing with the new transnational challenges.

This point hits the mark, and highlights the possibility that cooperation on transnational threats like global poverty and the need for new sources of energy may provide the best opportunity for the world's major stakeholders to develop the institutions and arrangements necessary to achieve a new power equilibrium in today's increasingly nonpolar world.

Formidable military power or not, Japan has a lot to offer on these kinds of "soft power" issues.

-- Ben Katcher

Finally, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Austria and Hungary have agreed to begin building the Nabucco project, a 2,050 mile natural gas pipeline that aims to diversify Europe's gas supplies away from Russia. The project, first proposed in 2002, gained momentum when Russia cut off gas supplies to Ukraine in January, raising concerns about Russia's reliability as a supplier.

Now that the initial agreement has been made, the next question is, Who will supply the gas to fill the pipeline?

The surest bet right now is Turkmenistan - which has ample supplies and has expressed its willingness to pump them through Nabucco. Azerbaijan is also considered a major potential supplier, but its close relationship with Moscow makes its participation uncertain. The same goes for Kazakhstan.

Iraq is also in the mix, but years of underdevelopment and enduring political instability make its participation questionable as well. Syria and Egypt have offered to participate, but their supplies are limited.

The potential shortfall makes Russia and Iran the two elephants in the room. Both countries possess natural gas supplies, but whether they will be permitted to participate remains unclear. Given that lessening Europe's dependence on Russian gas is a primary motivation for developing the pipeline, using Russian gas to fill the pipeline seems to defeat that purpose.

Meanwhile, Iran's participation is questionable because of its ongoing conflict with Washington. United States Special Envoy Richard Morningstar said yesterday that

I don't think there would be an agreement at this point among the Nabucco consortium for Iranian participation at this time...Our European allies, I think, are in sync with this position...This would be the absolute worst time to encourage Iran to participate in a project in Nabucco when we've received absolutely nothing in return.

Meanwhile, Nabucco Managing Director Reinhard Mitschek appears to be leaving the door open to Iran's participation. Here's what he said earlier this week

Nabucco has never, ever excluded any source. Nabucco is not excluding any source. Bottom line, we have to buy the gas. The national gas companies will evaluate the political aspect, the commercial aspect, the technical aspect and then they will decide to buy gas from Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Iraq, Iran and Russia. For all these sources, we are open to transport the gas.

It will probably be years before we know whether Nabucco will buy Russian or Iranian gas - but all of this highlights the long-term energy competition looming between Russia and Iran and its implications for America's effort to secure Russian cooperation on the Iranian nuclear issue.

As Marcin Kaczmarski explains, Russia perceives Iran as both a tactical ally against the United States and as a strategic competitor as an energy supplier to Europe. Russia fears that a rapprochement between the United States and Iran would open Iran's energy markets and threaten Russia's dominant position as Europe's primary natural gas supplier.

A likely unintended consequence of Nabucco will be to heighten those fears in Moscow and make U.S-Russian cooperation on Iran's nuclear issue more difficult.

-- Ben Katcher

Christina Larson, a new fellow at the New America Foundation, has written two great pieces this week (here and here) on the bloody clash between the Chinese government and the Uighur population in Xinjiang province.

In The New Republic, Larson, who has traveled extensively in China - specifically among the Muslim villages of Xinjiang, offers an acute observation of the underlying problem between China and its Muslim minority. "Fundamentally, the Chinese Communist Party, which was founded on materialist principles and encourages atheism among its members, doesn't understand religion. Its leaders see every non-state-supervised religious gathering, or attempt to impart values to children, as a potential threat to their political authority."

This immense lack of understanding has led the Chinese government to create a threat where one previously did not exist and an enemy out of a traditionally peaceful people. Larson's article in Foreign Policy points out that the "global war on terror" allowed the Chinese government to step up oppressive surveillance and restrictions for the Uighurs with little to no objection from the United States and allies.

Although Islam is not officially outlawed, Uighurs are subject to a litany of intrusions on daily religious life, which leads them to see the government as an antagonistic force. As one man in Kashgar told me, "Because I am born a Uighur, I am a terrorist -- that is what the government thinks?"

The authorities' overreach is also clear in the way security policies target children. During certain religious holidays, anyone under 18 is barred from entering a mosque. In Kashgar, communal meals are imposed at school during the fast period of Ramadan, and attendance is required at special assemblies timed to coincide with Friday prayers. There's no reason to treat every Uighur child like an aspiring terrorist or separatist, unless the aim is truly to stamp out religion from next generation. But this tactic would seem a high-stakes gamble for the CCP.

Larson also points out that last week's crackdown represented one of the Chinese government's weak spots in domestic policy, "Ultimately, China is more adept at creating fearsome impressions in the moment -- grand like the Olympic Opening Ceremony, or cruel like the crackdown on protestors -- than at maintenance. When you look close, it's apparent how much muddle there is beneath the surface, especially when authorities attempt to formulate policy around something they don't truly understand."

I recommend the full articles to anyone interested in great commentary, not only on the recent clashes in Xinjiang, but on China's greater domestic policy issues.

-- Faith Smith

Patrick Doherty directs the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba 21st Century Policy Initiative.

My latest article, called "Cuba, Nothwithstanding" is now available online and in the stores, thanks to the good people at the Washington Monthly. Here's the teaser:

President Obama doesn't necessarily need Congress's support to lift the trade embargo on Cuba. Under the right conditions, he could lift it unilaterally, if he were so inclined. And those conditions are dictated by, of all things, the weather.

Click here to read the full article.

-- Patrick Doherty

Marc Ambinder over at the Atlantic interprets Hillary Clinton's speech yesterday at the Council on Foreign Relations as an indication that President Obama has placed her firmly in charge of American foreign policy - and that Richard Holbrooke, George Mitchell, and Dennis Ross are subordinate to her.

I agree that the atmospherics of yesterday's speech suggest that this is the case, but I wonder what kind of impact Secretary Clinton will really be able to have.

Clinton's announcement last week that she will implement the State Department's first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review is the clearest indication yet of how she intends to leave her mark. The QDDR - modeled after the Defense Department's Quadrennial Defense Review - is meant to be a comprehensive, bottom-up strategic review of State Department and USAID activities.

But the QDDR's practical effect will be narrow if it merely reshuffles the State Department's $16.3 billion budget (compared to the Pentagon's $515 billion budget and the U.S. GDP of more than $14,000 billion.)

As Spencer Ackerman points out, the QDDR is part of a larger effort on the part of the administration to shift resources from the Pentagon to civilian agencies.

But even if Clinton can win substantially more resources for the the State Department, her ability to shape America's foreign policy will depend on whether her ideas are integrated into the White House's and the Pentagon's broad strategic frameworks. If they are not, then her impact will be limited to the implementation - and not the conception - of America's strategic objectives.

Update: For more on Secretary Clinton's efforts to influence the Obama team, check out this article in today's New York Times. Thanks to Katherine Tiedemann for sending.

-- Ben Katcher

The Obama administration doesn't put any particular emphasis on rebuilding America's manufacturing. Manufacturing doesn't even make the cut for the list of jobs they see growing over the next seven years. A recently released report from the Council on Economic Advisers says:

While manufacturing overall is projected to continue to decline as a share of total employment, several manufacturing subsectors - such as aerospace and drugs, along with other similarly-advanced manufacturing industries - are anticipated to grow (but not enough to make the list in Figure 2).

As Ralph Gomory recently wrote, a healthy US economy cannot depend exclusively on high-end services. Because the demand for these services is limited, we continue to buy more from abroad than we sell, resulting in higher trade deficits. By selling goods from the manufacturing industry, on the other hand, we can pay for the goods we consume with the goods we sell to the rest of the world, thus ensuring comfortable levels of consumption without increasing debt.

What is particularly striking about the administration's position is that it's not clear we can continue to let the industry suffer. If we want to keep our "comfortable" levels of consumption we must replace debt by selling more goods to the rest of the world, Gomory argues. If the United States is to "export our way out of the crisis," manufacturing must be the cornerstone of this strategy.

Manufacturing also has many other benefits: It pays higher wages. It has a higher multiplier effect than other sectors. And finally, it is the major driver of productivity growth.

New America Foundation is hosting a discussion tomorrow on the roll of manufacturing featuring Ralph Gomory, former Vice President of Science and Technology at IBM. "Does America Need Manufacturing?" will start at 12:15pm at the New America Foundation. Click here to RSVP.

-- Samuel Sherraden

Last week Hamas militants arrested two members of the hard-line Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) group while the men were in the act of setting up mortars to fire into southern Israel.

This may not seem like big news, but it comes amid various developments in the interminable slog known that is the "peace process."

