Iran on The Huffington Post

Iran Cracks Down On Student Dissent In Universities

2009-12-04T17:39:01Z

BEIRUT — As they gear up for a major anti-government protest Monday, Iranian students are besieged by a clampdown in the universities, with a wave of arrests and expulsions. At the same time, authorities are intensifying enforcement of Islamic morals on women's dress and men's hair length as a way to punish political dissent.

They say authorities have cracked down at campuses nationwide to prevent the demonstrations from becoming widespread and that students recruited by the pro-government Basij militiamen are on the watch, informing on classmates suspected of being pro-opposition "troublemakers."

Sam Black: Waking the Sleepy Nuclear Watchdog

2009-12-04T09:20:19Z

This article was written by my friend Kelsey Hartigan.

Facing problems like a defiant Iran that is now resolving to construct an additional 10 enrichment plants, a nuclear North Korea, and an uncooperative Syria, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has a difficult path ahead of it. The former head of the international nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, has left his successor, Yukiya Amano of Japan, with an underfunded and politically charged agency. The IAEA Amano is inheriting today is a far cry from the agency that Hans Blix bequeathed to ElBaradei twelve years ago. How Amano will deal with the files ElBaradei left on his desk is unclear--but we should all wish him luck. He will need it.

An early supporter of ElBaradei, Washington "discreetly influenced" the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors selection process in 1997 and helped win its support for ElBaradei as Director General. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists [subscription required] has described ElBaradei's 12-year tenure as an evolution from a "shy, circumspect Assistant Deputy Director-General from Egypt" to a "highly visible" Nobel Laureate who clashed with the Bush administration on more than one occasion.

ElBaradei's "complex legacy" will largely be determined by the outcome of pending disputes. The turning point in ElBaradei's tenure was the US invasion of Iraq. In March 2003, a month after then Secretary of State Colin Powell briefed the UN Security Council on Iraq's alleged WMD program, ElBaradei went before the Council and said that the US claims were false; Iraq had no centrifuge manufacturing plans and the British documents stating Iraq had sought to obtain uranium oxide from Africa had been forged. From that point forward, ElBaradei's Iraq experience and disdain for unwarranted unilateral action infiltrated nearly every other case that came across his desk--particularly Iran.

Criticized as being "soft" on Iran, ElBaradei was reluctant to utilize the full force of the IAEA and access suspect nuclear sites. In the wake of North Korea's withdrawal from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Iraq debacle, ElBaradei likely saw swift action as being too rash--especially since Iran rounded out Bush's legendary "axis of evil." Nonetheless, the same criticisms were made with regard to Syria's nuclear program; too much time, not enough action.

How Amano will handle these same situations remains to be seen. As noted in the Time's brief bio of Amano, it seems that the Japanese diplomat will be less politically active than his predecessor. Former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, has applauded Amano's apolitical outlook, which, coming from Bolton, doesn't necessarily inspire much confidence. Amano himself has made it clear that he intends to take a less political approach:

The IAEA's basic function is not political negotiation but implementing already agreed safeguards. Remarks by the director have political implications which, if made without properly assessing these implications, can be very dangerous.

Even so, Amano's election was marred by a divisive debate that widened the gap between developed and developing nations. Most developed countries, including the United States, supported Amano's bid and his ideas about depoliticizing the agency. A majority of developing nations, however, supported Abdul Minty, a South African with an advocacy streak that mirrored ElBaradei's. Amano edged out Minty by just one vote; an unusually close outcome for the traditionally unified Board of Governors.

If Amano wants stay out of the political rigmarole and stick to monitoring nuclear activities--more power to him. But with the Additional Protocol, which grants the IAEA more comprehensive inspection authorities, in force in just 93 countries, and restricted access to Iranian, Syrian, and North Korea facilities, Amano won't be able to avoid becoming embroiled in the same political disputes that mired his predecessor's term.

In his final month as director, ElBaradei spoke at an event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations. Venting anger built up over the years, ElBaradei balked at the disparity between the expectations of the IAEA and its severe lack of funding and authority: "In many cases, we are a sleepy watchdog because we don't have the authority."

As compliance with the IAEA's Additional Protocol is still voluntary, the agency can only inspect declared facilities through announced inspections. As a result, the IAEA is essentially relegated to knocking on doors and asking for permission to inspect these facilities. Moreover, with dilapidated labs and insufficient access to developed satellite monitoring areas, verification mechanisms like environmental sampling and satellite monitoring are typically supplied by outside parties, further stifling the agency's authority and independence. In ElBaradei's words: "I'm at the mercy of the suppliers." Such shortfalls seriously hamper the agency's ability to detect clandestine facilities, a dangerous loophole of the international nonproliferation regime.

Funding is another major issue. To put this in perspective: The New York State Police Department had a $672 million budget for the 2008/2009 fiscal year. That same year, the IAEA had a regular budget of approximately $415 million. The mere fact that the budget of a state police force is comparable--let alone more than 50% larger--than that of the international body which is responsible for ensuring that the nuclear work and materials in 150 countries is not used to build nuclear weapons should indicate the severity of the IAEA's financial situation.

Will Amano be forced to pick pocket the NY State Police?

Cash-strapped or not, Amano will have to deal with these same realities as he takes on the Iranian, North Korean, and Syrian programs--to name just the headline challenges. A recent editorial in the LA Times offers an interesting--though unrealistic--perspective on how Iran should be dealt with and argues that because of the negotiations' political nature, the IAEA should stay out of the talks.

Some observers say that Iran has the technical capacity to develop a bomb, and the world should accept that and focus on preventing Tehran from taking the next step. Others say we need stronger inspection regimes for the IAEA and stiffer penalties for those found to be in violation of the nonproliferation treaty. Still others say that disarmament by the nuclear powers would ease the appetites of nuclear have-nots.

Our position is that a nuclear-armed Iran would be destabilizing for the region and the world and must be avoided if at all possible. But as stated in "Iran: Where We Are Today," a staff report to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the answer to Iran's nuclear ambitions "is not technical but political." The nuclear dispute reflects distrust between Iran and the United States, and the solution must be negotiated by political leaders--not the IAEA.

There is no doubting the underlying political characteristics of the Iranian situation, but excluding the IAEA from negotiations will only serve to further weaken the watchdog, which already suffers from a lack of power and financial backing. The IAEA was set up as an "Atoms for Peace" agency in 1957 and then asked in 1970 to enforce the safeguards system set up by the NPT. Iran has breached those safeguards and abused its supposedly civilian program--if the IAEA is not allowed to help find a solution it will only undercut the IAEA's international status as the top nuclear authority. The IAEA can help ease political sensitivities and provide impartial information and suggestions. For that to happen, it must be given the authority and resources necessary for it to finally do its job. If Amano is serious about taking a less political approach, Iran is the perfect opportunity to implement his strategy.

