Executive Order 12333. LAT:

A Bush administration plan to issue new orders realigning the chain of command over U.S. spy services has triggered turf-related skirmishes across the intelligence community.

The changes could erode the CIA's standing as the nation's lead spy service abroad by requiring agency station chiefs in certain countries to cede authority to officials from other U.S. spy agencies, officials said. ...

Drafts of the rewritten order -- known in intelligence circles by its number, 12333 -- have been circulating among top intelligence officials in recent weeks, prompting last-minute lobbying efforts by affected agencies.

A spokesman for Director of National Intelligence J. Michael McConnell declined to comment on the revised order but said it was expected to be completed in mid-June.

The most controversial component of the new order would reshape the roles of the CIA's station chiefs, the agency's top representatives in other countries.

Station chiefs have traditionally operated with significant autonomy, serving as the main intelligence advisors to U.S. ambassadors, controlling clandestine operations in their countries, and acting as the main point of contact for foreign intelligence services.

Under the proposed plan, the station chiefs would remain in position but could be required to cede some of their authority to officials from other agencies, including the NSA or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

"There will always be a station chief," said a second U.S. intelligence official familiar with the proposal. But the director of national intelligence "may choose a different representative."

The CIA has resisted the move, with CIA Director Michael V. Hayden saying in recent interviews that a realignment could create confusion in locations where swift decisions are often required and foreign governments want a trusted point of contact.

Other officials have warned that the idea might lead to interference, or jeopardize secrecy.

If the order is approved, officials from different agencies "would have the ability to turn off or make decisions about the CIA's in-country activities," said a former U.S. intelligence official who has seen drafts of the document. That other official "would also have visibility into sensitive CIA operations. It's kind of a slippery slope."

"The Bureau, NSA, DOD, etc. they all want the same thing -- to be able to do whatever they want, wherever they want regardless of its effectiveness, its level of stupidity or how it may hurt the larger US interest," comments one former senior US intelligence officer. "They have sensed weakness since 9-11 and they will not stop in this effort. Hayden tried to get this while he was still at NSA and current law was being debated. [FBI Director Robert] Mueller also tried and DOD tried to just get rid of the [chief of station] position entirely. State also wants to do it because they want the embassy [deputy chief of mission] to be in charge.

"If McCain is elected it won't matter because he will abolish the agency if he can and if he can't do that, he'll just create a new 'civilian' agency to but put it under military control," he added. "The loser in all and any of these proposals is the public."

Michael Dobbs:

The McCain campaign organized a rapid-response conference call with reporters in an attempt to limit the fallout from the senator's erroneous claim that "we have drawn down to pre-surge levels" in Iraq. The Obama folks pointed out that there are at present around 155,000 troops in Iraq, compared to a January 2007 force level of 128,569. The Pentagon is planning to get down to 140,000 by the end of July.

In a conference call with reporters, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann said the issue was a "question of semantics," and that McCain would have been right if he had said that the Pentagon had "taken a decision" to draw down the troops or was in the process of drawing them down.

But verb tenses matter, particularly in the case of Iraq, where it is very difficult to predict what is going to happen next week, let alone next month. By the Scheunemann standard of linguistic analysis, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the Bush administration's claim of "Mission Accomplished" back in May 2003. As we now know, a few things happened after that date to make the claim somewhat premature.

It's sounding like Bush's first term surreality all over again. Lots of people not running for president of the United States know how many troops we have in Iraq. Is it really too much for McCain the war hero to figure it out? And seriously, who is advising him? Not the team that advised him presumably when he served as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. What does getting US troop levels in Iraq off by more than 20,000 troops say about the competence of those who would advise McCain on national security should he become president? It's incredibly disconcerting how many of his recent comments reveal one who is far less knowledgeable about national security basics than many people believed.

The WP's Karen DeYoung: US Intelligence Officials See Little Progress Before Bush Leaves Office. I attended Kerr's talk last night, which lacked any of the triumphalism of the Hayden interview with the Post; you can read Kerr's remarks here (.pdf).

Wash Times' national security reporter Bill Gertz subpoenaed on sources for China espionage story.

MJ: Tracing an Iran oil blockade meme

On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal opinion editors proposed a plan for a naval blockade on Iran of refined gasoline imports. But they don't say where they got the idea.

The Journal:

The Administration would do better to withdraw from this international charade and consider means by which the mullahs might be persuaded that their regime's survival is better assured by not having nuclear weapons. A month-long naval blockade of Iran's imports of refined gasoline – which accounts for nearly half of its domestic consumption – could clarify for the Iranians just how unacceptable their nuclear program is to the civilized world.

Here was Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz in January explaining the idea of thirty year Israeli intelligence veteran Shmuel Bar:

Dr. Shmuel Bar, a researcher at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center and one of the discussion's initiators, believes that the U.S. can still prevent Iran from reaching the next stage in its program of nuclear development. In place of economic sanctions imposed by the UN, which he feels are ineffective, he proposes imposing a naval blockade on all refined petroleum products imported to Iran.

Sound familiar?

Go read the rest.

Classy farewells from Abu Muqawama, i.e. Andrew Exum, who is leaving the now group blog he started to do more academic and consulting work including in Lebanon. A posse of counterinsurgency experts will continue to blog at the site.

NYT: "The American State Department has withdrawn all Fulbright grants to Palestinian students in Gaza hoping to pursue advanced degrees at American institutions this fall because Israel has not granted them permission to leave. [...] A letter was sent by e-mail to the students on Thursday telling them of the cancellation. Abdulrahman Abdullah, 30, who had been hoping to study for an M.B.A. at one of several American universities on his Fulbright, was in shock when he read it. 'If we are talking about peace and mutual understanding, it means investing in people who will later contribute to Palestinian society,' he said. 'I am against Hamas. Their acts and policies are wrong. Israel talks about a Palestinian state. But who will build that state if we can get no training?'" So long for hearts and minds.

Update: MJ Rosenberg says Congress should press to get the Fulbrights to the Palestinian students. News wires now report: "The U.S. State Department said Friday it was pressing Israel's government to allow eight Palestinians who live in the Gaza Strip to travel to the United States to study on coveted Fulbright fellowships."

MJ: Sen. Feinstein kills off false Iran report:

The office of Senator Dianne Feinstein has weighed in to kill off once and for all a false report that appeared in Asia Times earlier this week that claimed she had been briefed about planned air strikes on Iran. The report is "plain wrong," Feinstein's spokesman said.

"Sen. Feinstein has not received any briefing classified or unclassified from the administration about any plans to strike Iran," Scott Gerber, a spokesman for Feinstein, told me today. "And we're seeking a correction to the Asia Times report." [...]

Link.

All this Kabuki. What else is the White House team going to say? In hindsight, Scott got it right? We're saving it for our memoirs? Is it really so mystifying as Howard Kurtz expresses that McClellan held firm to the White House line and didn't publicly betray doubts when he was spokesman -- and now he does? Kurtz: "The question is inescapable: Now he tells us?" Of course, now and not then he tells us. What's the least bit mystifying about that? How can a long time Washington reporter like Kurtz not expect that a White House spokesman is in the bubble and on message and deceptive and not terribly self-reflective or soul searching or sincere with reporters when they are doing that job? especially a spokesman for this administration?

Even as the White House defaults to the long now familiar permanent campaign MO of trying to discredit him in every which way ("hypocrite," "Soros," "left-wing blogger" "didn't speak up at the time"), McClellan's message (misled the country, the war was unnecessary, propaganda, deception, permanent campaign, in denial) hurts them far more than they can hurt him. And honestly, has there been any McCain news in the past day? He's receded to the background as the White House and McClellan lob rockets at each other over the most controversial episodes of our national life under this administration that many people had put behind them.

Update: More from Mike Allen: "'The White House would prefer that I not talk openly about my experiences,' he said in a lengthy, at times combative interview with anchor Meredith Vieira. 'These words didn’t come to me easy. … I’m disappointed that things didn’t turn out the way we all hoped they would. ... I have a higher loyalty than my loyalty necessary to my past work. That's a loyalty to the truth.'"

Update II: McClatchy's Jonathan Landay & Warren Strobel offer a must-read memo to McClellan explaining "Here's What Happened":

. . . The responses to McClellan from the Bush administration and media bigwigs, history-bending as they are, compel us to jump in. As we like to say around here, it's truth to power time, not just for the politicians but also for some folks in our own business. [...]