Hamas has more or less maintained a cease-fire with Israel for the past few months. In this time Hamas has arrested other militants trying to attack from Gaza, and the group's leaders have taken a somewhat more conciliatory tone towards Israel. For instance, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal implied in a May interview with the New York Times that Hamas would not be averse to a two-state solution along the 1967 borders or a long-term truce, a hudna, with Israel. Then again, in the same interview he categorically refused to recognize Israel's right to exist, something not entirely inconsistent with a hudna.

But behind the scenes, some gradual movement is taking place. Egypt claims to be on the verge of negotiating the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, though Egyptian President Mubarak angrily blamed Israel recently for ruining a potential deal. Israel and Syria also continue to talk to each other through intermediaries--both sides continue to proclaim that they want peace and will negotiate, even while blaming the other side for intransigence. Still, the recent announcements that America and Saudi Arabia are sending ambassadors back to Syria are steps forward, and leave open the possibility that Israel and Syria may eventually work out a deal either for outright peace or at least a reduction in Syrian support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

Of course, it is also possible that these new arrests were just another example of Hamas consolidating power in Gaza. Ha'aretz speculated two weeks ago that past Hamas arrests of PIJ members were part of an effort to absorb the group into Hamas, an effort that has met resistance among PIJ leaders opposed to any negotiation with Israel or political compromise.

Furthermore, the move could have been a response to recent investments in Palestinian Authority security forces in the West Bank. The Washington Post reports that as part of General Dayton's efforts to build a Palestinian security force America has provided barracks, arms and ammunition while Russia is supplying 50 armored personnel carriers.

Or it is possible that the arrests meant nothing, that they were a minor event in a mind-bogglingly complex environment. Many issues loom on the horizon: Syria is hedging its bets, moving towards negotiation while still vocally supporting Ahmadinejad's Iran. Finally, Palestinian reconciliation remains a fantasy, and will not be helped along by bolstering security forces without building institutions. As the head of New America's Middle East Task Force Daniel Levy has argued, this buildup forces Palestinians to police their own occupation and undercuts the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority.

In the meantime Gaza remains buried in rubble, a state which will persist into the foreseeable future without a political agreement or an Israeli return to past commitments to investment in Gaza's infrastructure and ease movement in and out of the still-blockaded strip.

-- Andrew Lebovich

This is the second installment in James P. Pinkerton's provocative health care policy series for The Washington Note.

Pinkerton is a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a policy blogger. Pinkerton is also fellow at the New America Foundation, and contributing editor at The American Conservative magazine.

"Playing God." We all know the phrase, because we all know the temptation. That is, we know the temptation to make decisions for others - even the most profound decisions of life and death.

Remember the play/movie "Whose Life Is It Anyway?" It was a poignant tale of a man, paralyzed from the neck down in an accident, who wants to end his life. Such "death with dignity"-type assisted-suicide cases are controversial and the stuff of great drama, because those with power are able to determine the life, or death, of those without power.

But an even larger issue is the great drama of medicine - who is healed and who is not, who lives and who dies. The elites prefer the dry phrase "health care" over the evocative word "medicine"; it is their way of lulling us to sleep while they make decisions for us. So the elites prefer that we not discuss Serious Medicine, and whether or not we all get it, because any such discussion would get in the way of elite planning.

And the elites, of course, are all planning to spend less on medicine. They know that for every individual like the character who wants to die (played by Richard Dreyfuss in the 1981 film), there are 100, or a 1000, who want to live - and that costs money.

So the question for today: Do the Powers That Be think that we are worth saving, or do they think that it's cheaper to get rid of us? The answer would seem to be the latter. That's the consensus emerging from the self-appointed and self-reinforcing circle of "experts" who have occupied the commanding heights of "health care policy" and related fields of arcana, such as "bioethics." The mantra of The Experts is simple and oft-repeated: Cut back on care, do less, save money - in keeping with an overall Green-inflected sense of the limits to growth, of the limits on human potential.

And so we have "a duty to die and get out of the way," as former Colorado governor Richard Lamm revealingly asserted back in 1984. Few have been so candid since, but one maven of that school, Peter Orszag - a leading Democratic voice on health and fiscal policy for years, now director of the Obama administration's Office of Management and Budget - has long argued for the rationing and restriction of health care. Here's one snippet of his argument, as noted by Peter Ferrara in the pages of National Review:

Future increases in spending could be moderated if costly new medical services were adopted more selectively in the future than they have been in the past, and if the diffusion of existing costly services was slowed.

Now that puts the hay down where the horse can get it. New medical services should be "adopted more selectively," and "the diffusion of existing costly services [should be] slowed." Got that? In other words, ordinary people would lose out on medical care - and deliberately so. One can only ask: Shouldn't these policy-choices be discussed more openly? Shouldn't the citizens and health-stakeholders of this country get more of a say - instead of being spin-doctored into scarcity masquerading as "universality"?

Today's elites don't think that decision-making should be shared. Of course, elites never want to share power. That's why they're elites.

Yet surely the rich have nothing to fear from Obamacare, they might be telling themselves. And in the short run, there's no need for, say, Steve Jobs to worry, because as he demonstrated earlier this year, he has a blank check for his own health care.

But in the long run, Jobs and everyone else, no matter how rich, should be worrying - because the trajectory of future health-care research is being flattened. Of course, the Orszagian health-care rationers will deny they are cutting back on research and, subsequently, development. We are just controlling costs, they say.

But history shows that R&D comes from within big surpluses, from surpluses that allow scientists and engineers to noodle around on blue-sky projects. That was the story, for example, of Bell Labs, established by AT&T in 1925. "Ma Bell" was reaping monopoly profits in those days, and so it could afford to let Bell Labs employees delve into abstruse projects, many of which had little to do with the humble telephone.

The non-bottom line byproduct of this flush funding was six Nobel Prizes - including the 1997 Nobel Prize for Physics won by Steven Chu, now Secretary of Energy. But until the megacompany was broken up by anti-trusters in 1984, AT&T obviously thought it benefited from its expenditures on Bell Labs; its scientists developed everything from the transistor to the laser, from UNIX to radio astronomy. The generous benefit to all humanity from this nominally for-profit enterprise has been incalculable.

By contrast, the phone companies today are lean-and-mean profit machines; they are mostly marketing operations, and so the forward progress in telecommunications is now coming from elsewhere, from the super-profits generated by companies such as Apple and Google, which carry on the Bell Labs tradition.

The point is this: Be it electronics or health care, the money needed to fund R&D - and then to build the momentum needed for mass production - can come only from an initial surplus. And such mass production, of course, eventually leads to a dramatic lowering of costs. That's the rule of technological development: New things are expensive, until they get cheap. No way around it. And so if we are cheap in the beginning, as a matter of policy, not only will we neglect discovery and innovation, but we will never get to the point where we can bring down the per-unit cost. In being cheap, we will simply have less.

So let's take an illustrative example from recent medical history: AIDS. Is AIDS medicine expensive? Sure it is. But how much was AIDS costing us when it was cutting people down in the prime of their lives? How much output and creativity was lost when Halston died? Or Keith Haring? Or Steve Rubell? Or Stewart McKinney? Or Ryan White, the unlucky recipient of a tainted blood transfusion who died in 1990 at the age of 18: Who knows what he would have done with his life?

Those losses were bad enough. Fortunately, nobody in authority said that AIDS victims had "a duty to die and get out of the way." Instead, as a civilization we faced up to the challenge and spent what it took to address the epidemic. Medical research complexes, such as NIH, functioned the way Bell Labs once functioned; they threw money at smart people, confident that the human brain would eventually solve the riddle of HIV. Out of that riddle-solving came new treatments, such as AZT, which cost billions to develop, but which can now be retailed relatively cheaply. And so today, in the West at least, AIDS is a chronic problem, but not a mass-killer.

And so anyone who cares about Serious Medicine - which is to say, anyone who cares about the actual stuff of medicine, and about actually helping people, as opposed to the abstractions of "health care policy" - should be alarmed by the downward spiral of the debate in Washington DC these days. Orzsag & Co. are working to "control costs," even in advance of cost-control legislation. Their latest tactic has been to jawbone Big Medicine into "voluntary" price reductions so that the Obama administration can declare victory on cost control.

But ask yourself: Isn't it obvious that if medical players know they will be getting less, they will then be doing less? Shouldn't we be figuring out how to incentivize, mandate, or otherwise encourage medical science to do more, not less?

Thus allegations made by Kimberly Strassel in her Wall Street Journal column on Friday command our attention. Strassel asserts that health care lobbyists are more loyal to cost-controllers in Washington than they are to their own outside-the-Beltway employers - who, being capitalists, obviously want bigger and better. But inside the Beltway, health care has been waylaid by Club of Rome-type growth-limiters, as well as fiscal bean-counters, focused on the shortest of medical short terms. As Strassel puts it:

Health-care lobbying has been turned on its head: The new cabal of Democratic lobbyists does not exist to protect the industry from Congress. It exists to present Democratic ultimatums to business.