Iran Targets Online Critics Worldwide, Relatives Back Home

2009-12-04T05:27:49Z

In recent months, Iran has been conducting a campaign of harassing and intimidating members of its diaspora world-wide -- not just prominent dissidents -- who criticize the regime, according to former Iranian lawmakers and former members of Iran's elite security force, the Revolutionary Guard, with knowledge of the program.

Part of the effort involves tracking the Facebook, Twitter and YouTube activity of Iranians around the world, and identifying them at opposition protests abroad, these people say.

Read more: Protests, Youtube, Iran, Twitter, Critics, Facebook, World News

Amir Ardebili: International Sting Operation Captures Iranian Arms Dealer, Brought To US (VIDEO)

2009-12-02T13:59:25Z

U.S. authorities revealed today that an international sting operation resulted in the apprehension of Amir Ardebili, an Iranian arms dealer who was smuggling American weapons to his native country. U.S. authorities say he was working for the government of Iran. Ardebili believed that he was helping to prepare for war between American and Iran.

He has been in custody since January of 2008, after he was caught in an unnamed Central Asian country in 2007, but American authorities kept the case quiet in order to continue their investigation into his contacts and affiliation with the Iranian government.

Ardebili has plead guilty. Read more here or watch the report from Fox News below.

Richard W. Parker: Rescuing Nuclear Talks with Iran

2009-12-02T11:47:52Z

While all eyes focus on Afghanistan, the
situation with Iran is spiraling out of control.

Iran failed
to accept a tentative deal signed in Vienna last month to send most
of its current stockpile of low-enriched uranium abroad – and Secretary of State Clinton announced that the deal could not be changed.

Then Iran refused to stop work on its
newly-declared enrichment facility near Qom. The West responded last week by pushing through an IAEA
Board Resolution reprimanding Iran for that refusal. An infuriated Iran retaliated by
announcing last Sunday that not only will it continue work at Qom, Iran plans
to build ten new enrichment
facilities.

Last May, President Obama said he would assess
“by the end of the year” whether talks are moving in the right direction. Right now, they clearly are moving in
the wrong direction, yet the New Year
will dawn with no good options for the West. Sanctions will fail, war will make things far worse, and
choosing between sanctions and war is a lose-lose proposition.

A couple weeks ago, I blogged on the
promising efforts of outgoing IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei to
find a long-term solution to the nuclear stand-off
between Iran and the West. Unfortunately,
hopes for a long-term settlement are receding in a fog of passions aroused by
conflict over two short-term issues that ought to be solvable. A foreign policy fiasco is shaping up that doesn't need to happen.

How to get negotiations back on
track? Let’s begin by taking another
look at the moribund stockpile deal that was supposed to build confidence and ended up undermining it.

The original
plan worked out in Vienna on October 22 was an ingenious
improvisation playing off a serendipitous development: the Tehran Research
Reactor, which manufactures medical isotopes, happens to be running low on fuel. The Vienna plan calls for Iran to ship most
of its known stockpile of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Russia for further
enrichment and then to France for processing into fuel rods to re-supply the
Tehran Reactor. This seemingly
win-win arrangement would meet Iran’s medical reactor needs while physically
removing from Iran a stockpile of raw LEU that has greatly worried the West.

Both sides welcomed the accord initially. Then criticisms emerged. The objections in Iran, ironically,
came not from Iran’s firebrand President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (he praised the
deal as a “victory” for Iran) but from his conservative rivals joined by the
titular leaders of the Green Movement in Iran.

Their objections are two-fold. First, critics point out that the deal as
written requires Iran to give up a major bargaining chip (most of its hard-won stockpile
of LEU) without getting anything of strategic value in exchange (such as
recognition of Iran’s right to enrich).

Second, Ahmadinejad’s rivals in Iran have heaped
scorn on the idea that Iran’s hard-won LEU is being entrusted to France. France may be the only willing country with
the technology to manufacture the fuel rods for the French-made Tehran reactor. But France’s President Sarkozy can
barely bring himself to say the word “Iran” except as part of a call for
tougher sanctions. And France is
remembered in Iran as the country that two decades ago expropriated a
billion-dollar Iranian investment in a multinational enrichment consortium
(Eurodif).

Given these troubling facts, it is actually not surprising that the Vienna deal
would come in for close scrutiny in Tehran.

What to do? The key thing to remember now is that the crux
of the nuclear dispute with Iran is not
the disposition of 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium that may or may not
be shipped abroad, but will soon be replaced in any case. The main issue is the long-term future
of enrichment in Iran. Even if the
stockpile deal were to be shelved completely while long-term talks are ongoing,
Iran is highly unlikely to “break out” from Natanz in the next few months, with
barely enough fuel for a single bomb, in the middle of talks aimed at a permanent
accommodation with the West. Certainly
the risks of that scenario are far smaller than the risks flowing from the
alternative outcome of no talks, sanctions and war.

Moreover, the stockpile deal may yet be salvageable.
Iran has said it accepts the deal
in principle but wants greater guarantees of supply. Towards this end, Iran has informally broached the idea of a simultaneous swap on
Iranian soil of raw LEU for
fabricated fuel rods. Nuclear non-proliferation experts Jim Walsh at
MIT and Harold Feiveson at Princeton believe this sort of swap could be
structured in a way that meets Iran’s need for supply assurance with minimal added
risk to U.S. security.

For example: Russia might supply low-enriched uranium
to France. France would process
the uranium into fuel rods for Iran. Iran, upon receiving the fuel rods, would immediately
send the promised LEU to Russia. Any
move by Iran to seize both LEU and fuel rods during the exchange would be immediately detected and would stand as a major provocation not merely to the United States and France, but to Russia,
Iran’s most important ally. The
odds of that happening are quite small.

Other variations of the deal might work as well. The main point for the present is that while Western hawks and neo-cons have interpreted
Iran’s dissatisfaction with the stockpile deal as proof that Ahmadinejad is
just stalling for time -- or evidence that Iran is so riddled by internal faction
that it cannot deal at all -- this is not
true. As seen, Iran has respectable
(if not compelling) reasons for wishing to modify the original stockpile deal. Ahmadinejad
would not stall for time by approving and praising a deal his own side denounces
days later, thereby making himself look foolish. Yes, Iran has internal factions that complicate its foreign
policy. So do we; in fact, the United States leads the
world in bringing home agreements that it fails to ratify or demands be
modified thanks to its own internal factions – the Kyoto Protocol being merely
the latest example. In this case,
Iran could say the United States is so paralyzed by faction that it cannot cope
with proposals to modify a simple stockpile deal.