The news media have been, if anything, even more craven than the administration has been in defending its failure to investigate Bush's case for war in Iraq before the war.

Here's ABC News' Charles Gibson: "I think the questions were asked. It was just a drumbeat of support from the administration. It is not our job to debate them. It is our job to ask the questions.” And “I’m not sure we would have asked anything differently."

Really?

Or this from NBC's Brian Williams: “Sadly, we saw fellow Americans — in some cases floating past facedown (after Katrina). We knew what had just happened. We weren’t allowed that kind of proximity with the weapons inspectors [in Iraq]. I was in Kuwait for the buildup to the war, and, yes, we heard from the Pentagon, on my cell phone, the minute they heard us report something that they didn’t like. The tone of that time was quite extraordinary.” And this: "“It’s tough to go back, to put ourselves in the mind-set. It was post-9/11 America."

So the Pentagon tells the media what kind of reporting is in- and out-of-bounds?

Hogwash. Hogwash! HOGWASH. [... ]

Here's what happened, based entirely on our own reporting and publicly available documents....

Go read the rest.

More from Newsweek's Michael Hirsch. "The words of the supposedly 'disgruntled' McClellan seem chillingly sane."

Jim Lobe: "This week’s feature article in the Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard blames [Rice] — and her exclusively — for 'jettisoning the Bush Doctrine' and leading the president himself down the garden path toward appeasement, particularly with respect to Syria, Iran, and North Korea. While the article does not tell us much that was not already in the public record, the fact that it was written by Feith’s former favorite leakee and Cheney’s personally authorized biographer, favorite reporter, and occasional travel companion, Stephen Hayes, makes it worth at least a quick read-through if, for no other reason, than to demonstrate the contempt that the vice president and presumably Elliott Abrams (if I’m reading the anonymous sources correctly) bear for Bush’s secretary of state. That Rice gave Hayes at least two extended interviews — from which he published what have to be the most unflattering and frankly embarrassing excerpts — shows a remarkable lack of judgment on her part." Indeed, a hapless effort once again to reach out to get a fair hearing from the most disingenuous elements.

Politico/CNN: ABC MNSBC Execs killed critical White House stories, reporter charges

On Wednesday night, CNN's Jessica Yellin talked to Anderson Cooper about Scott McClellan's tell-all memoir and agreed with the former press secretary that White House reporters "dropped the ball" during the run-up to war.

But Yellin went much further, revealing that news executives--presumably at ABC News, where she'd worked from July 2003 to August 2007--actively pushed her not do hard-hitting pieces on the Bush administration.

"The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings," Yellin said.

"And my own experience at the White House was that the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives--and I was not at this network at the time--but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president, I think over time...."

But then a shocked Cooper jumped in, asking, "You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?"

"Not in that exact.... They wouldn't say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces," Yellin said. "They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical, and try to put on pieces that were more positive. Yes, that was my experience."

More from Glenn Greenwald. Update from Yellin.

Dana Milbank sketches Steve Hadley, the man who leaves no fingerprints.

Putting an Iran rumor to rest.

Two new journalist blogs worth bookmarking: that of public radio foreign affairs journalist Jeb Sharp, of PRI's the World, who's done phenomenal long-form reporting from the Balkans, Rwanda, and on Iran (check out her recent posts from Sarajevo, Gorazde and Foca); and that of my pal Rich Byrne, who's covered the Balkans, St. Louis' music scene, and now is an editor at the Chronicle of Higher Ed.

CSIS's John Wolfsthal analyzes McCain's proposed nuclear policy. "The tone may be better, but many of the proposals -- not to mention his language choices -- are right out of George W. Bush's play book."

NBC's Aram Roston:

A little-noticed civil lawsuit in Florida is shining a light on an unusual but hugely profitable Pentagon contract to ship millions of gallons of aviation fuel to U.S. bases in Iraq through the kingdom of Jordan.

The deal involves a cast of influential characters, including the king of Jordan’s brother-in-law, who is suing Harry Sargeant III, a top Florida-based fundraiser for Sen. John McCain's presidential bid.

Sargeant is a Florida businessman and former Marine Corps pilot hailed by the McCain campaign as a "Trailblazer" for raising $100,000 or more in political donations. Through a company called International Oil Trading Co., or IOTC, Sargeant and a partner have a lucrative contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year to supply American military forces in Iraq with fuel, especially aviation fuel. The firm ships the fuel to Jordan and then trucks it across the border, where U.S. forces escort the convoys to air bases. [...]

Jordan is a close U.S. ally in the Middle East. Although Jordan is not an oil-producing country, unlike other neighbors of Iraq such as Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, the Pentagon had insisted that fuel be brought in through Jordan.

IOTC has won three successive contracts to perform the work. The company — a partnership between Sargeant, Al-Saleh and a third man — first won the Pentagon Iraq fuel contract in 2004 with another company. When the Pentagon put the contract up for competition in 2005, IOTC, now incorporated in Florida, won with a bid of $213 million, even though other companies offered lower bids. The Defense Energy Support Center, or DESC, which awarded the contract, said in a statement to NBC News that none of those lower bidders met contract requirements. ...

IOTC's latest Pentagon contract is worth almost a billion dollars. "The latest IOTC contract is worth $913 million over two years. For 2007 the obscure company was the seventh-largest fuel provider to the U.S. military worldwide, sharing the list with such giants as BP, Exxon and Shell, according to Aviation Week’s Aerospace Daily and Defense Report." Sargeant is finance chairman of the Republican party in Florida.

FT: UBS tells unit staff to avoid US visits. "The Swiss bank has also made lawyers available to the more than 50 bankers involved, many of whom have left UBS since it decided last November to wind down its cross-border private banking business for US ­customers. The move follows the recent indictment of one of the unit’s former senior executives, Bradley Birkenfeld, who US authorities have accused of helping a billionaire client evade taxes." Hilzoy/TPM: McCain economics advisor and national campaign co-chair Phil Gramm vice chairman of UBS and its former lobbyist.

A colleague further notes, "Gramm and McCain have always been close. When Gramm ran for president, McCain leaned on his buddy, Fife Symington, the gov. of Arizona (who also later resigned after he was indicted for corruption) to push the GOP legislature to move the state primary date up three months just to give Gramm (as they imagined, but wrongly) an advantage. Three million bucks for a personal favor for Phil Gramm. Even rank and file Republicans were disgusted, and showed it at the polls."

Former White House spokesman accuses Bush White House of mounting propaganda campaign on Iraq; Rove, Libby of colluding to possibly obstruct investigation of Plame outting:

The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts. ...

“There is only one moment during the leak episode that I am reluctant to discuss,” he writes. “It was in 2005, during a time when attention was focusing on Rove and Libby, and it sticks vividly in my mind. … Following [a meeting in Chief of Staff Andy Card’s office], … Scooter Libby was walking to the entryway as he prepared to depart when Karl turned to get his attention. ‘You have time to visit?’ Karl asked. ‘Yeah,’ replied Libby.

“I have no idea what they discussed, but it seemed suspicious for these two, whom I had never noticed spending any one-on-one time together, to go behind closed doors and visit privately. … At least one of them, Rove, it was publicly known at the time, had at best misled me by not sharing relevant information, and credible rumors were spreading that the other, Libby, had done at least as much. …

More from MSNBC, Marcy Wheeler and the Post.

Brilliant Jeff Toobin profile of political operative Roger Stone, lately taking credit for a role in bringing down Eliot Spitzer.

In WSJ oped with Lieberman, McCain argues against Bush softism, and for more confrontational approach to North Korea: "American leadership is also needed on North Korea. We must use the leverage available from the U.N. Security Council resolution passed after Pyongyang's 2006 nuclear test to ensure the full and complete declaration, disablement and irreversible dismantlement of its nuclear facilities, in a verifiable manner, which we agreed to with the other members of the six-party talks. We must reinvigorate the trilateral coordination process with Japan and South Korea. And we must never squander the trust of our allies and the respect for our highest office by promising that the president will embark on an open-ended, unconditional personal negotiation with a dictator responsible for running an international criminal enterprise, a covert nuclear weapons program and a massive system of gulags." Which allies feel their trust in the US has been squandered because the US hasn't gone to war with North Korea? More from Democracy Arsenal and the Post's Glenn Kessler: "The language concerning North Korea in the article -- which overall sketches out a vision for engagement with Asia -- is remarkably similar to President Bush's first-term rhetoric, which the White House has largely dropped in recent months."