If Strassel is correct - and I don't doubt that there are differing opinions and conclusions, and we should all hear them - then the true long-term interests of Americans are being mocked. Our future well-being is being cynically sacrificed on the altar of phony claims about the next few fiscal years.

Because make no mistake: If we spend less now on health care, we will get less health in the future. More people will die or be disabled before their time, and that will be costly, indeed.

But those who want "play God" will be satisfied, because they will have had the pleasure of toying and tinkering with the rest of us.

-- James Pinkerton

This is a guest post by a colleague and TWN regular Richard Vague

Handling the Economic Crisis - A Report Card

If we really want to have enduring, muscular economic growth, then where's the enhanced support for the truly cutting edge things that will make that happen?

Repatriating telemarketing jobs from the Philippines and textile jobs from China isn't going to do it. And it won't just be "green" investment, a non-trivial part of which is misguided. It will instead be nanotechnology, stem-cell research, genetic engineering and the many other nascent industries that require highest order intellectual capital and can be the giant industries of tomorrow.

Period.

In the meantime, there's an ugly, deep recession to fix.

The cause of the recession was straightforward, and the same as the cause of most other such booms and busts dating back to the start of the Industrial Age. Far too much leverage. In this case, it was too much leverage in the mortgage business, resulting in a stunningly rapid and massive $3+ trillion (or 80+%) build-up in mortgage loans in roughly four years, much of which went to unqualified buyers. And almost nobody noticed.

This overleveraging was brought by gross mismanagement of the government's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs, by underregulated lending entities including hedge funds and insurance companies, by conflicted rating agencies, and by too-low interest rates courtesy of the Fed. And whatever emergency "dry-powder" we had as a nation to deal with this kind of situation had already been spent on the multi-trillion dollar Iraqi War and other niceties, as evidenced by an increase in Federal debt under President Bush from $5 trillion to almost $11 trillion.

And then In the midst of this increasingly fragile mortgage crisis, somebody inexplicably let Lehman Brothers fail, and everybody went running for cover.

Ka-boom!

On the surface, navigating towards a solution to this crisis seems confusing, because so many people have used it as an excuse to drag out their pre-existing agendas. Pro-labor?

Well then voila! - the cause is the decline in manufacturing jobs - even though that has little to do with it.

But the path to recovery is fairly straightforward, and involves four items which I have previously outlined in TWN. The immediate-term steps to a solution I proposed - in order of importance - were accommodative money policy, lender recapitalization, stimulus by way of accelerated spending on necessary projects, the coordination of these actions internationally.

Here's the interim report card on the actions of our government on each:

Federal Reserve Bank accommodation - the grade is A. For all the Fed's bungling and mismanagement before and since, it stepped in quickly and assertively and did the two most critical things needed in any crash, 1) it increased the money supply and, 2) except for Lehman, it stepped in as lender of last resort to the financial institution industry. This is the biggest single difference between the current crisis and the Depression.

There, Fed restrictions and inactions caused the money to fall by a draconian 30% -drying up money across the nation - and no institution served as the lender of last resort to the financial services industry. (Add to that Smoot-Hawley and an increase in taxes, and you've got the ingredients that turned the Crash of 1929 into the Great Depression.) By way of contrast, in the Depression, GDP declined over 40%, as compared to today's single digit decline, and unemployment reached a third of the workforce, as compared to today's reported 10%.

With this monetary expansion, concerns of future inflation are justified, but that will need to be addressed after a recovery is underway.

Lender recapitalization. Grade is D. On the good side, no other institutional collapses have occurred since Lehman, but it is as if Rube Goldberg himself designed the many facets of the bank recovery plan, and the government felt that no straightforward solution should be used if a convoluted alternative were available.

Regardless of the government's approach, a healthy banking system can preserve and create more jobs than any government stimulus program. So the needed end goal is banks that have appropriately recognized losses, and have then raised a full, new measure of capital so that they can provide unfettered support for deserving customers. But this has not happened, and bank loans across the country continue to decline steeply.
Contrary to the statements of some commentators, there are legions of borrowers - whether small, medium or large - that are deserving but are having their loans curtailed or withdrawn, causing them to shrink their businesses or shelve expansion plans. Anecdotally, we hear that while regulators are being accommodating to banks on existing problems credits, they are being very restrictive on the extension of new credit, resulting in enough "zombie"-ness to prevent them thus far from playing the robust role needed in the recovery.

I deem the failure to get to the lending system at all levels fully recapitalized and ready to lend to be the biggest shortcoming of government's efforts to date, and far more important than the stimulus package. I also find this to be the area where I am most pessimistic about the government's ability to right its course.

Stimulus. The Grade is F. How can we give the stimulus any other grade when it is already July, and only the tiniest sliver of stimulus money has reached its intended destinations? And how can Paul Krugman continue to call for another stimulus bill when the current one is still largely undeployed? (His repeated invocation of 1937 ignores that the retrenchment of that year was just as likely the result of monetary and tax policy as reduced stimulus.)

Even if the stimulus package were comprised only of the most worthy projects, the fact that it has moved so slowly would warrant the F. However, the stimulus package was a slapdash bill filled with initiatives that won't help. I continue to recommend a position somewhere between doing nothing and doing all that Krugman advocates - a stimulus effort that consist of as many truly necessary projects as can be found accelerated into the present, but no pork.

The truth is, the level of our nation's debt to GDP is rising to perilous heights unseen since World War II - 70%? 80%? 100%? - and there will be hell to pay for this when the recovery begins. Stagflation anyone?

International coordination - the grade is B. We have avoided a repeat of Smoot-Hawley, even though the impulse to re-smoot is always present, and present in trace amount in places like the Waxman bill. Further, we have stepped up support to the World Bank and IMF. And we have maintained an active dialogue with other countries, though the actions of other countries in dealing with the recession have often seemed more appropriate than our own.

Overall - the grade is C. The economy is fragile, unemployment continues to rise, and the economy could just as easily retrench as go forward.

The longer-term structural changes needed are as follows. First and foremost, we need a regulatory structure that is broad enough to encompass all lenders, and powerful enough to impose appropriately high capital requirements, which is the essence of containing leverage. Further, we need some mechanism to prevent the Fed from adopting unnecessarily low rates - and thus inappropriate stimulus - in periods when the economy is growing; something along the lines of a Taylor Rule approach. And ultimately, after the recovery is underway, we will need to get federal debt to GDP levels out of the stratosphere.

A final structural issue that has been discussed frequently in this crisis is the disequilibrium between the countries with export economies that build up excess cash such as China, and the large trade-deficit countries such as the United States. In the view of some, the mortgage boom was unavoidable because the large surpluses of other countries were being reinvested in the U.S.

While I don't disagree with some aspects of this view, I believe that higher short term rates and higher capital requirements applied appropriately to all lenders would have prevented most of the overbuilding and associated excess lending. Couple those changes with Soros's plan to have a larger short-term loan facility available to other countries to obviate their need to build up cash reserves, and we will have addressed much of this problem. (Further, Soros's fundamental concern about the structural post World War II increase in system-wide leverage could be addressed, at least in part, by capital requirements.

So let's get the banks back lending again, let's keep the stimulus focused on necessary projects, let's support international liquidity efforts, and let's hope the Fed continues to be accommodating.

Postscript:

I find the "too-big-to-fail" debate at least somewhat mystifying, because a bank failure can
be structured so that the bank continues to operate without missing a step. The bank closes one evening, and reopens under FDIC ownership the very next day. Most of the bank's customer's are unaffected; and most employees other than top management keep their jobs.

The stockholders and bondholders are wiped out, but they were investors who knew their capital was at risk. The board of directors and top managers are out, but they were the ones responsible. The government owns the bank, but it can readily sell the bank or make a public offering of new stock in the bank in due course as the internal problems are sifted through and bad assets are partitioned off to a separate entity.

-- Richard Vague

Caroline Esser is a research intern at the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program.

Although the G8 summit in Italy resulted in little progress toward establishing greenhouse gas emissions targets, the leaders of the G-8 countries are claiming a small success in the realm of food security. The summit launched a hunger initiative that will dedicate $20 billion to rural development.

This program, the L'Aquila Initiative on Global Food Security, will focus primarily on agricultural development rather than traditional direct food aid. Rather than simply funding the shipment of food from the developed countries, this initiative will support the advancement of agricultural methods, infrastructure, and education in order to increase agricultural productivity in the developing world.

Many development experts have long pushed for this sort of foreign aid, promoting it as a far more effective poverty fighting tool than direct food aid. A report published by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in February, Renewing American Leadership in the Fight Against Global Hunger and Poverty, outlines just how important such assistance is.

The report concludes that "rural hunger and poverty decline dramatically when education, investment, and new technologies give farmers better ways to be productive."