At the end of the day, the stockpile deal may be salvageable in modified form, or it may not. Either way, long-term talks on the issue that matters most -- the future of Iran's nuclear program writ large -- can and should proceed in a constructive vein.

What is needed now is not hot heads, moralistic
rhetoric and ominous reminders that we’re “losing patience” and “running out of
time.” What is needed is leaders
with the pragmatism and vision to know a workable (if not perfect) deal when
they see it, and the courage to make that deal.

*Richard Parker is a Professor of Law at University of Connecticut Law School and the Founder and Executive Director of the American
Foreign Policy Project (AFPP). The
AFPP’s Iran Policy Group has studied all aspects of the Iran foreign policy
conundrum to produce a comprehensive
website offering rigorous analysis
and policy recommendations on the critical question, “What to do about
Iran.” The views expressed in this
blog are his own

Ramin Pourandarjani, Iran Whistleblower, Died From Drug-Laden Salad

2009-12-02T11:18:48Z

CAIRO — A 26-year-old doctor who exposed the torture of jailed protesters in Iran died of poisoning from a delivery salad laced with an overdose of blood pressure medication, prosecutors say. The findings fueled opposition fears that he was killed because of what he knew.

Investigators are still trying to determine whether his death last month was a suicide or murder, Tehran's public prosecutor Abbas Dowlatabadi said, according to the state news agency IRNA.

Ahmadinejad: Iran Will Enrich Uranium Even More

2009-12-02T08:43:15Z

VIENNA — In a defiant speech, Iran's president declared Wednesday that his country will enrich uranium to a much higher level – a fresh rejection of an international plan to curb Tehran's nuclear program.

Experts said that could put Tehran on the road to making the material needed to arm a warhead within months.

Iran Releases 5 British Sailors Detained At Sea

2009-12-02T01:17:17Z

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran freed five British sailors detained last week when their racing yacht drifted accidentally into Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf. Britain said it was delighted with Wednesday's release and praised Tehran's handling of the incident.

The men arrived on shore in Dubai flashing smiles, waving at the cameras and looking relaxed.

Ahmadinejad: 'Friendly Relations' With UN Nuclear Watchdog 'Are Over'

2009-12-01T16:40:29Z

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Tehran is reviewing the option of decreasing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog after it issued a resolution critical of Iran last week.

Speaking in a live television interview late Tuesday, Ahmadinejad also criticized Russia's support for International Atomic Energy Agency's resolution, calling it a mistake.

Detained British Sailors: Iran Warns Of Tough Action Against Them

2009-12-01T08:27:34Z

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran warned on Tuesday that it will prosecute five British sailors if it is proven they had "bad intentions" when their 60-foot racing yacht entered its waters, in what Britain says was an innocent case of a vessel accidentally going astray in the Gulf.

London was trying to keep the incident from getting tangled up in politics – not only in the rancor between Tehran and the West over Iran's nuclear issue but also the country's own internal postelection turmoil, which has pumped up the leadership's fears of foreign plots.

Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, Iran's Senior Cleric, Denounces Basij Militia Force

2009-11-30T17:54:28Z

Leon T. Hadar: Assessing Obama's Foreign Policy: Guess Who Is Small Now?

2009-11-30T17:00:29Z

"You used to be big," says the B-movie hack screenwriter Joe Gillis (William Holden) when he meets the faded and aging silent film star Norma Desmond (portrayed by Gloria Swanson) in her decaying mansion in Billy Wilder's classic film-noir Sunset Boulevard (1950). "I am big. It's the pictures that got small," responds the bristling Desmond/Swanson. To which the sneering Gillis/Holden replies: "I knew there was something wrong with them."

Some of the criticism of President Barak Obama's foreign policy coming from the neoconservatives on the right -- and occasionally also from progressives on the left -- remind me of Norma Desmond's famous lines. America is still the world's "only remaining superpower," the detractors argue. And yet under the current administration, this supposedly great power is being pushed around by China, disrespected by Russia, dismissed by Pakistan, ignored by Iran, and manipulated by Israel.

If Americans are the Masters of Pax Americana why can't we talk the Chinese into revaluing their currency; induce the Russians to impose sanctions on Iran; compel the Pakistanis to end their support for the Jihadis; bully the Iranians into ending their nuclear-military program; and get the Israelis to stop building new Jewish settlements on the West Bank? That America is still the Big Boy on the global block and that Washington has failed to use that enormous power to deliver results suggest to the critics that the problem lies in the White House, in a weak president that just does not have what it takes to lead America in this world. America is big. It's the president who got small.

Indeed, while conservatives who are not satisfied with the new Afghanistan strategy insist that Obama should be sending more troops to Hindu-Kish, critics on the left fault the White House for not getting rid of Hamid Karazi, the politically corrupt leader of that country, and for failing to make Pakistan into a non-failed state.

Then there was Obama's decision to abandon a planned missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic as part of an effort to "reset" U.S. relationship with Russia. So why is Washington still waiting for a clear pledge from Moscow to support economic sanctions against Iran if it refuses to work out a nuclear deal with the international community? And why should Americans wait for a green-light from Vladimir Putin to allow Georgia and Ukraine into NATO?

And apropos of Iran; where are the diplomatic rewards America should have been receiving from Iran in return for Obama's stated willingness to engage with the Ayatollahs in Tehran? As the neoconservatives see it, only the threat of military power will bring an end to Iran's drive to develop nuclear weapons.

If anything, both right-wing and liberal critics seem to share the view that Washington should 'do something" to assist the pro-democracy movement in Iran. And the members of a similar right-left coalition have slammed Obama for refusing to meet with the Dalai Lama before leaving for his trip to China and for not raising China's human rights violations and its protectionist economic approach (by tying the value of the renminbi to that of the U.S. dollar) during his meetings in Beijing.

When it comes to the Middle East, Obama is being challenged by his political supporters who expected him to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and in particular, to pressure Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu to stick to his commitment to freeze the buildup of Jewish settlements; while right-wing detractors accuse the president of "abandoning" Israel in order to "appease" the Arabs.

On the issue of the Middle East as well as on other foreign policy challenges, Obama has to deal with the wide gap between the realities of the global politics and economics and the expectations that he may have created upon entering office. Many of his fans on home and abroad had assumed that Obama's multiculturalist persona and cosmopolitan disposition, not to mention his charisma and star qualities would help him win the hearts and minds of publics and elites around the world.