Doug Feith in the WSJ on how Bush sold the war: "In the fall of 2003, a few months after Saddam Hussein's overthrow, U.S. officials began to despair of finding stockpiles of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The resulting embarrassment caused a radical shift in administration rhetoric about the war in Iraq. President Bush no longer stressed Saddam's record or the threats from the Baathist regime as reasons for going to war. Rather, from that point forward, he focused almost exclusively on the larger aim of promoting democracy. This new focus compounded the damage to the president's credibility that had already been caused by the CIA's errors on Iraqi WMD. The president was seen as distancing himself from the actual case he had made for removing the Iraqi regime from power. [...] The stunning change in rhetoric appeared to confirm his critics' argument that the security rationale for the war was at best an error, and at worst a lie." Via FLC.

NYT: "Go-to" GOP fundraiser investigated by FBI for embezzling from NRCC. "For the Republican committee, the accounting irregularities — which initially came to $740,000, but could end up being more than that — are hardly welcome news. The committee, which raises money to elect Republicans to the House of Representatives, has been scrambling for cash since 2006, when Republicans lost control of Congress."

Nixonland author Rick Perlstein: "There's been an absolute explosion of intellectual interest among liberals on the right. You might even say, not exaggerating too much, that making sense of the right-wing ascendency--its ideas, its tactics, the window it provides onto deeper themes in U.S. history, and, even more, the window it provides onto the successes and, more crucially, the failures of the American left in the period of its own post-Depression and post-World War II ascendency--has been the signal intellectual project on the left for at least a decade a more. It's fascinating, and telling, that a smart guy like Mark Hemmingway missed this."

Ha'aretz on Israel-Hezbollah prisoner swap deal: "Israeli sources on Monday said that Israel and Hezbollah had struck a deal securing the release of two Israeli soldiers, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, captured by the Lebanon-based militant group in a July 2006 cross border raid that sparked the Second Lebanon War. The sources explained that in exchange for the captives, Israel would release Kuntar, a Lebanese militant currently imprisoned in Israel for the 1979 murder of a Nahariyah family, an Israeli citizen jailed for espionage on Hezbollah's behalf and four other Hezbollah men captured by Israel during the 2006 war. The deal reportedly will also include the return of the remains of ten Lebanese, currently held by Israel, to Hezbollah. Earlier on Monday, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah hinted that a prisoner swap would soon be completed, telling supporters in Beirut that Kuntar would soon be freed." More.

Ha'aretz on American businessman Morris Talansky testimony in Olmert corruption probe today:

Morris Talansky, the American-Jewish businessman suspected of making illicit cash transfers to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said in a court testimony in Jerusalem on Tuesday that he had transferred Olmert some $150,000 over 15 years, and that Olmert had tried to aid a Talansky business venture by introducing him to several American billionaires.

It remained unclear, however, if Talansky's day-long testimony in the Jerusalem District Court had significantly helped prosecutors near proof of a "smoking gun" of evidence of bribery against Olmert. Although he admitted to having given Olmert cash-filled envelopes, Talansky maintained that he had expected nothing in return.

The businessman told the court that Olmert had asked him for donations for his 1993 Jerusalem mayoral campaign and throughout his tenure as industry and trade minister. He said cash-filled envelopes were transferred through Olmert's former bureau chief, Shula Zaken, each one containing between $3,000 and $8,000, and that the transfer were "legitimate." He estimated having transferred Olmert roughly $150,000 over 15 years.

Olmert volunteered to contact three billionaires, including Plaza Hotel owner Yitzhak Tshuva and Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, to try to drum up business for a hotel minibar venture run by Talansky. But Talansky said the offer did not help, and Adelson slammed down the phone on him. [...]

Prosecutors are intent on determining whether the money Talansky donated to Olmert - suspected of reaching sums of up to $500,000 - amounted to bribery. Olmert, who stated publicly that he only received funds for campaign purposes, has promised to step down if indicted for bribery.

The unpaid loans, Talansky told Jerusalem District Court, included a $25,000-$30,000 loan used for a 2004 family vacation to Italy. Olmert never paid him back, Talansky said.

The businessman also mentioned a second loan for $15,000, which Olmert asked for during a stay at the Regency hotel in New York. Olmert refused to take a check and asked for cash, Talansky said.

Talansky said he walked to a bank four blocks away and withdrew the money. When he handed over the cash to Olmert, he asked to be repaid as soon as possible. "Famous last words," Talansky said, explaining that he was never paid back. [...]

Talansky also testified that he had asked Olmert, who was a member of Likud at the time, why he didn't raise money through the party's fundraisers in the United States. Olmert told him that should he do so, the money would go straight to the party, Talansky said.

More from the NYT.

WP: Bush straddles his hard line in engaging Sudan.

J Street's Jeremy Ben-Ami responds to TNR's Jamie Kirchik at Shmuel Rosner's blog at Ha'aretz.

NYT's Elaine Sciolino:

...The Bush administration, in its waning days, seems powerless to modify Iran’s behavior. The question seems to have been pushed to the future with the forceful disagreements in recent days between the Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, and Senator Barack Obama, contending for the Democratic nomination, over whether an American president should negotiate with Iran’s leadership.

Still, Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, announced in Brussels on Monday that he would go to Iran soon — possibly “within the month” — to present a new offer of political, technological, security and trade rewards for Iran if it halts its uranium enrichment program.

Mr. Solana will travel with senior foreign ministry officials from five of the six countries involved in the initiative — Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — but not the United States, which has refused to hold talks with Iran. The incentives, agreed on by the six countries in London this month but still not made public, repackaged and clarified an incentives package presented to Iran in 2006.

Iran rejected it at the time, saying that relinquishing its uranium enrichment program was non-negotiable. After the London meeting this month, the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said the new package should not cross Iran’s “red line” — shorthand for its uranium-enrichment program.

On May 13, Iran responded with its own package of proposals, calling for new international talks on political, economic and security issues, including its nuclear program and the Arab-Israeli peace process.

The proposal, made in a letter from Mr. Mottaki to the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, includes the creation of international fuel production facilities in Iran and other countries — a longstanding goal of Iran — as well as improved supervision of Iran’s nuclear program by the atomic energy agency, which is based in Vienna.

Over the years, the United States and France have led the way in opposing the idea of a fuel-production facility in Iran, contending that it would allow Iranian experts to master the complex process of enriching uranium and to use that knowledge in a secret bomb-making project.

This bit on the current state of the international diplomatic process excerpted above is not the headline of the story, which is that the IAEA says Iran is not coming clean on disclosing past programs. Many people I have recently encountered who are convinced the US is looking for a pretense to gin up confrontation don't seem to be aware of the diplomatic process in place, perhaps because it's not horribly exciting to read about, and a lot of it is sort of hidden from view. I find so many people are increasingly convinced of whatever they already think regarding the US-Iran issue they are sort of innured to information which doesn't confirm what they already believe (namely, in the bad faith of the administration). And the administration doesn't do a good job of explaining itself, beyond small insider audiences, perhaps because the policy is deliberately ambiguous, and because mid level officials want to avoid trouble for saying too loudly that we're not going to war while the administration is trying to use the threat of force being an option as part of a coercive diplomatic strategy. And there is an element of doubt and uncertainty, too, that makes it hard to be overly assertive downplaying the threat of conflict.

This piece I did over a year ago captures the thrust of US Iran policy pretty well, even as it's evolved: "... One source said succinctly that the new policy is geared to 'confront Iran in every way but direct armed conflict, using all means short of war.' ... Bush administration officials are 'projecting a lot of confrontation with Iran ... But they don't mean to signal war. They don't mean war. It's war by other means.'" Link.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently explained thinking behind US policy on Iran to Congress: "I think the key here is developing leverage either through economic, or diplomatic or military pressures on the Iranian government so they believe they must have talks with the United States because there is something they want from us, which is the relief from the pressure."

McClatchy's Nancy Youssef reports the story behind Medal of Honor winner Army Pfc. Ross McGinnis.

The WP profiles Chris Hill, the veteran US diplomat who steered the shift in US North Korea policy "from confrontation to accomodation."

In the twilight of the Bush presidency, the nuclear agreement that Hill has tirelessly pursued over the past three years has emerged as Bush's best hope for a lasting foreign policy success. In the process, Hill has become the public face of an extraordinary 180-degree policy shift on North Korea. [...]