As the report discusses, historically U.S. food aid has been unnecessarily expensive due to the requirement that food be bought in the U.S. and then shipped to the country in need, regardless of the recipient country's location or the availability of food in near-by countries. Until recently, there has been little sign that U.S. policy would change. For instance, despite President Bush's persistent push for aid reform and local purchase, Congress allotted a mere $25 million to the USDA's Local and Regional Procurement pilot program for FY2010.

However, as evidenced by the G8 summit and Obama's FY 2010 Congressional Budget requests, it is clear that the movement President Bush initiated is beginning to gain momentum. Out of the $5.3 billion requested for USAID food security programs, Obama has asked that $1 billion be dedicated to agricultural development assistance (double the amount requested for FY 2009), and $300 million to local and regional procurement of food.

But despite these seemingly positive developments, neither the United States nor the countries who signed the Food Security Initiative deserve congratulations quite yet.

First and foremost, it remains unclear whether the $20 billion pledged at the G8 summit will actually materialize. Many fear that the G8 will fail to produce the amount pledged just as happened at the 2005 summit.

Likewise, the jury is still out on whether Obama will be more successful than Bush in persuading Congress to rethink U.S. food assistance. Congress has long stood behind the Farm Bill, crop subsidies, and the mass shipment of U.S. food to the developing world. It remains unclear how Obama intends to persuade Congress to change its ways.

-- Caroline Esser

Jonathan Wallace is Assistant to the President at the New America Foundation.

Marc Lynch has a much discussed post over at Foreign Policy that refracts the beef between hip-hop legend Jay-Z and hip-hop artist The Game through the lens of international relations theory.

The blogosphere has been abuzz with responses (Spencer Ackerman, Abu Muqawama, and Ezra Klein) and they have been some of the most interesting blog bites in the normally dreary summer months here in DC.

The conventional wisdom in these posts is to compare Jay-Z to a declining hegemonic power seeking to manage its decline and retain influence as long as possible. Specifically, Jay-Z's song "Death of Auto-tune (D.O.A.)" is seen as his way to shape the hip-hop arena in which he will have a more limited influence going forward.

Lynch advises Jay-Z to use a mixture of soft power and proxy conflict to defeat his adversaries to avoid exposing his increasing weakness as the primary actor in hip-hop.

However, I see this Jay-Z/Auto-tune debate differently.

Here, Jay-Z has taken the position used to such great effect by Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign (with Auto-tuning standing in for the Bush Doctrine). Jay-Z has forcefully come out against something that - while popular for a bit - was surely unsustainable as a creative force in music.

Just as Obama did while running as the anti-Bush foreign policy candidate, Jay-Z has made himself the face of the anti-auto tune movement and will surely get credit for its imminent demise.

Meanwhile, many tenets of the Bush Doctrine were being phased out or had already been eliminated by the time the general election rolled around. Obama has reaped the rewards (more internationally than domestically) of the end of the Bush Doctrine even though many of Bush's policies would have been phased out with or without Obama.

Both Jay-Z and Barack Obama shrewdly pounced at the right moment to announce the death of a trend/policy that had already worn out its welcome. For Obama, it helped propel him to leader of the free world. For Jay-Z, it may help cement his status as leader of the hip hop world.

PS: To add an IR dimension to this post, I just want to point out the uber-realism of Kanye West. When Auto-Tune was big, he jumped in with both feet. However, sensing the historical moment in hip-hop affairs, Kanye has now aligned himself with Jay-Z and declared Jay's new album (which West executive produced) an "auto-tune free zone".

Mr. West seems to have a discerning eye for the politics; he would acclimate himself well to the US Senate (indeed, he has the ego for it.)

-- Jonathan Wallace

Katherine Tiedemann is a policy analyst at the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program.

The everyday lives of Afghanistan's some 16 million women are often forgotten or overlooked in the morass that is US involvement in Afghanistan. The news cycle revolves around helicopter crashes, numbers of Western troops being sent to the country, and US military fatality body counts - all critical issues to be sure, significant in justifying the US presence in the region and understanding the security conditions there.

But a gripping, somewhat out of the ordinary piece in today's Los Angeles Times caught my eye. The piece details in forceful language the sad stories that come out of the few women's shelters in Afghanistan. David Zucchino writes:

Women have virtually no options in Afghan tribal culture. It would be scandalous for a woman to live alone or pursue a job on her own. They are dependent on men for food, clothing, shelter and status -- and often must give up their children when seeking divorce. Girls have to be at least 16 to get married, but the law is widely ignored. Most women who reach the shelter are...old enough and bold enough to dare to escape; often they flee to police stations or a local human rights group.

Traditionally, police returned abused women to their husbands. But since "family response units" staffed by female officers were established in some police stations in 2006, police in Kabul have been more willing to steer women to shelters. Still, police in rural areas routinely return abused women to their husbands, rights groups say...

Most abused Afghan women never reach shelters. Some commit suicide, occasionally by self-immolation. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has documented six such cases a month this year, a fraction of the total in a country where such tragedies are rarely reported, especially in rural areas.

The United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan recently released a detailed report on violence against women in Afghanistan whose table of contents alone jerks at my heartstrings: sections include "When tradition suppresses women's voices; impact on women's professional lives; is rape a crime in Afghanistan?; when injustice becomes the norm."

The report's recommendations are admirable - but my cynical side has to ask how realistic it is to expect the government of Afghanistan to take actions like "adopt[ing] and implement[ing] affirmative action laws and policies aimed at redressing the current gender-imbalance."

But we should also listen to Afghan women, as Robert Greenwald pointed out yesterday. Providing refuge for battered women in Afghanistan is one way to help, as the some 750 women who have sought refuge in the privately-funded Family Guidance Center in Kabul have shared.

But there are 1,637 domestic violence shelters in the United States - for some 150 million women - and only six to cover Afghanistan's 16 million women. For those doing the division, that's one shelter per every some 90,000 US women and one per every 2.7 million Afghan women - clearly there is still a lot of room for improvement.

Let's hope Karzai's government keeps "trying to address women's rights".

-- Katherine Tiedemann

In the aftermath of last week's G-8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, there is a debate emerging over whether to expand the group. The most popular proposal would include Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Mexico and South Africa in a G-14.

Not surprisingly, the leaders of the six potential members generally support expanding the organization, while the current G-8 members are mixed. Russia, Germany, and Canada - whose influence stand to diminish from expanding the group - oppose expansion at this time.

The United States supports a more inclusive format. President Obama said "One thing that is absolutely true is that for us to think we can somehow deal with some of these global challenges in the absence of major powers like China, India and Brazil seems to be wrongheaded."

I think the Obama administration is correct to support expanding the club. Updating international institutions to reflect today's power realities is important and long overdue.

It is interesting to note, however, that the G-8 was originally intended as a kind of League of Democracies for the wealthy republics of Europe and North America (and Japan). Indeed, in 2006, Russia's G-8 presidency was considered by many to be an embarrassment because of Russia's increasingly authoritarian political system.

The debate surrounding "the issue of the Gs" reflects an acknowledgment that the G-8 will not have the capacity to make global policy if it does not expand to include non-democratic countries.

-- Ben Katcher

Caroline Esser is a research intern at the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program.

After reading this Council on Foreign Relations interview with Bernard Gwertzman, it struck me how strange and remarkable Honduran President Manuel Zelaya's simultaneous relationships with both the United States and Venezuela truly were.

While in power, Zelaya managed to join the Hugo Chavez-led, Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas while preserving friendly relations with the United States and maintaining a steady flow of foreign aid from Washington.

The success of Zelaya's balancing act partially explains the surprisingly similar responses of the United States and Venezuela to the recent political unrest in Honduras. In addition to both countries demanding Zelaya's reinstatement in the name of democracy (a rather ironic statement coming from Chavez), both countries also levied economic sanctions against Honduras last week.

Venezuela's announcement on Wednesday that it will cease the shipment of subsidized Venezuelan oil was followed a day later by the Obama administration's announcement that the United States will place a hold on its $16.5 million military aid program.

Unsurprisingly, Chavez and Obama desire the reinstatement of Zelaya for quite different reasons. Chavez' influence in Latin America would benefit from the return of a leftist ally who followed in his footsteps by trying to alter his country's presidential term limit to extend his rule.

Obama, on the other hand, has no personal allegiance to Zelaya. As I discussed in an earlier post, Obama has made it clear that his interest is in the preservation of the democratic process rather than any one political leader. Obama acknowledged his ideological differences with Zelaya, stating last week that "America supports now the restoration of the democratically elected president of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies."

It will be difficult for Honduras to maintain friendly relationships with both Washington and Caracas going forward. As Gwertzman notes in his interview, it seems unlikely that Zelaya will be able to maintain his relationship with Chavez and reclaim the presidency seeing as "a good part of the Honduran elite and those supporting Micheletti live in absolute fear of Hugo Chavez".