There is no doubt that through his personality and life-story, coupled with the manufactured media events, friendly gestures and cool style, Obama has been able to start changing America's global brand name. But that his media image and style of foreign policy have failed to produce any dramatic foreign policy success does not reflect a breakdown of presidential leadership, an ineffective decision-making process, a lack of moral authority or some sort of personal intellectual deficiency. Obama is certainly not a small-time president.

In order to understand the constraints operating on Obama as he tries to pursue his foreign policy agenda one should reread the U.S. National Intelligence Council report which had been issued in November 2008, in the same month in which Obama was elected as president. It predicted continued U.S. economic and military decline, the rise of a multi-polar system in which America will have to share power with China, India and other players. "By 2025, the U.S. will find itself as one of a number of important actors on the world state, albeit still the most powerful one," it concluded.

While the financial meltdown and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may have accelerated this process of American decline, the elites in Washington have been unwilling to accept that reality and assume that American could still "do something" to impose its interests and values worldwide. At the same time, the political right seems to be operating under the delusion that a Republican president a la Reagan - and unlike Obama -- would be able revive and even strengthen American global power.

But even a Roosevelt, a Truman, a Kennedy or Reagan would have no choice but to deal with the reality that is facing Obama, in which domestic resistance and rising global challenges make it more and more difficult for Washington to secure its military and economic hegemony on its own - to continue being the Big Number One --- and necessitate working together with other powers to contain threats to the international system while trying ensure that the United States is at least, a first among equals. Unfortunately, many in Washington are going to look at the mirror and assert that, "We're Big. And it's the guy in the White House that makes us look small."

James Zogby: What Was He Thinking?

2009-11-30T15:31:26Z

I do not make a practice of using this space to express my disagreements with other columnists, but a piece last week by Abdul Rahman al Rashid was so off the mark that I cannot let it pass without comment.

Writing in al Sharq al Awsat, al Rashid takes US President Barack Obama to task for being indecisive and giving the impression of being weak. Where has Obama exhibited these traits? Al Rashid, not unlike former US Vice President Dick Cheney and other neo-conservative critics, identifies both the president's delay in deciding on future US troop levels in Afghanistan, and demonstrations of what he calls signs of weakness in the face of North Korean and Iranian intransigence. To be fair, unlike Cheney and company, al Rashid throws into his mix criticism of Obama's failure to stand up to Israel's settlement program.

But mention of Afghanistan and Israel appear to serve as mere punctuation marks designed to give emphasis to al Rashid's main concern and that is Obama's supposed failure to stand up to Iran's efforts to play games with demands regarding their nuclear program. Now, al Rashid is justified in finding Iran's behavior frustrating and irksome, and he can, as an expression of his irritation, criticize the US president's performance on this issue and others. That is fine by me.

What is unacceptable and wrong, and even bizarre, is for al Rashid to make the claim that Iran would not be getting away with this type of behavior if George Bush were still US president!

During the past month, we were all forced to endure a flood of press commentary claiming to evaluate Obama's performance at yet another supposed milestone -- this being the one year anniversary since his election. Words like "disappointing" and "fading star" were all too often used to describe the first 10 months of the new president's term. In commentaries of this type that appeared across the Arab World there was growing, and some justifiable concern, that the "change" Arabs had hoped for and that Obama's Cairo speech seemed to promise, might not be in the offing any time soon.

But with the exception of Dick Cheney and Co., and now Abdul Rahman al Rashid, no one with a straight face has dared make the comment that anything might be better if George Bush were still in office.

It is more than fair to offer criticisms of President Obama's handling of a range of foreign policy issues. But the criticism should, at least, make an effort to be sober and reality-based.

To begin with, it is important to acknowledge that when Obama won the election last November and took the oath of office 10 weeks later he was not handed a magic wand. Instead, he was handed the shovel his predecessor had used all too vigorously to dig deep holes in many parts of the world. George W. Bush's neglect of some critical issues and the reckless adventurism displayed in his approach to others, created the world Obama inherited.

What the new US president has to contend with is a world where precisely because of the rigid ideologically-based policies pursued by Bush in the Middle East and beyond we face:

-two ongoing wars that have taken thousands of lives and drained over one trillion dollars from the US treasury. And despite being unfinished, there a growing sense among analysts and the public, alike, that at least one of these wars (Afghanistan) may be unfinishable;

-an emboldened Iran whose tentacles now reach into Iraq and more deeply than before into Lebanon, Palestine and even, it appears, Yemen;

-an equally emboldened and increasingly hard-line Israel which feels entitled to obstruct US efforts at peace-making and feels confident that it had sufficient support in the US Congress to withstand the pressures of any US President;

-the bitter fruits of a reckless "victor/vanquished" approach to resolving rivalries between our allies and their foes, wherein our allies came out defeated and/or weakened; and

-a US more isolated in the world and facing a resentful Europe, an ascendant China, a resurgent Russia, and a veritable revolt across the Americas.

And so I think it is only too appropriate to ask what exactly is it that George Bush would do to confront the damage he has done, other than to dig a deeper hole?

Would he launch another war, in a region where we have our hands full with two, and the US military leadership is warning that they are hard pressed to find sufficient troops to fight the wars we are in? Would he attempt to mobilize the international community to support pressure leading, if necessary, to sanctions -- and would he be any more successful at this than Obama, who is working to earn the support needed to make this happen? Or would he merely talk tough, make threats, and then pursue policies that only embolden Iran's hardliners and inflame anti-American passions?

What Obama has done is to eschew hollow tough talk and chart, instead, a different course. But changing direction takes time: time to assess the damage done and plot a new strategy; time to rebuild trust and mend frayed relationships with needed allies; and time to break the back of adversaries' bad behavior.

When he became president, Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas didn't surrender their hard line views, nor did Benjamin Netanyahu. The Taliban didn't put down their arms nor did the US public fall in love with a war they want to end. The economic crisis continues to grow as do federal deficits, putting constraints on new spending.

The point, in other words, is that Obama inherited a mess that was largely the creation of George Bush. What on earth could possess anyone to suggest that they would want him back?

Jose Antonio Vargas: Why Twitter is the Most Popular Word of 2009

2009-11-30T14:02:07Z

Of course Twitter is the most popular English word of the year.