The normally loquacious Hill declined to comment for this article, as did Rice. But when asked in a podcast last month about his dealings with "Cheneyland," he acknowledged the strain and marveled at the emotions North Korea provokes in the capital.

"I have never seen people around tables in Washington get so angry about this subject," Hill told Christopher Lydon, a fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute, in the podcast on April 25. "I understand why people get emotional about this. But my job is to try to stay on task here. . . . If giving speeches in Washington would solve this, we'd just stay in Washington and give speeches."

Hill added: "I've got to tell you, I don't feel abandoned by Secretary Rice and President Bush. They have been big supporters."

Rice speaks to Hill as many as seven times a day while he is negotiating, to keep close tabs on the precise language in draft documents. But Hill also has sometimes taken procedural shortcuts to leave his internal opponents out of the loop. And he has rebuilt his initial negotiating team, weeding out potential spies for his rivals by replacing them with a tightknit group of technical experts.

Hill has a wry sense of humor and a blunt, informal style that officials say appeals to Bush. He has spent three decades in the Foreign Service, and he caught Bush's eye when the Polish president, a favorite of Bush's, lavishly praised Hill's performance as ambassador to Poland. Later, as ambassador to South Korea, he eased tensions in U.S.-Korean relations through frequent speeches and debates with U.S. critics.

But Hill is at heart a dealmaker. During the Clinton administration, he was a key negotiator for the Dayton Peace Accords, which ended the Bosnian war, and played an important role in dealing with the Kosovo crisis. His mentor in both jobs was former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who taught him how to handle the media and push the bounds of his official negotiating instructions to get a deal. [...]

I got to observe Hill, then US ambassador to Macedonia managing the emerging Kosovo crisis, and his brother, then a political officer at the US embassy in Belgrade, a bit from the sidelines and in a few interviews in the Balkans in the late 1990s, when I was stringing for what was basically their hometown paper, the Boston Globe; as I remember they were Navy brats from Rhode Island. Smart, alert, politically savvy, and certainly a media savvy pragmatist, Chris Hill especially considered among the most capable diplomats of his generation, I continue to hear from his colleagues, as evident here:

In perhaps his biggest coup, Hill convinced Rice and Bush that the top priority is to get ahold of North Korea's stash of plutonium, and that other issues are secondary. In Bush's first term, the administration had accused North Korea of having an uranium-enrichment program, which led to the breakdown of a 1994 agreement that kept Pyongyang from separating plutonium to make nuclear warheads.

The uranium-enrichment issue has faded in importance because the original intelligence was overstated. In changing gears, the president has acknowledged that his previous approach was a mistake.

Leddy said that last fall, when China first proposed separating the plutonium issue from other concerns in North Korea's nuclear declaration, she saw a White House document describing the idea with the notation "President says No." But that is precisely the deal Hill struck last month. ...

The article doesn't mention Hill's future plans, that I saw. But it sounds like Hill is due for a promotion or, having advanced almost as far as you can in the foreign service, will get out, which his domestic enemies on the right seeking a more confrontational stance towards Pyongyang would no doubt prefer. The recent Hill interview the Post references with Chris Lydon now at Brown's Watson Center in Providence makes me wonder if Hill is contemplating a run for office from Rhode Island.

Dr. iRack: Things calming down in Iraq after two bloody months. "How did this happen? A pair of truces (brokered with the help of Tehran) have momentarily quelled intra-Shia strife. The Iraqi Army has deployed in large numbers in Basra and Sadr City, where they've faced little open opposition from JAM. And conditions in Basra, at least, have started to improve. Meanwhile, the Iraqi Army has continued its clearing operations in Mosul, arresting more than 1,000 suspected supporters of AQI, but apparently hasn't had to fight much. ..."

Pegasus. The NYT reports on an interesting trail connecting McCain and his campaign manager Rick Davis to a Russian aluminum oligarch banned from the US for alleged organized crime ties and the pro-Kremlin side of Ukraine's Orange Revolution, through a Connecticut investment firm called Pegasus. (A bit of preliminary digging suggests Pegasus was started by a former Michael Milken associate, Drexel Burnham Lambert's Craig Cohut. Indeed, Cohut reportedly was Milkens' firm's lawyer for a time. In 2002, Cohut was among French-backed investors sued by the California attorney general for "international conspiracy" to raid a California insurer).

Many layers here and at one level this is a story about vehicles for unregistered foreign lobbying in Washington, such as the expert consulting for investment houses and law firms provided by Davis and some prominent think tank hands whose professed ideology is not always consistent with their de facto and more discreet foreign client representation. In turn for their advice to Pegasus on governmental and other matters, the article explains, Davis and his partner Paul Manafort were given inside opportunities to invest in Pegasus' investments, without disclosing the financial arrangements, as well as thrown some lobbying contracts for Pegasus' clients. Davis also arranged social events at which McCain met Putin-pal, the Russia metals magnate Oleg Deripaska, who had his US visa yanked for alleged crime ties. Deripaska wrote a letter to Davis after one such meeting with Davis and McCain in Davos offering to help a metals trading firm that Davis had been offered the opportunity to invest in through Pegasus.

But some interesting links are not fully spelled out in this piece. For instance, the Israeli satellite company ImageSat that is reported here to have hired McCain campaign manager Davis as a lobbyist at the recommendation of Pegasus, counts among its founding partners American financier Morris Talansky, who is currently much in the news for allegedly possibly bribing Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert in a case that may take down the Israeli prime minister. See this for background:

Investors in an Israeli satellite company are asking an American judge to punish the company for refusing to provide access to the spacecraft and their sensitive imagery to the Venezuelan strongman, Hugo Chavez, who is an ally of Israel's enemy Iran. [...] The suit also claims that the venture canceled a contract with Angola so that it could sell to South Africa... Politics got in the way of business with Russia and Taiwan as well, the suit claims.

As the suit moves forward, it could disclose back-channel communications between Israel and America.

The nine investors who brought the suit are mostly American and Israeli, and many of them were founding partners of ImageSat. The Americans are Stephen M. Wilson, Michael Morris, Joel Levine, Morris Talansky and Abraham Moshel. The Israeli investors are Moshe Bar-Lev, Patrick Rosenbaum and Haim Yifrah. A Canadian, Albert Reichmann, is another investor listed.

They are suing for more than $6 billion in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan before Judge Laura Taylor Swain.

Back to the NYT story on McCain's campaign manager Davis:

... Back in early 2004, Mr. Davis and Mr. Manafort started discussing becoming consultants with Pegasus Capital, based in Cos Cob, Conn. Not long afterward, the two men were providing advice to Pegasus about governmental matters that might affect companies in which the firm had invested and also suggested investment targets. The firm has never retained Davis Manafort as a lobbyist.

In late 2004, however, Mr. Davis became a registered lobbyist for Imagesat. He gained the account through a recommendation from Pegasus, which holds a stake in the company, said a person knowledgeable about the investment firm who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Mr. Davis said he found the firm without Pegasus’s help.

Davis Manafort received $120,000 from late 2004 to mid-2005 to lobby for Imagesat on both defense and domestic security issues. Mr. Davis and Christian Ferry, now Mr. McCain’s deputy campaign manager, were the two lobbyists on the project, the records show.

Early in 2005, Mr. Davis tried to develop another relationship with Pegasus when he and two other men suggested that it help bankroll a proposed new private equity firm. That firm was to focus on investments in domestic security companies, including those that vied for federal contracts, the person knowledgeable about Pegasus said. [...]

The proposed firm never took off. But Pegasus also offered another opportunity to advisers, like Mr. Davis and Mr. Manafort, who worked with it — the chance to get in on some of its investments. In November 2005, Pegasus bought a stake in a company called Traxys, which trades in industrial metals.

In January 2006, just two months later, the subject of metals trading came up in association with a social meeting Mr. Davis helped arrange near Davos, Switzerland. At that meeting, first reported by The Washington Post, Mr. McCain met the Russian aluminum magnate, Oleg Deripaska, who has been barred from entering the United States apparently because of alleged criminal ties.

After the event, Mr. Deripaska sent a brief thank-you note to Mr. Davis and Mr. Manafort. In it, he said, “Please will you send me the information on the metals trading company we discussed and would be happy to see if I can do anything to help.”