As negotiations between Zelaya and Roberto Micheletti continue, it will be worth keeping an eye on whether the Obama administration can score a strategic victory by creating some distance between Honduras' new political regime and Caracas.

-- Caroline Esser

Jon Weinberg is a research intern with the New America Foundation's Middle East Task Force.

Yesterday marked the tenth anniversary of the 1999 student protests in Iran. The protests, which began with the government shutdown of the reformist newspaper, Salam, bear several striking resemblances to those that have taken place in the aftermath of the country's recent June elections.

Nevertheless, perhaps the greatest disparity between the current Iranian protests and those of a decade ago is the existence of websites like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. These websites keep Iranian protesters informed about their progress and give the world a firsthand account of what is happening on the ground.

During the July 1999 protests 21 year-old Ahmad Batari became his movement's de facto poster child for appearing on the cover of that week's Economist holding a blood-spattered t-shirt of a fellow protester.

In some ways, this image of Batari offers a salient parallel to the video footage of Neda Agha-Soltan (known by her admirers and mourners simply as "Neda"), taken on June 20th when the 27 year-old aspiring singer was shot during while peacefully protesting in Tehran.

Yet, it is the stark contrasts between Ahmad's and Neda's stories that highlight why the events of the past four weeks do not have as strong of a historical precedent as many believe. In 1999, the Iranian government could effectively restrict communication and media outlets. Those were the days when journalists and the rest of the world had to settle on an old photograph of Batari and the bloodied shirt.

Now, two videos of Neda's death are circulating around the internet. News of the videos spread like wildfire, mostly via Twitter after the government disabled SMS texting. On July 3rd, a third video--which was taken from a rooftop--emerged on YouTube confirming Neda was guilty of little more than proximity to a crowd shouting marg bar dictator!-- "Death to the dictator!"

I have no doubt that similar, though hopefully less tragic, footage will emerge from yesterday's protests. Again, young Iranians have gathered around Tehran University chanting "Death to the dictator." This time, protesters were met with tear gas and nightsticks instead of bullets, perhaps as a result of the Neda videos.

Thus, despite President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ostensible electoral victory, it is to their disadvantage that the Iran that they control is fundamentally different than the Iran of 1999. Even if Ahmadinejad's supporters can prove the election results of June 12th, in all probability it will only get easier for the tens of millions of Iranian dissidents to make themselves heard--and even easier for anyone with an internet connection to hear them.

-- Jon Weinberg

Monica Baer is a research intern with the New America Foundation's American Strategy Program.

President Obama is one small step closer to his vision of a nuclear-free world. On July 6, he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the Joint Understanding for the START Follow-on Treaty in Moscow. The agreement is the first move towards creating a new treaty that will replace the 1991 START I treaty when it expires in December.

President Obama has long expressed his hopes for arms control and nonproliferation, promising a new direction in nuclear policy and the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide. President Obama's remarks this April during his speech in Prague were a further indication of his wish to make the U.S. a leader in the movement towards disarmament. At one point, in an effort to enthuse the gathered crowd, he uttered the slogan that became legendary during his presidential campaign, "Yes, we can."

William Broad and David Sanger's important piece on July 4, 2009 illustrate just how far back President Obama's passion for disarmament goes. And on Monday, twenty-six years after he first spoke of a "nuclear free world," President Obama signed an agreement that may pave the way for global nuclear disarmament.

Although the White House has yet to release the complete text of the Joint Understanding, the Kremlin has the Russian text of the agreement online. Jeffrey Lewis, the publisher of the blog ArmsControlWonk, has posted his views on the START Follow-on as well as an English translation of the accord.

The Joint Understanding commits the United States and Russia to reducing their strategic warheads to 1,500-1,675 and their delivery systems to 500-1,100. Lewis notes that a reduction to 1,500-1,675 warheads, a range not much lower than that of George Bush's 2002 Moscow Treaty, is a sign that the Obama Administration is waiting for the release of the Nuclear Posture Review before making any deep cuts in its nuclear arsenal.

The large range between 500-1,100 delivery systems is another sign of incomplete negotiations. Yet, as Lewis sensibly argues, the Joint Understanding is not meant to be a deep cuts treaty, but a means of creating a legal framework that will effectively place verifiable measures on U.S. and Russian stockpiles.

The world is still many hurdles away from ridding itself of its nuclear arsenal, but this week's events show we are finally headed in the right direction.

-- Monica Baer

Jonathan Wallace is the Assistant to the President at the New America Foundation.

After the G-8 meetings in Italy, President Barack Obama will travel to Ghana on his first visit to Africa (discounting his visit to Egypt). He will visit Cape Coast Castle, an infamous slave trading port, and give a speech to the Ghanaian parliament.

The speech to parliament is an appropriate gesture as Ghana is West Africa's most stable democracy, having recently undergone a peaceful transition of power between two different political parties after a very close and contentious election. The election last year of John Atta Mills was particularly significant and laudable in comparison to the election violence that marred contests in Kenya and Zimbabwe and the corruption of Nigeria's 2007 vote.

Ghana's discovery of oil in 2007 in the large Jubilee field in the Gulf of Guinea, has raised concerns that this well-governed though still fairly undeveloped country may follow the same tragic path as Angola, Chad, and Nigeria. Oil wealth in these states has led to corruption, increased poverty, violence, the desertion of indigenous industry outside of energy, and declining living standard for all but a few well-connected elites.

Ghana is well aware of this trap and has been looking to set up institutions to avoid the so-called "resource curse." Impressively, these efforts span presidential administrations and political parties in Ghana, but there is much more to be done.

This Oxfam report does an excellent job laying out the challenges ahead for Ghana policy makers and some solutions to try to avoid falling into a tired and tragic narrative. Some of the better suggestions include building and strengthening the regulatory regime before the oil starts to flow and delaying spending to avoid the dreaded "Dutch disease."

Obama was right to choose Ghana for his first true African visit. Instead of visiting his father's native Kenya, or oil behemoth Nigeria, President Obama will recognize that good governance can flourish in Africa and be a model for other nations. Hopefully, he will remind the Ghanaian policy makers that transparency is the best method to ensure broadly shared prosperity, and that it becomes especially important with the added blessing and burden of oil wealth.

-- Jonathan Wallace

Jonathan Guyer is a Program Associate for the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force.

Last week, the mainstream media only touched on the attempt by the Free Gaza Movement to reach the occupied territory by boat. Israel Defense Forces boarded their vessel, The Spirit of Humanity, which was carrying humanitarian aid. In spite of the incarceration of former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Maguire, along with nineteen other activists who were aboard the ship, the story has gained little traction on our side of the ocean.

Yesterday, Congresswoman McKinney arrived safely back in the US, and in an interview, she emphasized the need for a new approach to Gaza:

What happened to us pales in comparison to what happens to the people of Gaza everyday, to Palestinians everyday, and so we can't forget that we have a new administration. This new administration promised us hope and change. We expect a change in the policies that are put forward from Washington, DC. We have yet to see that. We need to press further and press harder to achieve that.

Gaza is still a taboo subject for American leadership. Even as President Obama briefly acknowledged Gaza in his Cairo University speech ("And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security."), not enough has been done on the ground to allow the flow of humanitarian and reconstruction aid.

The UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Palestinians Territories (OCHA-oPT) recently reported that the weekly inflow of goods remains disturbingly below the needs of Gaza's people:

This week, a total of 417 truckloads of goods entered Gaza, less than 18% of the weekly average during the first five months of 2007, before the Hamas takeover. The entry of other major essential goods, including materials for reconstruction, spare parts for water and sanitation projects, and industrial and agricultural materials remain barred from entry or restricted to limited quantities.

-- Jonathan Guyer

Here is a brilliant take by James Pinkerton in a special Politico online forum on the failings of the Obama administration so far when it comes to turning this economy around:

Obviously the "stimulus" was a a dud--and the rate that things are going, the next "stimulus," too, will be a dud. Deficit spending is valuable only if you get something more valuable in return for that spending. Otherwise, stimulus spending is just a ticket on the Argentina Express.

During the New Deal, we deficit-spent and in return, we got bridges, roads, dams, and entire power systems. And unemployment fell. Today, we are getting the promise of such systems, but not the results - the money is not being spent on tangible things, nothing is being built. Why? Because the process simply is not designed to go fast, because the environmental-impact-statement-writers and NIMBYs block everything -- and the cap-and-traders stand ready to kill off the rest of the energy economy.

So of course unemployment is rising. There's no stimulus, except for Yale
Law grads, and, of course, Goldman Sachs.

If President Obama wanted the nationwide economy to recover, he would have had to rethink America's basic approach to infrastructure and energy, with an eye toward more, not less, sooner, not later. That was the legislation he should have sought back in January; instead, he made the narrow pipeline connecting inputs and outputs even narrower.