Yesterday, the Global Language Monitor declared the San Francisco-based micro-blogging site as the top English word of 2009. In a decade marked by the growth of most everything Internet-related, this marked the first time a Web company has earned that distinction. MySpace (founded in 2003), Facebook (in 2004) and YouTube (2005) never made that spot in their early years.

But Twitter's achievement also underlines a sobering reality -- one that President Obama, a BlackBerry addict, hinted at in a town hall meeting in Shanghai two weeks ago. Asked via the Internet if the Chinese should be able to use Twitter freely, Obama responded: "Well, first of all, let me say that I have never used Twitter. My thumbs are too clumsy to type in things on the phone."

For all the buzz (our "first Twitter Christmas," the New York Times wrote Friday, noting how retailers like Best Buy use the site); all the magazine covers ("How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live," read a headline in June's Time magazine); all its undeniable impact in all aspects of life, from politics to entertainment (remember country-pop princess Taylor Swift thanking her Twitter followers during her speech at this year's MTV Video Music Awards?), Twitter is not mainstream.

Not mainstream in terms of size; since this summer, there's been report after report that Twitter's membership has peaked, not anywhere near the 300-million strong membership of Facebook.

Not mainstream in terms of usage; though many live, swear and exist through Twitter's 140 character limit, Twitter's retention rate, as been widely reported, is somewhere around 40 percent. (A caveat: that doesn't take into account people who use Twitter through third-party applications and mobile phones.)

Not mainstream in terms of omnipresence and ubiquity; Twitter ain't Google.

In other words, Twitter is not for everyone -- not yet, at least. Many people are confused by it. (If I had a dime for every time a friend or a relative who's not glued in front of his/her computer all day said to me, "I still don't get this Twitter thing!"). Others don't see how it relates to their everyday lives. ("So why do I need this again?") Broadly speaking, and with many exceptions, Twitter is still largely the province of the world's digital elites and early adopters, who from the streets of Tehran to the fragmented Republican Party are getting their message out, whatever that message may be, unfiltered, unedited, be it photos, videos, opinion or just plain news. And the message will get out. And the message will inevitably spread. It's no coincidence, by the way, that the top English words of the past few years, as surveyed by Global Language Monitor, are news-related. Last year, the top word was "change," in reference to Obama's improbable and winning campaign. Three years before that, in 2005, it was "refugee," in reference to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. In 2000, it was "chad" -- as in the hanging chads of Florida, which played a central role in the tight race between Al Gore and George W. Bush.

Twitter, after all, is about having a voice. Here in the U.S., it may mean tweeting about this or that party. Abroad, in authoritarian regimes such as Iran, it means tweeting about the fight for democracy.

"Twitter has gone in the way of YouTube. At first, people thought YouTube was silly and weird; they didn't know how to YouTube and what a YouTube channel was. Now YouTube is synonymous, the industry standard, for online video -- for everyday people to watch, upload and share videos," Scott Goodstein, the text messaging expert who ran Obama's social networking presence during the campaign, told me. "Twitter is going through the same process. Twitter has become synonymous with quick, short opinion and perspective -- coming from anyone, going everywhere."

The Web is flat. And in a world made smaller by the Internet and new technologies, Twitter forces us to become each other's witnesses, one tweet at a time.

That's why Twitter, only three years old, is the most popular English word of 2009.

Iran: UN Criticism Prompted New Nuclear Plans

2009-11-30T08:20:53Z

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's announcement of plans to build 10 more uranium enrichment facilities is largely bluster after a strong rebuke from the U.N.'s nuclear agency, analysts said Monday. Nonetheless, the defiance is fueling calls among Western allies for new punitive sanctions to freeze Iran's nuclear program.

U.S. and European officials were swift to condemn the plans, warning that Iran risked sinking ever deeper into isolation. Iran responded that it felt forced to move forward with the plans after the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution Friday demanding that it halt all enrichment activities.

Iran Approves Building 10 Uranium Enrichment Sites In Defiance Of UN Demands

2009-11-29T11:34:00Z

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran approved plans Sunday to build 10 industrial scale uranium enrichment facilities, a dramatic expansion of the program in defiance of U.N. demands it halt enrichment and a move that is likely to significantly heighten tensions with the West.

The decision comes only days after the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency censured Iran over its program and demanded it halt the construction of a newly revealed enrichment facility. The West has signaled it is running out of patience with Iran's continuing enrichment and its balking at a U.N. deal aimed at ensuring Tehran cannot build a nuclear weapon in the near-term future. The U.S. and its allies have hinted at new U.N. sanctions if Iran does not respond.

Chris Dalby: Why Obama Understands China Very Well

2009-11-29T07:18:20Z

I will make a rather bold proposition. President Obama understands how to work with the Chinese government better than any recent US President.

Facing a barrage of criticism on his return from his recent Asia tour, President Obama saw supporters and critics alike lambast him for his visit to China, with CNN's David Gergen calling it the worst presidential visit abroad since Kennedy met Khrushchev in Vienna in 1961. This refrain was picked up by both ends of the media spectrum. John Bolton, the former UN ambassador, despairingly sees Obama as being 'unable or unwilling to defend U.S. interests strongly and effectively'.

These views are understandable but narrow-minded. Let us first view where Obama did genuinely fail, the appreciation of the yuan. The common media and popular perception now recognises China as a global player, with a powerful economy and a strong political influence, but has failed to grasp the change in policy this automatically represents. It is true that the Chinese government has been very happy to let the value of the yuan remain pegged to the dollar alongside the euro and yen. This has allowed Chinese exports to remain at rock-bottom prices to the horror of countries like South Korea or Brazil. Obama did not secure any clear achievements in this regard. In this, Obama showed his naivete. If China is now a global player, with the strongest economic performance of the financial crisis, why should it listen to economic demands from any other nation? Let us imagine the furore if Obama had been expected to adhere to financial demands from Hu Jintao. Given China's position as the main holder of US foreign debt, this furore may well soon come to pass.

However, in his other two objectives in China namely climate change and denuclearisation, Obama scored high points. On climate change, expectations had hit rock bottom when in Singapore, Obama announced efforts to seal a long-term deal at Copenhagen had come to a halt. But, as pointed out by Vanity Fair, China and the US would both commit to long-term emission reductions thanks in large part to a back-channel effort between US and Chinese officials begun long before Obama's trip to Asia. Lest the importance of this occasion go unnoticed, this is the first time that the two worst carbon-emitting nations have made such commitments. Why then was this not shouted to the heavens? Why was a gleeful Robert Gibbs not tap-dancing his way to the press room? Because this administration and this president understand a key aspect to Chinese culture.