In written responses to questions, Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said that “Mr. Davis did not approach Mr. Deripaska” about any metals trading company. Mr. Bounds said Mr. Davis retained investments he made during the time he advised Pegasus, a relationship that ended in 2006. He said Mr. Davis declined to disclose whether Traxys was one of them because he considered the investments a private matter.

That's interesting, because as National Journal's Bara Vaida points out in a new piece (sub. only), it was Davis himself who reportedly instituted the McCain campaign's tough new "conflict of interest" policy which has caused five McCain advisors to recently resign. NJ: "Earlier this month, campaign manager Rick Davis (himself a former lobbyist with the firm Davis Manafort) implemented a conflict-of-interest policy requiring staff to stop representing their lobbying clients. In addition, volunteers must identify their clients to the campaign, and they may not participate in any policy discussions that would affect their clients." So Davis won't disclose what his investments are and whether they pose any conflict of interest as this article strongly suggests they might? Did as Deripaska's letter suggest he try to help out Traxys? And did Davis offer help in return? Perhaps help getting Deripaska's US visa problems sorted out, as well as some face time with the Republican presidential candidate.

As for Davis' acknowledged former client ImageSat, one wonders what ImageSat hired Davis Manafort to lobby for. One theory is that the firm was hired to lobby to ease US pressure on the Israeli Defense Ministry-connected firm to steer clear of selling sensitive satellite imagery to certain countries. It would make sense that US pressure on Israel contributed to those ImageSat deals in Venezuela, China, etc. being shut down in the first place by the Israeli Ministry of Defense. 2004, the year ImageSat hired Davis Manafort, was the time period Feith's Pentagon was coming down hard on Israel's Ministry of Defense for Harpy drone sales to China, for instance, to the degree that the US suspended cooperation with Israel on some sensitive technology arrangements for a time.

More from: the original Post piece as well about a second meeting of Davis, McCain and Russian metals magnate Deripaska on a yacht in Montenegro, that McCain and Davis claim to hardly remember.

--Ken Silverstein on the Orwellian spectacle of Davis heading McCain's anti special interest "Reform Institute."

--And from a previous WSJ story about Davis' lobbying partner and McCain advisor Paul Manafort lobbying (unregistered) for the candidate on the wrong side of the Orange Revolution, Viktor Yanukovich (the one who didn't get poisoned by the KGB). So too shilled for the pro Kremlin Yanukovich did Bruce Jackson, the partner of McCain's chief foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann in the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and other endeavors. Jackson received $300k for his pet charity from a Ukrainian, Rinat Akhmetov, who is the chief financier of the same pro Kremlin Ukrainian pol. "A company controlled by Mr. Akhmetov donated $300,000 in 2005 to a human-rights charity run by Mr. Jackson and his wife, an Internal Revenue Service document reviewed by The Wall Street Journal shows. Mr. Jackson said he was grateful for the support. Mr. Manafort, who isn’t registered as a consultant to the Ukrainian leader, didn’t respond to requests for comment." It's hard to imagine McCain and Davis picking an issue that more highlights a gap between what McCain says he's about and the reality in terms of whom he chooses to surround himself with and who runs his campaign.

Photo: McCain campaign manager Rick Davis' business partner Paul Manafort and chief Yanukovich financier Rinat Akhmetov in Davos (Photo credit: Ukrayinska Pravda).

Ha'aretz: Iranian born Israeli charged with spying for Iran.

The WSJ's Mary Jacoby: "The lobbying group Mr. Scheunemann founded in 2001, Orion Strategies LLC, has earned $2.6 million from clients for whom Mr. Scheunemann directly lobbied Sen. McCain and his staff, Justice Department records show. In March, as scrutiny intensified, Mr. Scheunemann, who is the campaign's top foreign-policy staffer, sent a letter to the Justice Department's office for foreign-client lobbying registrations saying he had stopped working for clients such as Macedonia and Georgia. However, his company's contracts with those countries, worth a combined $240,000, appear still to be in effect. A spokeswoman for the Georgian Embassy in Washington said the country's contract with Orion is active. The Macedonian contract is listed as active in Justice Department records. Mr. Scheunemann, 48 years old, didn't respond to requests for comment."

House: Less Propaganda Pls. LAT: "The House of Representatives moved Thursday to crack down on a Pentagon program that Democrats say planted false and overly optimistic news stories about the Iraq war, using military analysts who appeared regularly on television. Acting on a 2009 defense policy bill, lawmakers forbade the Defense Department from engaging in 'a concerted effort to propagandize' the American people over the war. The amendment by Rep. Paul W. Hodes (D-N.H.), which passed by voice vote, also would force an investigation by the General Accounting Office of efforts to plant positive news stories about the war. The overall bill passed 384-23." Guess the GAO can't investigate this: "Representatives of NBC, CBS and ABC said Thursday that they were confident their analysts had not been improperly influenced[by the Pentagon]. Fox News and CNN did not respond to requests for comment."

CNN: McCain rejects Hagee endorsement. "The Huffington Post had published a recording of Hagee saying that Adolf Hitler had been fulfilling God's will by hastening the desire of Jews to return to Israel in accordance with biblical prophecy."

Congressional Quarterly's Tim Starks:

The Bush administration “violated” a law requiring notification to congressional intelligence committees when it took eight months to fully inform the panels about an alleged Syrian nuclear reactor, according to the House Intelligence Committee report on its fiscal 2009 authorization bill.

The committee report on the intelligence measure (HR 5959), approved May 8, also states that the administration has routinely “ignored” the law, including when it resisted disclosing the administration’s warrantless surveillance program to the full intelligence panels.

Administration officials did brief Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, and ranking Republican Peter Hoekstra of Michigan about the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor and its destruction, reportedly by Israel. But the administration refused entreaties from Hoekstra and Reyes to brief the full committee until last month.

“Just hours before a highly-orchestrated public roll-out of the previously classified intelligence, the president finally sent briefers to the committee,” the panel report states. “The delay was inexcusable and violated the National Security Act of 1947, which requires that the executive branch keep Congress ‘fully and currently informed’ of all intelligence activities.

“In recent years, the administration has, on several occasions, ignored the plain language of the act,” the panel wrote. “In one case, the administration refused, for an extended period of time, to brief the full committee membership on the president’s warrantless surveillance program, notwithstanding that it was not a covert action program.”

The panel included several provisions and adopted several amendments to the legislation designed to force the administration into giving more information to Congress.

One amendment, offered by John M. McHugh, R-N.Y., and adopted by a vote of 17-4, specifies that it is a violation of the 1947 law to provide intelligence information about China and North Korea to those two countries before they are shared with the House and Senate intelligence committees.

“We are extremely disappointed that this clarification is necessary,” a group of Republicans wrote in the minority views section of the report.

“These amendments are intended to clarify that the obligation to report to the committees is not negotiable,” the committee report states. “It is not an obligation that the president can ignore at his discretion. It is not an obligation that can be evaded by claiming that briefing the congressional intelligence committees will require other committees to be briefed. It is not an obligation that can be evaded by broad assertions of executive power.”

Behind closed doors, lawmakers were less unified on other aspects of the intelligence bill, which authorizes funding for spy agencies and allows Congress to make policy prescriptions for the intelligence community. The details were included in the committee report, filed Wednesday.

The panel was divided in particular on several amendments related to the administration’s interrogation practices.

Like the Senate panel’s version of the bill (S 2996), the House version was amended with language to ban the CIA from using contractors to conduct interrogations. But unlike the Senate bill, the House panel agreed to give the director of National Intelligence (DNI) the authority to waive that ban if for some reason only a contractor has the necessary skills for a given interrogation. The amendment, adopted by voice vote, was offered by Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.

With the aid of Democrats, including Reyes, C.A. Dutch Ruppersburger of Maryland and Robert E. “Bud” Cramer of Alabama, Republicans defeated another Schakowsky amendment that would have, like the Senate bill, confined the entire federal government to interrogation techniques permitted by a September 2006 Army field manual. The tally was 9-12.

Republicans, joined by Reyes and Cramer, defeated a third Schakowsky amendment described in the report as establishing “rules for rendition by elements of the Intelligence Community in order to prevent harsh treatment by third nations, and to encourage timely legal proceedings against the rendered party.” The amendment led the committee to enter into closed session to discuss classified matters. The tally was 10-11.