That's a formula for slow-motion disaster, as we are seeing every day now.

Thus far, Obama has shown that he is more about reflating the economy than restructuring it -- and unless he changes course in what will probably be a next stimulus package, Obama can not presume to Rooseveltian status -- nor does he rank high in terms of Hamiltonian national economic thinking either.

While Hamilton laid the groundwork for national banking and credit, he always understood that the real economy and manufacturing strength were the core objectives behind his concept of national power. Obama is not there yet.

-- Steve Clemons

My colleague Jon Weinberg has posted a provocative piece about Vice President Joe Biden's comments about Israel and Iran. Weinberg debates how much of a faux-pas Biden's comments were -- and I think that this general line of attack against Biden's statement is off the mark.

I am in rural Italy and may have missed much of the color of Biden's statement and the after the fact handicapping of these remarks, but to refresh, here is the exchange with George Stephanopoulos on Israel's and America's interests.

There is a lot of hyperventilation in American civil society about the prospect of Israel bombing Iran. I get a two dozen emails a day -- for the last few years -- from people absolutely convinced that Israel will take matters into its own hands with regard to Iran and deploy an aerial bombing raid.

I myself was the person who outed one of Vice President Cheney's then national security staff for making a similar suggestion and for asserting that such a move would "tie the President's hands." In that case, then, the President was George W. Bush.

President Bush and his team made very clear -- crystal clear -- to the Israeli government that it had not only NO green light to bomb Iran but that any such gesture would create a serious rupture in US-Israel relations and would probably suspend defense cooperation on all key levels.

There is no way that the Obama administration is telling Israel anything less stern than the George W. Bush administration did.

Joe Biden's comments demystified Israel's public hyperventilation about Iran and finally put the onus on Israel in a symbolic way. He states clearly that Israel is a sovereign nation that needs to make choices about its interests that depend on its own assessments, not those of the United States.

House Foreign Relations Chairman Howard Berman, a strong supporter and friend of AIPAC, has indeed told groups privately that Israel bombing Iran under current circumstances would bust a massive hole in US-Israel relations and that Israel cannot be in the business of choosing America's strategic choices.

Biden is saying precisely the same thing -- but in a more nuanced fashion.

That raises the question of why there is so much talk in Israel and elsewhere about the prospects of Israel bombing Iran's nuclear facilities -- or those that it can find.

The answer seems obvious to me. Israel's leaders are creating the illusion that every day the country does not launch an attack against Iran, that is another day in which Israel has made a "concession" to American demands, another day in which Israel has been nudged to do something with which it is not comfortable.

This image of false concessions thus makes it more difficult, in the calculations of Netanyahu and Lieberman, for America to push Israel on other concessions that would be part of a credible Israel-Palestine peace process.

Joe Biden was stating the obvious. If Israel attacks Iran, Israel is on its own -- and must carry the consequences for those actions. The implication was that the US would not be there with them -- at least not at this point.

There was no green light for a bombing run. There was more of a great big spotlight on the costs and consequences of Israel's potential actions. Given the costs, Israel will not attack Iran -- and got that message from both Biden and Obama.

Talking about bombing Iran is a serious distraction from real issues in the region. It is a fake issue designed to distract.

-- Steve Clemons

Jon Weinberg is a Research Intern with the New America Foundation's Middle East Task Force.

In the wake of Joe Biden's apparent suggestion on Sunday's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos that should diplomacy fail, Israel has the right to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, journalists and pundits from Washington to Tel Aviv to Doha have been reading too deeply into the vice president's statements.

True, Vice President Biden is infamous for his many verbal faux-pas, but this slip-up does not even approach the severity of those past. In fact, it may not be much of a slip-up at all.

Katherine Tiedemann is a Policy Analyst at the New America Foundation.

The drone wars continue. This morning's Predator strike in Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud's hometown of Makeen, South Waziristan is the 25th this year (compared to six this time last year), and the fourth in the last two weeks to target Mehsud. A strike in late June missed Mehsud by just a few hours. And even though the Pakistani army carried out its own offensive just hours after this morning's US strikes, a spokesman for the Pakistani military said the attacks were not coordinated, and insisted that the American strikes are counterproductive to the campaign.

Pakistani objection to the use of airpower in war is no recent phenomenon. In the Third Waziristan War, fought in 1919 between the British army and Afghan rebel forces, the British used the Handley Page Type O, an early bomber, to attack Kabul from the sky. As they do 90 years later, the Pashtun warriors considered the airstrikes "unsporting," as historian Jules Stewart said at a Jamestown Foundation conference in April.

Late last month, the Pakistani army launched an offensive in South Waziristan, after around three months of fighting the Taliban in the Swat Valley (once known as Pakistan's Switzerland). My New America Foundation colleague Nick Schmidle argues that the army should work on clearing-holding-building in Swat before moving on to the Waziristans, and he's right--the Pakistani military has a history of somewhat half-hearted attempts at banishing its militant scourge, and so should focus on what they may actually be able to accomplish, one step at a time.

The CIA's drones program is likely to continue for the near term, as unpopular as it is among Pakistanis, because frankly, there aren't many other options.

-- Katherine Tiedemann

On Saturday the Organization of American States (OAS) withdrew Honduras' participation rights citing their breach of the Inter-American Democratic Charter as the basis for this decision. The charter insists that all member nations abide by democratic principles and outlines repercussions for "unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order". However, the charter also states that the permanent council undertake the "necessary diplomatic initiatives" to resolve the situation prior to suspending a nation's rights. By this standard the OAS' reaction has been hasty rather than diplomatic.

The strong-willed Honduran government attempted to preempt ejection from the OAS by withdrawing their membership and accusing the OAS of acting unilaterally. Since the OAS has labeled the current government of Honduras illegitimate, their resignation was denied and they were promptly voted out by the rest of the organization.

The resolution against Honduras stopped short of calling for economic sanctions, but encouraged the member states to review their relationship with Honduras. The United States, which is Honduras' chief trading partner and generous aid donor, has hesitated to impose strict economic sanctions hoping for a diplomatic solution. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has invited Zelaya to Washington Tuesday for high level talks which is the first sign of support specifically for the ousted president. Major action by the United States will most likely follow Clinton's meeting with Zelaya.

Buoyed by broad international support, Zelaya had hoped for a triumphant return to Honduras this past weekend to reclaim his presidential title. But on Sunday he and his high profile entourage were turned away from the nation's major airport unable to land. The expected showdown was relegated to a fly-over. On the streets below, protests turned bloody as pro-Zelaya demonstrators and soldiers clashed near the airport.

-- Faith Smith

In the two weeks since French President Nicholas Sarkozy condemned the all-enveloping burqa or niqab garment as a sign of the "subjugation" and "debasement" of women, words have flown in France as well as Britain and the United States about the proper extent of religious practice in public. In this vein the French National Assembly convened a special commission last week that will investigate for six months and recommend whether or not to ban the burqa in France.

Arguing for the ban, a Muslim woman, Mona Eltawahy, wrote in the New York Times that the burqa served to erase women from the public sphere. She further wrote that many in Europe or America were afraid to speak out against the burqa, a silence that would "sacrifice women at the altar of political correctness."

I just stopped at an internet cafe in Perugia, Italy and watched this short Al Jazeera clip done by my friend Clayton Swisher who is apparently embedded with US troops in Afghanistan.

One of the most interesting lines in the clip is a comment that chasing the Taliban is "like chasing ghosts."

-- Steve Clemons

A reader just forwarded me this New York Times clip on the "confession" of Mohammad Ali Abtahi, an adviser to former Iran President Khatami who has also been an important and talented blogger.

From "Top Reformers Admitted Plot, Iran Declares" by Michael Slackman:

Iranian leaders say they have obtained confessions from top reformist officials that they plotted to bring down the government with a "velvet" revolution
...
Atef, a Web site of a conservative member of Parliament, referred to a video of Mohammad Ali Abtahi, who served as vice president in the reform government of former President Mohammed Khatami, as showing that he tearfully "welcomed being defrocked and has confessed to provoking people, causing tension and creating media chaos."
....
Mr. Memarian said that even in 2004, his interrogators were most interested in several leading reformers, including Mr. Abtahi, who at the time was an adviser to the president. When he was finally released, and after his confession was published by Fars, he was asked to testify before a committee led by the reform government investigating confessions, which included Mr. Abtahi. Mr. Abtahi, who has not been heard from since his arrest on June 16, understood even back then just how vulnerable he was, Mr. Memarian recalled.

"Abtahi said, 'We cannot guarantee anyone's security,' " Mr. Memarian said. " 'We know what happened to you guys. When you leave this building we do not know will happen to you, or what can happen to us in this committee.' "

This just seems so Arthur Koestler. . .very dark.