Face, or lian in Mandarin, that concept of honour and pride that governs so much of business in China has been key to Obama's success. Going back to President Nixon, US presidents have railed against human rights, the horrific treatment of Tibetans and Uyghurs and freedom of expression. These issues are an absolute shame upon China's governing elite and must be dealt with vigorously but such direct criticism from US Presidents achieves little apart from making political hay on Capitol Hill. By instructing his diplomats to work with their Chinese counterparts under the radar, Obama achieved three things: signalling to the Chinese government that there would be a new way of doing business, allowing the Chinese government to save face and closing commitments on climate change and the Iranian nuclear problem.

This week, very shortly after Obama returned to the US, China and Russia agreed for the first time in four years supported a US-led resolution denouncing Iran's nuclear program. This should quell any fears that Obama's criticised soft approach to diplomacy bears no fruit.

This understanding of face has been evident since Obama took office. This is a president who bows to the King of Saudi Arabia and to the Emperor of Japan, who begins with a speech in Cairo with the greeting 'Asalaam 'Alaykum', because he understands that while Fox News froths about Anti-Americanism, such gestures of respect can change the world.

Iranian Lawmaker: Iran Could Leave Nuclear Treaty

2009-11-28T10:36:23Z

TEHRAN, Iran — A conservative Iranian legislator warned Saturday that his country may pull out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty after a U.N. resolution censuring Tehran – a move that could seriously undermine world attempts to prevent Iran from developing atomic weapons.

Iran's official news agency quoted a hardline political analyst who made the same point, another indication the idea could be gaining steam.

Sharmine Narwani: Eleventh-hour CPR On Iran Nuclear Talks

2009-11-27T14:16:32Z

Face this fact. If Iran tomorrow announced a complete halt of its uranium enrichment program and ordered an immediate dismantling of its nuclear facilities under the full supervision of an IAEA safeguards army of inspectors ... we would still not cut the Islamic Republic any slack.

We would likely move to churn out IAEA General Assembly and UN Security Council resolutions demanding that Iran implement the Additional Protocols of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) so that we could look inside every crevice and under every boulder in that country to assure ourselves that there wasn't a "secret" weapons program.

And still we wouldn't be satisfied.

Our core problem is not with Iran's enrichment program or it's recently revealed Fordow nuclear plant buried under a mountainside. The central issue clogging up our hotlines is that we do not trust Iran. And they do not trust us.

Some background first:

After disclosing the existence of the Fordow facility in September, Iran invited the IAEA to conduct a full inspection of the site. In advance of the highly anticipated report on its findings, IAEA Director General Muhammad ElBaradei told the New York Times columnist Roger Cohen that inspectors had found "nothing to be worried about. The idea was to use it as a bunker under the mountain to protect things," he explained, referring to Iran's claims that the plant would act as a back-up facility if Israel follows through with threats to attack the country's primary enrichment site at Natanz. "It's a hole in a mountain," concluded ElBaradei.

Then the report came out and the mud-slinging started. The Associated Press, quoting unidentified western "diplomats," stated in a widely-cited article that the plant "appears too small to house a civilian nuclear program, but is large enough to serve for military activities."

The actual IAEA report released on November 16 concludes nothing of the kind. The report describes the facility blandly:

The Agency confirmed that the plant corresponded with the design information provided by Iran and that the facility was at an advanced stage of construction, although no centrifuges had been introduced into the facility. Centrifuge mounting pads, header and sub-header pipes, water piping, electrical cables and cabinets had been put in place but were not yet connected.

It all matched up not only with Iran's pre-inspection description of the Fordow site, but that of "other member states" - western countries that had been aware of the facility for years.

However, the IAEA report warns Iran that it's delayed disclosure of Fordow "gives rise to questions about whether there were any other nuclear facilities in Iran which had not been declared to the Agency."

And while Tehran has not responded publicly to this specific query, it has often raised its own questions of why - after more than two dozen IAEA reports on its nuclear program, an inspector's visit every two weeks for six years, and by far the most exhaustive inspection regime in the Agency's history - it is still treated with suspicion and must bear the brunt of sanctions when it has clearly adhered to the required safeguards demanded of member states. Especially since most of the allegations about its nuclear program that prompt the ongoing IAEA inspections come from unfriendly countries with hidden agendas.

The AP article just added fuel to the fire by feeding into news reports everywhere that the Fordow facility was built for nuclear weapons production. Never mind that nobody actually backed up this claim. In fact, in an article on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, two specialists debunked that theory. While agreeing that Fordow was too small to be useful for enriching fuel for civilian nuclear reactors, the authors claim that it is even too small for military purposes.

"It would take four years to enrich enough natural uranium for just one bomb, hardly a viable breakout option."

And not even a likely one, given that Fordow will be under IAEA safeguards and inspections the entire time.

P5+1 Talks:

On another track altogether, suspicions and mistrust continued in this vein. In October, Iran met with the five UN Security Council nations plus Germany - P5+1 - to address concerns over its nuclear intentions, among other things. In short shrift, the outlines of a deal were hammered out to alleviate western fears over the militarization of Iran's enrichment program. The proposal was that Iran would hand over the majority of its domestically enriched uranium to Russia and France, where it would be processed further and returned to the Islamic Republic about a year later for use in a civilian capacity.

But there was no concrete agreement quite yet. The Iranian negotiating team had to head back home and get buy-in from various segments of the government. And the P5+1 started almost immediately demanding that Iran accept the proposal in full or deal with the consequences.

Back in Tehran, politics came into play. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appeared keen to push forward a deal to ensure for himself the international and domestic legitimacy he has lacked since the disputed June elections in Iran. But his opposition was just as eager to prevent him from claiming this victory. No matter the public rhetoric, rapprochement with the US is viewed as a big prize within the Islamic Republic, and the various domestic political factions are reluctant to let their opponents strike a deal easily. And so the wrangling began.

In the ensuing weeks, various reports flew out of the Iranian capital regarding the P5+1 proposal. Iran will not allow its stash of enriched uranium to leave the country. Yes, it will. Iran will not transfer its uranium to France, because France has reneged on similar agreements previously. Iran will agree to uranium storage in Turkey. Iran will only agree to the proposal if the uranium switch takes place simultaneously within its borders. And so forth.

During this time, the Obama administration has ceaselessly continued to threaten repercussions if Tehran does not agree to the P5+1 proposal by the end of the year.

ElBaradei remains firm on the issue that Iran's current supply of enriched uranium must leave Iranian soil for this deal to work:

You need to move the material from Iran to defuse the crisis and open the space for negotiation. So, what we are asking Iran is to take a minimum risk for peace and to have an agreement not based on distrust but based on trust.

