Juan Cole has some excellent analysis, too. Included is speculation about Maliki being forced to advance the exist date of US troops in exchange for being able to form a government.
http://www.juancole.com/2010/03/will-muqtada-and-ammar-force-next-prime.html#comments

Speaking of the Middle East (kind of) I'm surprised that we haven't seen a post at the Washington Note yet about the stunning political victory of Geert Wilders political party in Dutch elections last week. Despite being on trial for defaming Muslims (whatever that means) in municipal elections, the PVV came in first in a city right outside of Amsterdam (Almere) and came in second in the Hague (the seat of the Dutch Government and the second largest city in the country). Meanwhile the two mainstream parties, the Christian Democratic Party and the Labor Party lost support.

These municipal elections are widely viewed as a major show of strength in advance of general elections that will take place in June.

What once seemed unthinkable now seems likely; it is entirely possible that the PVV will become the largest party in the Netherlands.

Coalition Governments almost always rule in the Netherlands so it is unlikely that Wilders will actually become Prime Minister but it is increasingly likely that he will play the role of king-maker. Any political party that wants to form a government will almost certainly have to receive Wilders blessing. Wilders has made it very plain what he wants in return; an end to Muslim immigration, a ban on head scarves and the enactment in the Netherlands of a provision similar to the First Amendment in the United States.

Europe is lurching to the right. For the moment, its mostly mainstream parties that are benefiting; that's why Sarkozy, Berlusconi and Merkel were elected and why Cameron is about to be elected.

But in last year's elections for the European Parliament, far right parties who oppose Muslim immigration won a surprisingly large number of votes.

The implications of all of this for the relationship between Europe and the Muslim World is very interesting. Support for the Palestinian cause is already decreasing in Europe and likely to decrease more; sympathy for Turkish accession to the EU is evaporating and hostility towards Iran is likely to increase.

In the meantime, relationships between native born Europeans and Islamic immigrants continue to deteriorate as the call for bans on headscarves and other Islamic practices become more vociferous.

Who would have guessed that Huntington’s “War of Civilizations” would start in Europe instead of the United States? If things keep going in the direction that they are right now; that's exactly what is likely to happen.

Anyone want to take a guess what Gert Wilders was doing today?

He was at the British Parliament in the Chamber of the House of Lords showcasing his film "Fitna." In addition to invited guests approximately a dozen peers showed up for the screening.

At a press conference on the grounds of Parliament after showing his movie, this is what Wilders said,

"Islam should not be compared to other religions, like Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism... Islam wants to rule and dominate not only all aspects of one’s life, but all aspects of society. The majority of Muslims in our Western societies are law-abiding people like you and me. Still, I want to stop the immigration of people from the Islamic countries because they still bring a lot of culture that is not ours. Look at all the countries for instance in the Middle East where Islam is dominant – you see no rule of law, no functioning parliament, no civil society.”

To most Americans, who are happy to have Muslims as neighbors, Wilders views seem pretty radical. But apparently this is not the way that the increasingly angry and disaffected Europeans see it.

This could get interesting. Let’s hope that the "Middle East Channel" doesn't avert its eyes from this emerging phenomenon.

the problem in the middle east can be solved right here in
washington.

the hasbara crew has a monumental task...to keep the tide from
coming in.

phil weiss is on the case.

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/03/no-one-in-washington-
supports-more-settlements-why-then.html

"Bit by bit, now in a piece on the "pro-Israel lobby," Andrew
Sullivan works his way toward the crucial understanding of the
Israel lobby’s role in nullifying American policy in
Israel/Palestine. There is simply no way to explain the policy
nullification, with respect to settlements, over 7 or 8 US
presidencies, without talking about a special interest. And you
cannot then talk about the special interest without talking about
its lopsided size in the American political process.

No one in Washington – apart from a few Likudniks and Palinite
end-timers – actually supports more settlements or any
settlements in the West Bank. At the same time, Washington
exercizes a UN veto to protect Israel from international law,
funnels a vast amount of foreign and military aid to the country,
helped finance the pulverization of Gaza last year, provides
absurd international cover for Israel’s 150 nukes, has worked
tirelessly to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capacity, and on
and on.

In return? Fuck you, Obama. To which the overwhelming
response in Washington is: Obama screwed up.

Even Haaretz is franker about this process than our media:
"[T]he [Obama] administration will avoid taking any position that
suggests disagreement with Israel, because of the support that
Israel enjoys among both parties in Congress." Why? One must
talk about money, media, and religious belief."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/t
he-fundamentalists-of-israel.html#more