We hope that Abtahi is soon released and has the opportunity to further work for reform inside the Islamic Republic of Iran despite the so-called "confessions" that the state has wrung out of him.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note, exclusive to The Washington Note, by James P. Pinkerton -- a contributor to the Fox News Channel and policy blogger. Pinkerton is also fellow at the New America Foundation, and contributing editor at The American Conservative magazine.

TWN invited Pinkerton to share this 'provocation' on the subject of health care reform in order to generate healthy discussion and debate here on the blog. We look forward to civil, informed discussion -- but be respectful.

Why the Health Care Debate Is Boring -- And How to Make It Interesting!

Is there a bigger snooze than "health care reform"? Any article that begins "A better plan to provide health care . . ." is likely to lose most of its readership in the first sentence.

But at the same time, few categories of news are more compelling than medical breakthroughs -- or medical calamities, or medical news in general. People like to learn about new treatments and cures, and they are also fascinated by epidemics, disasters, autopsy reports, environmental dangers, and information about defective products and recalls.

Thus the paradox: "Health care" is dull, but "medicine" is compelling.

To put it another way, "health care" is theoretical: Who finances it, and how? Who gets it, and how? Such a policy debate is obviously important; it is just not very interesting.

Discussions of health care policy are like discussions of economics. In fact, health care policy is a subset of economics -- the studying of the allocation of scarce resources. And while some find health care economics so interesting that they make it their life's work, to most people, it's just more dismal science.

But "medicine" is intensely practical. It's about you. What medical news should you click on? Or which medical drama should you watch on TV? Which medical thriller should you read? What medicines should you take? What advertisements should you consider and evaluate? Which doctor, or hospital, should you go to?

In other words, while only a tiny fraction of the population is really interested in health care policy, near 100 percent are interested in medical matters of one kind or another.

So the concept of "health care" has managed to do the seemingly impossible: It has drained away the flesh-and-blood fascination that people have for their bodies, and for other people's bodies.

It's almost as if the Washington wonks -- right as well as left -- have conspired to make "health care" boring, so that ordinary people, interested as they are in "medicine," won't bother them, the wonks, as they do their work on "health care." Could it be that liberal health-care experts wish to cook up schemes for rationing and cost-control far from the public spotlight--and that conservatives, wallowing in the minutiae of "medical savings accounts," wish for similar obscurity?

If so, then the policy experts have gotten their wish: "Health care" is too boring for most people to worry about; instead, people tune into "medicine."

But of course, this bifurcation of "health care" and "medicine" will not last for long, because soon health-care policy will impinge, in a big way, on medicine. And that's when, most likely, the wonks' policies will hit the fan, because it's unlikely that anything that health-care theorists come up with in Washington will prove pleasing to practical-minded medical consumers.

Indeed, there's a grand canyon between the tiny elite of health-policy-propounders and the masses of mere medicine-consumers.

Right now, politicians, reading from talking points provided by their nerdy staffs, can promise anything. But if and when medical consumption starts really to change, most likely for the worse, that will be a different story for previously apathetic Americans. "Controlling costs" is a great buzz phrase, but costs that are controlled mean real pain for real people.

Now if the Obama Administration and the Congress can control costs in just the right way -- if they succeed in implementing a fair health care plan that cuts only "waste, fraud, and abuse" -- they will, of course, be heroes to the voters. But if, maybe, a new health care plan causes shortages, or prevents the creation of new drugs and therapies, or shuts down hospitals, look out. An estimated 25 million Americans are members of disease-support groups; they might suddenly realize that "health care" has affected the progress of "medicine."

So how to make "health care" interesting?

Easy. Call it "medicine"; as marketers say, tangibilize the intangible. For instance, could Michael Jackson's life have been saved if an automated external defibrillator (AED) had been in his house? An AED costs about $1300. That's a lot of money, but the cost of these life-saving devices be brought down through volume production and discounts.

Or how about Steve Jobs and his liver transplant? We shouldn't begrudge him his new liver, but each of us should ask: "Where's mine, if I were to need one?" Yes, liver transplants are expensive, but how much cheaper would they be if new livers were grown from test tubes, and if the surgery could be robot-ized? Or if some new and cheaper technique for dealing with liver failure were created?

And then there's Barack Obama himself. During his June 24 ABC News "town hall" from the White House, the President was asked a pointed question by Dr. Orrin Devinsky, of New York University, and gave a revealing answer.

Devinsky observed that elites often propose health care plans that restrict options for the general public, knowing that they themselves will always have the personal wealth to buy the best possible coverage on the open market. And so Devinsky asked Obama if he would commit to social solidarity, and lead by example -- by pledging not to seek out extraordinary medical help for his family, beyond what his own proposed plan would provide. As reported by ABC's Jake Tapper and Karen Travers, Obama, a multimillionaire even before he became president, refused to make such a pledge, saying, instead, "If it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care."

Well, all right then. Now we are getting some human-interest drama. And are we perhaps getting a little bit of hypocrisy, a double standard or two? To Obama the political leader, "health care" is a policy prescription for the nation. To Obama the family man, "medicine" is personal--his own business, to take care of on his own.

But for advocates of sweeping health care "reform," the personal is political -- or at least it should be. If it's a good standard for him, then it should be a good standard for everyone else as well.

Yet for now, the debate over "health care" is too narrow--a battle between liberals enamored of central planning -- oops, I mean the "public option" -- and conservatives enamored of "market forces." And so regular people tune out, even though both the left and the right policy elites seem to agree that "medicine" is too expensive. But Americans will tune back in, with a vengeance, when the scrimping results of new health-care policy begin adversely to affect real medical care.

Thus the challenge to those of us who trust medical providers more than we trust health care experts: Let's get the focus on medical outcomes, now, before the policy-process people do real damage.

Medicine is not only more important than health-care policy -- it's a more interesting, more vital, story.

-- James Pinkerton

I woke up in Rome, Italy this morning -- the 4th of July -- to the very surprising news that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was resigning her position at the end of the month.

I don't know whether this is a July 4th gift -- or a warning of a nationally divisive presidential run. But the news is big and the date she has chosen for the announcement -- the initial punctuation point for America's democracy -- seems strangely appropriate.

For those who have been offering me great travel advice on my Italy excursion, many thanks. I have spent a few outstanding days in Rome -- though I never got to see the one time home of Augustus Caesar, one of my goals for the trip. Got close though -- and then watched the BBC video.

I want to offer a pre-introduction of Hugo Dobson, a friend from the UK I ran into in Rome who will be here next week covering the G-8 Summit. He will be issuing dispatches for The Washington Note from the G-8, so give him a warm welcome.

Today, I'm driving north up to a magnificent Umbrian estate outside Perugia with Helene Cooper of the New York Times, Elise Labott of CNN, and others on this trip. Cooper let the world in on what we were doing a couple of weeks ago in this piece by her in the Times' travel pages. I've not done anything like this before with a largish group and am looking forward to the break.

Tomorrow, in case any readers are in Spoleto, I may be up at this interesting tribute to Jerome Robbins thanks to one of his long time friends I met on the plane over here.

More soon -- and again, Happy July 4th!

-- Steve Clemons

This is a Tehran dispatch from an anonymous student in Iran who has been blogging for The Washington Note and other sites and publications, including the New York Times, as "Shane M."

The dispatch that follows appeared in Salonand at Juan Cole's Informed Comment.

A clip from Tehran Dispatch: Basijis Hang Around, Do Nothing. . .

And on the 13th day Michael Jackson died. Voice of America and BBC Persian are back up, if intermittently, and we crowd around like the rest of the world for the latest news. It is almost a relief. Being a full-time revolutionary is hard work, difficult to sustain. Seeing the non-stop coverage, the obvious distraction of his passing, we grimly joke that Michael was a martyr for the cause. At least he had the decency to delay his death until the worst violence had already passed.

Things are going back to their regular marks. In the afternoons the parks fill up again with old ladies and young couples. There's badminton and soccer for kids to play at night. Well-dressed men in jackets and dress pants exercise on the cardio equipment provided by the city. The scenes around the squares, lately the places of so much celebration and trouble, are almost back to normal. Traffic is back. A car flies towards Ariashahr Square, a young man with slicked back hair and aviator glasses leans out of the passenger window chest first. He removes his shades and turns his palms upwards, beseeching the ladies in the car next to him to pull over. Unimpressed, or maybe they're being coy, the girls pull away and race ahead of their pursuers. The two boys give chase. Cops and basijis hang around the circle but do nothing, what do they care...?

Every young person I see I wonder, What were you doing three weeks ago? Who were you then? I look for signs of subversion. A girl wears a green headscarf. A kid shifts gears in his Kia Pride with an arm encased in a green cast. What does it mean? Together, in a crowd, the color green added up to something. Alone, spread apart and without context, they are just moments of coincidence.