But the IAEA chief has also said: "there is total distrust on the part of Iran." The Islamic Republic is a paranoid entity because of 30 years of western - and particularly American - attempts to isolate it. So Iran is now asking the P5+1 for "guarantees" - firm assurances that it will receive the agreed enriched uranium if it takes the risk of relinquishing its own store.

Is this guarantee request unreasonable - on any level? This is a unique opportunity to draw Iran back into the community of nations and even gain its assistance in addressing some of the US's most pressing concerns in the Middle East - in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, all neighbors of the Islamic Republic.

There is no trust between these two nations - that much is clear. But that is also one major reason these talks are even taking place - to build trust. Yet every tiny move is so distorted by both sides - in the media, through official statements, in diplomatic backrooms - that the possibility of compromise and cooperation is undermined at every turn.

Solutions to ponder:

The question arises: is there anything that Iran can do to that would actually assuage our fears over its nuclear intentions? And is there anything the US can do that will help a fragmented Iran take a trusting step forward?

Not as things stand. Shut off the cameras. Turn off the microphones. Stop the posturing. If a deal is to be had, both sides need to plug the leaks, de-bug the rooms and conduct actual, meaningful negotiations in complete privacy. An agreement can only be reached if it does not compromise either governments' favorability with domestic constituencies - or diminish their international and regional standing.

Remove artificial deadlines. Open up other tracks in the P5+1 discussions - these nations have many issues to discuss. Take the heat off the nuclear track and allow the Iranian factions some quiet time to reach agreement on a deal that will suit the west. Identify easily resolvable issues and engage Iran constructively on these to build trust and achieve small successes. This will build confidence and goodwill amongst all parties.

Offer Iran a free-flowing supply of enriched uranium for civilian use. Help it build nuclear reactors. Give it complete access to all resources available to nations with longstanding civilian nuclear energy programs. And watch Iran's economic and political incentives for developing its own nuclear resources fade fast. All while the IAEA and western nations enjoy unprecedented access to every nuance of Iran's nuclear program - inspections, oversight, inventory control - the whole nine yards.

ElBaradei leaves the scene:

On November 30, the Nobel Peace Prize winning IAEA chief leaves his post after a long and illustrious tenure. ElBaradei, who opposed the US's invasion of Iraq on the grounds that his team had not identified any evidence that Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction, has been a careful, impartial player in the highly charged political environment surrounding Iran's nuclear enrichment program. His departure does not bode well for the future of negotiations, and he has pressed Iran to accept a deal quickly.

In May, speaking to Newsweek magazine, ElBaradei described Iran and its negotiating team thus:

The Iranians have always been extremely well briefed on the details. They know what they want. They are excellent on the strategic goals, excellent on waiting for the right price. I don't want to make them sound like superhumans; you do see a lot of infighting among them. And part of it is about who is going to get credit for finally breaking out of this 30 years of fighting and confrontation with the United States. Everybody is positioning himself to be the national hero who would finally put Iran back onto the world map as part of the mainstream. They are not like the stereotyped fanatics bent on destroying everybody around them. They are not.

The Iranians will have to reign in their factionalism for any deal to work, but the P5+1 need to give them time and incentives to do so.

Daniel Wagner: Iran's Economic Vulnerabilities

2009-11-27T10:28:18Z

Although there is sharp political division for and against Ahmadinejad in Iran, there is virtual unanimity among all political factions that Iran must have nuclear weapons in order to protect itself. Given this, even if President Ahmadinejad and the hard line clerics were to be removed from power in Iran, the leadership that would follow would almost certainly support the continuation of Iran's nuclear weapons program.

As a result of Iranian intransigence, sanctions appear to be inevitable, even though the West continues to hope for a meaningful outcome. Although Russia's previous position against sanctions seems to be softening, it remains to be seen whether Russia will ultimately support robust economic sanctions. The Chinese are in any event unlikely to participate in a sanctions regime for two primary reasons. First, China wants to underscore its belief in the inherent rights of sovereign nations, and their own belief in non-interference in 'domestic' affairs. Second, the Chinese believe that the U.S. ultimately desires regime change, which stands in opposition to their own desire to strengthen their economic ties with, and derive future economic benefits from, Iran. Regardless of the relative success of future sanctions, they will have a net impact on all of Iran's trading partners.

The orientation of Western pundits toward the impact of politics on Iran's negotiating position has drawn the discussion away from the rather serious economic situation Iran is currently experiencing. Given its over-reliance on oil and gas revenues, Iran's economy is already under moderate strain. Depending on the direction of future hydrocarbon prices, the economy could become severely strained.

In order to balance its budget, Iran needs oil prices to rise above $95 per barrel and stay there. Projected oil revenue shortfalls in the current fiscal year will shift the budget into a large deficit position. As a result of conflicting budgetary demands and clashing political forces, the Ahmadinejad government lacks the political capital required to offset lower hydrocarbon receipts by cutting expenditures and/or raising non-oil revenues. If Ahmadinejad's political troubles deepen and capital flight accelerates, his ability to finance the looming budget deficit will become more limited.

Hydrocarbon exports account for more than 80% of Iran's total exports of goods and services, highlighting the current account's vulnerability to lower oil prices. In addition to price concerns, the physical volume of oil and gas exports is likely to decline over the foreseeable future due to the continuing lack of investment in the hydrocarbon sector. Iran's flexibility to run a current account deficit is therefore limited given its lack of access to international financing as a result of existing sanctions.

Iran posted strong growth in FY 2006-08 in response to the government's loose fiscal and monetary policies. Non-oil and gas GDP has been the main driver of growth, as oil and gas GDP growth has declined in recent years. The pace of economic activity more than halved over the most recent fiscal year due to the impact of the global recession. Growth is likely to slow further in FY 2009/10.

Inflation has receded, but its rapid escalation during FY 2008/09 exacerbated social and political strains. Unemployment did not improve much even when non-oil growth was picking up. As the Iranian "youth bulge" enters the labor market, the economy will be hard-pressed to create the 600,000-800,000 jobs per year necessary to keep up with labor force growth. This can only strengthen opposition political forces and complicate Ahmadinejad's ability to govern.

Foreign Direct Investment continues to suffer as political tensions with the West continue to rise. Of 17 oil and gas blocks put up for tender in February 2007, only three were awarded. And of the 12 oil and gas blocks put for tender in November 2008, none have been awarded. China and Russia continue to be the dominant source of Iran's international commercial relations. Russia's tentative support for future economic sanctions against Iran may change that. Economically, Iran has few friends in the world.