Reyes has supported the Army field manual language in principle, but he has emphasized the need to pass an intelligence authorization bill that President Bush can sign. Bush vetoed the fiscal 2008 measure (HR 2082) this year because it included the Army field manual language. It was the first time Congress had delivered an intelligence authorization bill to Bush in three years.
Actual funding for the intelligence community is appropriated primarily through the Defense spending bill, so funding for the spy agencies has continued without an authorization measure. The last declassified figure for the National Intelligence Program, in fiscal 2007, put its budget at $43.5 billion, but that figure does not include the military branches’ intelligence operations. [...]

The WP's Karen DeYoung:

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, President Bush's nominee to lead U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, supports continued U.S. engagement with international and regional partners to find the right mix of diplomatic, economic and military leverage to address the challenges posed by Iran.

In written answers to questions posed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he will testify today, Petraeus said the possibility of military action against Iran should be retained as a "last resort." But he said the United States "should make every effort to engage by use of the whole of government, developing further leverage rather than simply targeting discrete threats."

Petraeus's views echoed those expressed by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who this month said that talks with Iran could be useful if the right combination of incentives and pressures could be developed.

Despite President Bush's repeated commitment to diplomacy to resolve problems with Iran -- including its activities in Iraq, an alleged nuclear weapons program and support for terrorist groups -- some lawmakers and U.S. allies remain concerned that military action is being contemplated.

So I seem to have managed to wipe out most of the site's left column while traveling. If anyone wants to have a go at reconstructing the list of links in html (is that a bleg? ... here's an archive) . . . One way or another I'll reconstruct it soon. Update: Thanks, thanks, thanks to DP! Rebuilding the left column now, and to others for the archives.

Drum/WSJ: Forecast says oil supplies will plateau.

MJ: Newly Announced Israel-Syria Peace Talks Run Against Grain of Washington's Anti-Engagement Policy.

Just a week after President Bush, speaking at Israel's Knesset, likened those who would advocate engagement with "terrorists and radicals" to Nazi appeasers, the governments of Israel and Syria—a close ally of Iran—have announced that official peace talks are underway between their nations, mediated by Turkey. "It is better in this situation to speak rather than to shoot," declared Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert in a statement Wednesday. "This is what the sides agreed." [...]

While Bush-era Washington has been consumed with ideological debates over whether talking to hostile regimes and militant groups rewards or legitimizes them, a parade of veteran senior Israeli security and diplomatic officials has pushed the case, both in Israel and Washington, that engaging adversaries such as Syria and Hamas could advance their nation's security interests. "The alliance between Syria and Iran is mainly one of convenience," Israel's former foreign ministry director general and Mossad official David Kimche told me in January in a suburban Tel Aviv cafe. "There is no deep connection. And it's worth our while, if we could weaken that link." [...]

Alon Liel, former director general of Israel's Foreign Ministry, has participated on the Israeli side of back channel Israel-Syria talks in recent years. "One of the reasons that I believe we should explore the possibility of speaking with Syria on an official level is that this body needs oxygen," he told me in February during a visit to Washington. "And we can keep the [peace] process alive through the Syrians because we can bluff with the Palestinians for another two months, but not more. We need a real process, and the Syrians are open to do it." [...]

Washington and Jerusalem also part ways over Syria's role in Lebanon. The Bush administration sees Lebanon's March 2005 Cedar Revolution -- which led to withdrawal of Syrian troops a month later, and subsequent democratic elections -- a crowning achievement in its efforts to spread democracy in the Middle East. Some Israeli officials take a more jaundiced view. "We were very active in Lebanon, and we learned a lot of things," Kimche told me. "The Syrians do not see Lebanon as independent. They see it as part of Syria. There is no Syrian embassy in Lebanon, and there never was a Syrian embassy in Lebanon." [...]

More from Gershom Gorenberg: "Liel has stressed - in a press briefing in January 2007, and since - that a critical part of any deal is a switch in Syrian orientation from pro-Iran to pro-West. That would necessarily mean dropping support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Syria’s secular regime wants the reorientation in order to maintain its independence, Alon reports. For Israel, such a deal would mean much more than removing the direct military threat from Syria. With Hamas and Hezbollah weakened, Iran’s power in our area would be sigificantly reduced. But the deal requires a third party: Washington. Syria won’t and can’t risk dropping Iran without a new patron; otherwise it will be totally isolated in the region. And Bush’s Washington isn’t interested."

Update II: More analysis from Marc Perelman: "On its face, the simultaneous announcements by Israel and Syria this week that they were officially engaged in peace talks mediated by Turkey offered the most tangible evidence to date that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have stalled. Similar Israeli shifts in the 1990s between the Syrian and the Palestinian negotiating tracks typically meant the abandonment of one in favor of the other. But this time, things could be different. According to some observers familiar with the process, stepping up one track could actually strengthen the other."

Jim Ridgeway has another piece on for profit espionage. "Two operatives for a now-defunct Maryland-based private security firm, which spied on environmental groups and other targets for corporate clients, are now in the crosshairs of a Louisiana lawyer representing plaintiffs exposed to dangerous toxins that leaked from a pipeline operated by chemical manufacturer Condea Vista. As Mother Jones revealed in April, from the mid-1990s to at least 2000 the security firm, Beckett Brown International, gathered intelligence for corporations and the PR firms they employed. Using methods that ranged from covert surveillance to dumpster diving to infiltrating activist groups, the firm, which was founded by former Secret Service agents, sought to obtain inside information that could be used as ammunition against activist campaigns. One of BBI's clients was Condea Vista, a company whose chemical spill in Lake Charles, Louisiana is considered among the largest in US history."

WSJ's Yochi Dreazen: "The U.S. military, in a shift, has postponed the release of a report detailing allegations of Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents, according to people familiar with the matter."

Daniel Levy: Mr. Adelson goes to Israel.

Matt Duss: Pro-Chalabi front group lobbyist is top McCain foreign policy advisor. As NBC recently reported, the US recently cut off ties to Chalabi due to his ongoing contacts with Iranian operatives designated as terrorists. (Via MJ's Jonathan Stein.) More on Scheunemann's lobbying for foreign clients while serving as top national security advisor to the McCain campaign from USA Today.

Ha'aretz: Israel confirms launch of talks with Syria, mediated by Turkey. Two former Israeli foreign ministry officials explained the logic of such talks to me. " ... Other former Israeli officials are pressing further, arguing that Israel should pursue peace with Syria, its last bordering state with which it does not have a peace agreement. Among officials urging Washington to back diplomacy with Syria are former Israeli foreign ministry and intelligence official David Kimche and former Israeli foreign ministry director-general Alon Liel, who had been pursuing a track-two dialogue mediated by Turkey until Washington pressured the Israeli government to cut off the channel. 'One of the reasons that I believe we should explore the possibility of speaking with Syria on an official level is that this body needs oxygen,' Liel told me in February in Washington. 'We need a real process, and the Syrians are open to do it.'” Link.

More here:

Is Washington showing new signs of willingness to test out opportunities for increased diplomacy with Syria?

On May 5, the Rendon Group, a government consulting group which worked closely with Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, was asked to organize a "narrow focus discussion group" to examine the case of Badran Turki Hishan Al Mazidih, according to a Washington source with an ear on the Levant. The Syria-based Al Mazidih, also known as Abu Ghadiyah, runs the Al Qaeda in Iraq "facilitation network, which controls the flow of money, weapons, terrorists, and other resources through Syria into Iraq," the Treasury Department said in a February press release announcing his designation as a terrorist. [...]

The alleged Rendon Group meeting comes amid reports that principal deputy assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs Jeffrey Feltman, a former US ambassador to Lebanon, recently held a rare meeting with Syria's ambassador to the US Imad Mustafa. After the meeting, the Syrian ambassador flew to Damascus for consultations.

What's going on?

According to the State Department, not much. "Ambassador Feltman met with Ambassador Mustafa on April 24 for approximately 15 minutes, to inform Ambassador Mustafa that the United States was briefing Congress, the IAEA, and the public about Syria’s covert nuclear activities," a State Department spokesman said Thursday, downplaying the meeting. "No other issues were raised."

The ambassadorial briefing on the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor struck by Israel last September comes paradoxically as Israel and Syria have been feeling out possible outlines for peace talks, mediated by Turkey. Until recently, Washington has reportedly blocked such talks because it says Syria has not done enough to impede the flow of foreign insurgents and suicide bombers from Syria into Iraq, and has acted to destabilize the Lebanese government.