-- Steve Clemons

Political journalist Robert Dreyfuss has a terrific survey piece on Iran's tumultous political scene in the aftermath of recent elections there. Dreyfuss was in Tehran and is now back in Washington.

Here is a clip from "Iran's Green Wave", cover story of The Nation this week (but do read the whole piece):

Several factors combined to make Moussavi a viable candidate. First, with organizational and financial support from the Rafsanjani family and wealthy mullahs and businessmen tired of Ahmadinejad's cronies running the economy, Moussavi built a formidable countrywide campaign machine. Second, the brilliant Green Wave strategy, designed by a 27-year-old whiz kid named Mostafa Hassani, caught fire, and soon green ribbons, armbands, headbands, scarves and flags festooned Iranian cities. "I wanted something simple, something that could be replicated even by poor people in remote villages," the long-haired, lanky Hassani told me, sitting in Moussavi's cluttered campaign headquarters during election week. And then, on June 3, Moussavi electrified Iran during an unprecedented televised debate with Ahmadinejad. With the president sitting across from him, Moussavi called Ahmadinejad a liar and accused him of pushing Iran toward "dictatorship." The next day, green-wearing crowds began chanting, "Death to the liar!" and "Death to the dictator!" Nothing like it had ever been seen in Iranian politics.

Moussavi had another not-so-secret weapon: his wife, Zahra Rahnavard. A noted intellectual and sculptor, Rahnavard campaigned alongside her husband, sometimes holding his hand. Clearly a liberated woman, she called for an end to the much-despised harassment of women by the cultural police and backed equal rights for women. At a vast rally in downtown Tehran, I watched her mesmerize the crowd. "We are going to make a revolution in the revolution!" she cried. "We are going to make it modern and up-to-date!" As one, tens of thousands of people chanted: "Moussavi! Rahnavard! Equal rights for men and women!" Women in pink lipstick and with blond highlights in partly uncovered hair shouted beside women in black chadors.

And then there was the Obama factor. Countless Iranians watched his June 4 Cairo speech, and its transcript was parsed word by word. By offering to respect Iran rather than locating it in the "axis of evil," Obama appealed to secular nationalists, activists seeking greater individual freedom and businessmen hungering for an end to the sanctions strangling Iran's economy. Nearly everyone I spoke with during the ten days I was in Iran brought up Obama, whether I asked or not. At a frenzied Moussavi rally in the city of Karaj, west of the capital, I met a campaign organizer, Hojatolislam Akbar Hamidi, 48, a distinguished cleric who's known Moussavi for more than twenty years. "I listened to Obama's speech, and it made me very happy," he told me. "But we're afraid that some Iranian authorities do not understand the positive message of Obama." In interviews at polling places on election day, dozens of voters praised Obama's opening to Iran. At a Tehran mosque where hundreds of people were lined up to vote, several dozen crowded around as I asked an older woman why she supported Moussavi. When I suggested, "Perhaps Moussavi and Obama might meet someday soon?" the crowd, translating for one another, erupted in cheers, laughter and thumbs-up signs.

More prosaically, many plugged-in Iranians told me that nearly the entirety of Iran's business class is fed up with Ahmadinejad's bellicose rhetoric, and they want to put an end to sanctions. Saeed Laylaz, an economist and former official at the Ministry of Industry, said that as a result of sanctions critical sectors of the economy--including computers and information technology, oil and natural gas, and civil aviation--are suffering badly. "Ahmadinejad's is the first right-wing government since the revolution, and it has been a catastrophe," he said. "You cannot run the government with populism. You need experts. You need technocrats. You need planners." (Laylaz was arrested days after the election; he's still in detention.) To get a sense of what the business community thinks, during election week I attended a forum packed with executives at the offices of Etelaat, a liberal newspaper, where eight former ministers of oil, industry and mining slammed the government over its incompetence. Later, at Moussavi's campaign office, one of them, Mohammad Reza Nematzadeh, who was minister of industry under Khatami, told me that he'd put his business on hold to travel across the country working for Moussavi. "I'm a businessman, and I've been reluctant to get into politics," he told me over several cups of tea. "It's the desire of most of us in the business community to rebuild relations with the United States," he said. "It doesn't mean that we have to give up our independence or our dignity."

Besides reformists, students, women and businessmen, Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are losing their core constituency: the clergy. And given that Iran is a state run by the priestly class, that might prove their undoing. I spoke to a dozen or so clerics, from low- to mid-ranking mullahs to a few who'd attained the rank of hojatolislam, just below ayatollah. There are hundreds of thousands of mullahs in Iran, perhaps a hundred or more who have attained the rank of ayatollah, and just two dozen or so who have developed sufficient reputation and following to be called grand ayatollah. And more and more of them, including many grand ayatollahs, have joined the opposition. "After the television debates with Ahmadinejad, a large number of mullahs who'd been undecided went over to Moussavi," one hojatolislam told me. They were offended, he said, by Ahmadinejad's insulting attitude toward Moussavi--particularly his rhetorical assault on his wife, Rahnavard, whom he accused of falsifying her academic credentials--and his accusations against Rafsanjani and Khatami. "A president should be polite," the cleric told me. "Impolite behavior and ugliness cannot be accepted."

Another cleric, who campaigned for Moussavi in dozens of Iranian towns and cities, said that the majority of mullahs had abandoned the president. "There is a big gap between Ahmadinejad and the clergy," he told me. "Many of the grand ayatollahs are angry, because the president has taken many actions without consulting with them. They are especially unhappy because he has shown an aggressive face of Islam to the world, and Islam is not aggressive. It is a religion of peace." Some three-quarters of the grand ayatollahs in Iran support Moussavi, he told me. Ten of them sent a joint letter to Ahmadinejad, but he ignored them, he said. Several others have openly castigated the regime for its treatment of protesters.

A very well-connected mullah I talked with said that he is a friend and follower of Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri. Back in the late 1980s, Montazeri was the designated successor to Khomeini as Iran's Leader, but hardliners--including Khomeini's son and a circle around Khamenei--ousted him, he told me, because of his liberal views and installed Khamenei. Through this mullah and several other intermediaries, both Moussavi and former president Khatami keep in close contact with Montazeri, as well as with many in the clerical establishment in Qom. In the wake of the election Moussavi and his supporters began organizing what they hoped would be a broad consensus among senior ayatollahs to force Ahmadinejad out or, if it comes to that, to replace Khamenei himself. "Khamenei does not deserve the position that he has," the mullah told me. "He has become a politician, and as a politician he has been corrupted." Describing Khamenei in these terms is extremely unusual, and indicates how much the Ahmadinejad-Khamenei axis has lost its legitimacy. "Khamenei has lost the support of many high-ranking clergy in Qom," declared Ibrahim Yazdi in my interview with him.

Trying to pull together this opposition is Rafsanjani, who so far has stayed behind the scenes but according to numerous reports from Iran is playing a critical role in efforts to counter both Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. The former president is chair of the Assembly of Experts, a group of more than eighty clerics who have the power, under Iran's Constitution, to appoint or dismiss the Leader. "Rafsanjani has convinced the majority of the Assembly of Experts and several dozen clerics in Qom to support an effort to overturn the election results," a well-connected Iranian told me. According to Yazdi and several other Iranian activists and analysts, at least some of the clergy want to replace Khamenei with a far more moderate, less political council of ayatollahs as a way of restoring consensus in the leadership [see Sarfaraz, "Iran's New Revolutionaries," in last week's issue]. It would in effect be the end of the Khomeini doctrine of velayat-e-faqih ("rule of the jurisprudent"), which is the underpinning of the notion of a Supreme Leader, a concept invented by Khomeini that is far outside mainstream Muslim, and even Shiite, thinking.

And I very much agree with Dreyfuss' kicker on engaging Iran and ignoring the John Bolton types who want to launch a new war. Drefuss, in fact, includes a quote from Richard Dalton who I interview in the blog post below:

If Ahmadinejad and Khamenei retain their iron grip on power, both Iran and the United States will face inevitable pressure to resume diplomacy. "On both sides, the interest in pursuing a dialogue will emerge intact," says Sir Richard Dalton, who served as Britain's ambassador in Tehran until 2006. The start of such talks might be "slightly delayed" in the aftermath of the crisis, he says, but that's hardly a tragedy.

But Obama will have to ignore calls to set a short deadline on such talks. They could easily drag on, well into the middle of next year and beyond. If talks fail to produce immediate results, the president will have to resist arguments from Israeli hardliners and their US allies to take harsh measures against Iran--including military action. Obama's earlier outreach undercut the hardliners and gave a psychological boost to Iran's reformists and to millions of Iranians who saw Moussavi as a vehicle through which to improve US-Iranian relations.

If Obama wants to support the opposition, the best thing he can do is to continue to extend his open