All this points to a rather challenging economic environment in which Ahmadinejad is now forced to operate. Even if hydrocarbon prices were to stabilize above the level necessary for Iran to balance its budget and current account next year, many of the inherent contradictions associated with the country's economic and political process will continue unabated. As the timeline for a decision on whether to impose stricter sanctions on Iran draws nearer, Ahamdinejad and the hard liners in the Iranian government will undoubtedly dig in their heels in a more pronounced fashion, placing the economy under even more strain.

The impact of Iran's economic plight on the nuclear negotiation process is likely to be severe. As the government reckons with its unfolding economic reality and the ongoing vocal opposition to Ahmadinejad's second term as President continues, its inclination will be to reject any meaningful oversight of Iran's low-enriched uranium, to continue to bide for more time to complete the nuclear production cycle, and to continue to justify its past actions.

The chance that there will be a sudden reversal in the government's approach to nuclear dialogue is close to zero. Iran is not bargaining from a position of strength, but weakness. The mismanagement of Iran's economy has only served to reduce the chance that further economic sanctions may be avoided.

Shirin Ebadi Nobel Medal Row: Iran Tells Norway To Stay Out Of It

2009-11-27T09:56:44Z

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran summoned Norway's ambassador Friday and said the country had no right to criticize the Islamic Republic for confiscating Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi's medal.

In Norway, where the peace prize is awarded, the government said the confiscation of the gold medal was a shocking first in the history of the 108-year-old prize.

Iran Censured At UN Nuclear Meeting

2009-11-27T08:24:25Z

VIENNA — In a blow to Iran, the board of the U.N. nuclear agency on Friday overwhelmingly backed a demand from the U.S., Russia, China and three other powers that Tehran immediately stop building its newly revealed nuclear facility and freeze uranium enrichment.

Iranian officials shrugged off approval of the resolution by 25 members of the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency. But the U.S. and its allies hinted of new U.N. sanctions if Tehran remains defiant.

Steve Clemons: Thankful That Obama Has Helped Make Dissent And Debate Patriotic And Safe Again

2009-11-26T13:29:45Z

Arianna Huffington asked me (and a sizable gaggle of her other pals) to write something up for Thanksgiving. What am I thankful for? What moves me on Thanksgiving?

My significant other lets me know regularly how lucky we are to have our health, a couple of nice homes, jobs that pay reasonably well, friends and dogs who love us, family that we seem closer to each year, and causes that we are passionate about.

But he tells me this because I'm not often thinking about how great or not things are close to home. I know that there are many on the jobless rolls right now -- and I think about them a lot. I know there are folks losing their homes and it really frustrates me to read in contrast about Wall Street's recent huge rebound. I know there are lonely people -- with no connections to their communities, families, and without friends. I know a lot of sick people with marginal or no health care.

I can't stop thinking about these down trends from the American good life -- and I worry about the macro challenges facing the country, our political system, and our new and fascinating President.

I am grateful that we have Barack Obama in the White House -- because he has changed the face of the nation - and altered forever the horizon of what is possible for Americans who don't have the Anglo-Saxon cosmetic veneer that every U.S. president before Barack Obama possessed.

I also am grateful for Obama's invitation for debate and fair-minded criticism. His decision to bring in policy practitioners who have divergent views from one another, his embrace of heterodoxy, and the manner in which these conflicts come right up to his desk reflect a profound self-confidence in our young president.

Obama's embrace of debate and political diversity can be both strength and weakness -- but in the long run, it's better to have debate than not in a time when the world is at a major punctuation point in history and when things tomorrow will be quite different than they were yesterday.

There are many things I'm not happy about.

I'm not happy about the policy choices of Obama's economic team that have produced a Wall street bailout while banks still dither in their loans and small businesses still find an economic noose around their necks as they try to secure financing. I don't like how the administration has underperformed on job creation. I'm not happy that the tens of thousands of gay and lesbian soldiers in the Armed Forces and National Reserve still have to live a lie as they put themselves on the line for the security and welfare of all Americans of every brand and stripe. The failure of the administration to secure a strategic leap out of the mess the Bush administration left in the Middle East and with Iran, Israel/Palestine, and Afghanistan is very worrisome.

But what a change in a few years.

It's "safe" again to pose uncomfortable questions to the president of the United States and his team. It is actually "patriotic". Barack Obama embraces this patriotism of those who challenge him and dissent from his core policy positions and decisions. This is a stunning difference with the political world America has left behind.

Former Senator Chuck Hagel, who has become the co-chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board and who was awarded two Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam, is someone who during the George W. Bush administration had his patriotism questioned. Vice President Cheney blasted Hagel for asking key questions about the solvency of thinking about the Iraq War and challenged his loyalty to President Bush, the Republican Party, and the nation.

This was outrageous -- and indicated how deeply a climate of fear and vindictiveness had taken hold in and poisoned Washington as legislators on all sides of an issue fought over the course of public policy.

That is over. There are ferocious debates today over health care, climate change, education policy, the budget and America's long term fiscal position, over Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Iran, China, and economic policy.

But these debates are raging in a climate in which it is OK and safe to engage in civil debate.

In the Bush years, the efforts at thought control were so severe that spear-carriers like Tom DeLay sought to get those of a different political make-up fired from private sector jobs. Former Oklahoma Congressman Dave McCurdy, now head of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, was one of DeLay's targets. Funders cut off think tanks that opposed the Iraq War. Hate mail campaigns were launched against those who expressed views independent of the Bush/Cheney machine.

I have a lot of criticism that I direct at the Obama White House -- but I try to be civil and fair-minded, inspired by the President and how his team mostly operates (the Greg Craig situation being a major and disappointing exception).

But this White House embraces differences, rivals, and debate. This is extraordinarily important, and of all things this Thanksgiving -- I'm thankful that challenging the government's course and trying to put better ideas on the table are unabashedly patriotic again.

Have a good, old fashioned policy debate with someone you don't necessarily see eye to eye with this weekend -- and feel good about it. Shake hands when it's over, and agree to disagree if things end up that way.

That is what we have back again -- and that's something to celebrate.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note'

Read more HuffPost Thanksgiving coverage and commentary

Richard Grenell: Our Problematic Syria Policy

2009-11-26T13:13:33Z

I am currently in Israel, in an area called the Golan Heights, which rests alongside the Syrian border. The following is a video blog that highlights the problematic policy the United States has with regards to Syria, and its larger role in the region.

Read more: Hezbollah, Video, Iran, Hamas, Barack Obama, Syria, World News