But Washington now says it has no objection to Israel-Syria peace talks going ahead, while making no commitment to come to the table. "We do not wish to stand in the way of any attempt to achieve peace between Israel and its neighbors including Syria," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was cited by Asharq al-Awsat newspaper in remarks translated into Arabic. "If the two sides wished to exert an effort for peace the United States would give its blessing and back these efforts. The problem is that Syria is yet to show a desire for Middle East peace especially vis-a-vis Lebanon."

"The substance of the US position toward talks is simple: you want to do it, do it," one Washington Middle East hand who did not want to be further identified said Wednesday, characterizing the US position. "But we are not sitting at the table unless we have something tangible on Lebanon. We are not risking our multilateral policy, consensus with Europeans and Arabs, credibility, alliances, geopolitical interests to test the improbable proposition that talking to Syria will lure it from Iran, which is Israel’s primary goal."

In the 1990s, Syria would go through the US to get to Israel and Israel would go through the US to get to Syria, he explained. "Today, roles have changed. Syria hopes to bring the US to the table by calling for a resumption of talks. Israel is worried that its options for dealing with Iran are shrinking. The last card is talking to the Syrians. Also the problems on the Palestinian track make the Syrian one more appealing in tactical terms."

"This whole peace negotiations business is a smoke-screen for much different calculations on the Syrian and Israeli sides," he said. And so far as Washington calculates, Syria has demonstrated few signs to date of being willing to take the steps necessary to warrant greater engagement. It will be worth watching to see if Badran Al Mazidih one day finds himself pushed over the Syrian border into Iraq.

Really interesting Dan Froomkin analysis of why Bush got so ticked off at NBC:

.... The White House's outsized reaction instead appears to be about two other things entirely.

It doesn't take a trained psychologist to observe that Bush got angrier and angrier as the Engel interview went on. That obviously had nothing to do with the editing; it had to do with Engel's questions.

Bush typically sits down with interviewers from Fox News -- or, more recently, Politico-- where he can count on more than his share of ingratiating softballs. But Engel, a fluent Arabic speaker who has logged more time in Iraq than any other television correspondent, assertively confronted Bush with the ramifications of his actions in the Middle East.

For instance, Engel noted: "A lot of Iran's empowerment is a result of the war in Iraq." He questioned Bush about his lack of an exit strategy in Iraq: "So it doesn't sound like there's an end anytime soon." He clearly upset Bush by saying that "on the ground," the situation in Iraq "looks very bleak." (Bush replied: "Well, that's interesting you said that -- that's a little different from the surveys I've seen and a little different from the attitude of the actual Iraqis I've talked to, but you're entitled to your opinion.")

He also challenged Bush on his legacy: "[I]f you look back over the last several years, the Middle East that you'll be handing over to the next President is deeply problematic: You have Hamas in power; Hezbollah empowered, taking to the streets, more -- stronger than the government; Iran empowered, Iraq still at war. What region are you handing over?"

And Bush seemed positively furious by the end of the interview, when Engel had this to say: "The war on terrorism has been the centerpiece of your presidency. Many people say that it has not made the world safer, that it has created more radicals. That there are more people in this part of the world who want to attack the United States."

So is it a stretch to suspect that Bush told his counselor to get a little revenge? ...

More from the NYT.

New Foggo Indictment, via the AP. In November 2005, I broke Foggo's connection to the Cunningham case:

So far most of the attention in the Randy “Duke” Cunningham corruption case has focused on his guilty plea Monday admitting to charges that he conspired to take $2.4 million in bribes (cash, carpets, antiques and real estate), evade taxes, commit mail fraud and wire fraud, and steer Defense department contracts to those who enriched him. Those defense contracts were facilitated by Cunningham’s position on the House Appropriations committee subcommittee on defense – in effect, the subcommittee that writes the checks for Pentagon contracts.

But intelligence sources tell the Prospect that not to be overlooked is Cunningham’s position on the House Permanent Select Intelligence committee (HIPSI), and CIA contracts Cunningham may have helped steer to benefactors, particularly to companies chaired by Cunningham’s alleged co-conspirator Brent Wilkes, CEO of San Diego-based defense contractor ADCS Inc., and a major Republican campaign contributor.

The Prospect [has learned] that Wilkes’ company received at least one CIA contract – to supply CIA employees in Iraq with water, early into the invasion. Sources say such a contract may have been facilitated not only by the hundreds of thousands of dollars Wilkes steered to Cunningham, but also by the fact that Wilkes’ university roommate and long time friend is a recently promoted top CIA manager, K. “Dusty” Foggo. A career CIA operations support officer, Foggo was somewhat controversially appointed by incoming CIA director Porter Goss -- Cunningham’s former colleague on the House intelligence committee -- last year to be the executive director of the Agency, in effect, the CIA’s #3 official and day to day administrative manager of the $5 billion agency. (See Jason Vest’s profile and this Walter Pincus piece for background). An intelligence source says that Wilkes even jokes about Foggo having a virtual office (“a playpen”) in Wilkes’ company’s offices in the Washington, D.C. suburbs of Chantilly, Virginia. Wilkes’ attorney Michael Lipman wouldn’t comment on whether government investigators were reviewing any CIA contracts ADCS might have received, he also declined to say whether Wilkes was cooperating with the investigation. Wilkes has not yet been indicted. [...]

And I first reported the name of one Wilkes controlled company through which the CIA funnelled contracts here:

...CIA contracts are not public, and there's an added veil of secrecy and opaqueness to the “black” contracting world. Cunningham bragged about his ability to help influence the procuring of contracts from this secretive Congressional source in a letter to San Diego contractors, saying he was in a position to influence the awarding of “black” contracts after he was assigned to the House Intelligence committee in 2001. An individual who has been identified in press reports as Co-conspirator One in the Cunningham indictment, San Diego-based defense contractor Brent Wilkes, who has not yet been charged, has more than a dozen companies in his corporate empire. Efforts by journalists to sort out which companies might have received CIA contracts have gotten nowhere -- until now.

On December 8, the Prospect received an anonymous tip about CIA contracts: The name of a Wilkes-affiliated company that allegedly had received some of them. The company is called Archer Logistics, which is, according to its website, a US-based “open source acquisition group … uniquely positioned to execute rapid acquisition requests, provide immediate delivery channels and augment post-sales support. ...Archer Logistics has also developed a unique delivery structure that can provide turnaround times of 24 hours in cases of extreme need.” (Its name is similar to a Senate-registered, Wilkes-affiliate company Archer Defense, “a defense logistics and technology company,” but not, apparently, the same company.) According to its website, incorporation documents in the Commonwealth of Virginia and public-online address books, Archer Logistics is located in the same Chantilly, Virginia address that houses the Virginia offices of ADCS, Inc. Neither Archer Logistics nor the ADCS Chantilly office answered the phone, and neither has responded to numerous messages.

When asked about whether Archer Logistics was receiving CIA contracts, a spokesman for the CIA told the Prospect on December 9 that “as a rule, the CIA does not publicly discuss who may or may not have a contractual relationship with the Agency.” Previously, the CIA had indicated that other Wilkes-affiliated companies – ADCS, Pure Aqua Technologies, Perfect Wave Technologies, Group W Transport – did not have contracts with the Agency.

Incorporation documents from the state of Virginia show that the president of Archer Logistics is Joel G. Combs, an individual who, according to lobbying registration documents filed with the Senate, is a registered lobbyist for Wilkes' lobbying arm, Group W Advisors. ... Sources familiar with the company tell the Prospect, and California birth records indicate, that Combs is a relative of Brent Wilkes. ...

And first reported Wilkes' negotiations with Foggo about providing the Agency a covert air transport company, a very large contract that was not ultimately realized due to increasing investigative scrutiny:

The Cunningham Case, the CIA and Off-the-Books Planes. As I have already reported, alleged Cunningham co-conspirator #1 Brent Wilkes already got a couple smallish CIA contracts ($5 million to $10 million/year deals each), through a company nominally owned by his nephew and former ADCS and Group W Advisors employee, Joel G. Combs, called Archer Logistics. As I reported in December, one contract dates to 2003 and was to supply water to CIA personnel in Iraq. But sources tell me far larger CIA contracts were in the pipeline, until Wilkes was revealed to be involved in the Cunningham corruption case. "Wilkes was working on several other huge deals when the hammer fell," a source indicates. "There were several more opportunities on the board when the federal investigation came down on Wilkes. Opportunities worth much more than the $5M or $10 million/year deals Wilkes was used to. The FBI probably knows about these from the raids they conducted, but I wonder if they have shared that information with the CIA." The last point refers to the CIA Inspector General investigation of the CIA contracts Wilkes'-associated firms received, including, the probe will examine, any directed by Wilkes' best friend, Dusty Foggo, the executive director of the Agency.

And what were the forthcoming contracts for? According to a source, they were to create and run a secret plane network, for whatever needs the CIA has for secret fleets of planes. Presumably, that might include "extraordinary renditions," e.g. to fly terror suspects off the radar to locations for interrogation. "I Imagine that since their whole flying operation has been outed, it makes it tough to operate clandestine flights," the source explained. "I bet it would cost a bundle to set up a whole new operation that no one knew about ... How do they operate a secret fleet of aircraft now that everyone knows about the planes we have? If I were high up in the CIA, this would be a big priority for me, and I would need a solution outside the normal range of solutions." Enter trusted contractor Brent Wilkes and Archer Logistics, and perhaps a whole new front company to be invented for the purpose. [...]

Update: ABC's Justin Rood reports that the latest Foggo indictment charges that the "former top CIA official pressured agency employees into hiring his alleged mistress as an in-house attorney."

ISIS: Iran's proposal for "constructive negotiations" (.pdf).

The AP reports the sad news that Sen. Ted Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor.

MJ: Operation Get a Grip.

More from the NYT.

Fareed Zakaria: This administration's few successes have come when it's agreed to engage with adversaries. Tracks closely with arguments of those I interviewed over the past few months here, here, and here.

NYT: French meetings with Hamas:

France confirmed on Monday that it has had contacts with the leaders of Hamas for several months to try to better understand the positions of the radical Islamic group that is running Gaza.

Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner emphasized that there were no negotiations with Hamas, labeled a terrorist group by both the United States and the European Union.

“These are not relations, they are contacts,” Mr. Kouchner said on Europe1 radio. “We are not the only ones to have them,” he said. “We must be able to talk if we want to play a role.”

Mr. Kouchner confirmed a report in the daily Le Figaro, quoting a retired French diplomat and former ambassador to Iraq, Yves Aubin de La Messuzière, saying that he had met a month ago in Gaza with Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister, and Mahmoud Zahar, among the most important Hamas leaders in the Palestinian territories.

The confirmation of contacts will anger the United States and Israel just days before Mr. Kouchner makes a visit to to the region which will includeBethlehem, in the West Bank. It will also displease the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, who has said that he will not talk to Hamas, which he accuses of carrying out a bloody coup in Gaza last June.

In Jerusalem, Arye Mekel, a spokesman for the foreign ministry, said his government had already raised the issue of this meeting “at the highest levels" of the French government and "received assurances that there is no change in the position of France vis-a-vis Hamas, and that it continues to adhere to the three conditions of the Quartet, namely, if Hamas wants to be acceptable as a partner, it must recognize the existence of Israel, stop terror, and accept all agreements signed in the past between Israel and the Palestinians."

Israeli officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the French meeting was part of a general softening in the European position toward Hamas. Various European officials, they said, feel uneasy about the European position because they are concerned that it is unrealistic and would like to formulate a new one. This meeting, they said, is part of those efforts. ...

Yglesias Tonight. For those near DC, Matt Yglesias is speaking at Politics & Prose at 5pm this evening about his new foreign policy book, Heads in the Sand.

So Mr. Experience never noticed that all of these campaign advisors of his are registered lobbyists for countries like Saudi Arabia and Myanmar? Never occurred to him? Didn't care unless it became an issue?

Guardian: BAE bosses detained at US airport:

Two senior BAE Systems executives were detained by US authorities investigating corruption allegations, it was revealed today.

The defence firm's chief executive, Mike Turner, and a senior colleague are understood to have been held as they arrived in the US on business this week.

The pair were questioned while documents and personal electronic equipment – including laptops and Blackberries – were examined before being released.

The US justice department acted at Houston airport in Texas as part of its investigation into a £43bn arms deal between BAE and Saudi Arabia.

The company has been accused of making illegal payments to key officials from the regime - although it has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. ...

China Quake Donations. An American academic spending the year in China passes along the recommendation by an informed contact: "If anyone wants to donate, I recommend Oxfam. They already have people on the ground and they are reputable and trustworthy. Please tell people NOT to give money to the Chinese redcross, because their process and accounting are not transparent." Details here. NPR on the scene has unbearable coverage of the earthquake aftermath.

Amos Harel: Is Israel breaking its own taboo on talks with Hamas?

... A letter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the details of which were revealed Friday, called for the indirect and secret talks with Hamas to be recognized. As for Israel's greatest concerns - that Hamas will use a lull in hostilities to rearm and that Egypt's promises to fight weapons smuggling bear no weight - the writers of the letter offered no solution.

Among the signatories' names, that of MK Yossi Beilin (Meretz) is to be expected. More surprising are the names of the former Shin Bet [sic] chief Ephraim Halevi, who has actually been calling for talks with Hamas in recent months, along with former chief of staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak and Brigadier General (res.) Shmuel Zakai, a former Gaza Division commander. This is an attempt to provide a military stamp of approval to a step Israel has officially sworn it would not take. What was taboo two years ago is no longer.

It is Hamas that has not changed its position over the past two years, that has not accepted the Quartet's conditions, and has remained adamant not to recognize Israel and previous agreements, and not to renounce terror. The economic blockade has certainly strengthened Hamas' desire for a cease-fire. But make no mistake, a senior military figure said: "Hamas is not coming to negotiations because it is in decline. Its regime will not fall if the blockade continues."

More here, here, here and here.

The Forward's Marc Perelman: "Olmert Corruption Probe Exposes Murky Role of U.S. Money in Israeli Elections."

... Israel had a system of private financing until the late 1960s, with virtually no oversight of party financing. In response to the rising cost of campaigning, the parties agreed to put in place a mixed funding system in 1973, with public money apportioned according to Knesset representation alongside private money, including funds from foreign donors. The growing share of private funding prompted a decision before the 1992 elections to limit private donations to 55,000 shekels, roughly $22,000 at the 1992 rate.

In 1994, however, campaign financing rules were rewritten. In addition to increasing public funding and putting in place more stringent transparency requirements, they entailed a drastic change of private funding rules: The ceiling was slashed to 1,000 shekels (around $350 at the 1994 rate) and limited to Israeli citizens exclusively. As a result, Israeli parties now rely almost solely on public funding.

Private donations, including those from foreign donors, have since shifted to party primaries, whose financing is loosely regulated, with oversight authority granted chiefly to the parties themselves. Moreover, reporting of contributions is required only for the nine months prior to the primaries, with no disclosure of fundraising and expenditures needed for any period prior to the cutoff date. In addition to allegedly amassing war chests before the nine-month period, politicians have supposedly collaborated with not-for-profit associations in a scheme in which not-for-profits would campaign for a given politician who would, upon being elected, use his position to steer government funding back toward the associations, according to Hofnung.

The shift of private financing toward individuals from parties has landed a number of leading politicians in legal trouble.

Each of Olmert’s three immediate predecessors as prime minister — Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu (the latter two now Olmert’s main rivals for office) — have faced investigations over political financing. None of them, however, has been charged with wrongdoing.

Qods feelers to the US via Talabani. CSM: " ... Iran's intervention comes as previously undisclosed details are emerging of a secret meeting between Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, other senior Iraqi officials, and the commander of Iran's Qods Force, Brig. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, in April, after clashes with Sadr's Mahdi Army in Basra. In that meeting, General Soleimani 'was deeply concerned' and 'promised to stop arming groups in Iraq and to ensure that groups halt activities against US forces,' according to a description given by a US official to the Monitor. Soleimani gave Mr. Talabani a 'message' for US Gen. David Petraeus, too. He noted that his portfolio includes Iraq, Gaza, and Lebanon and that he was willing to 'send a small team' to 'discuss any issue' with the Americans. Talabani and other senior Iraqi leaders told US Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General Petraeus that this 'was an entirely different tone than we had ever heard from [Soleimani] before,' and asked the Americans to 'please take it seriously' and "test it," according to the official. Mr. Crocker and Petraeus – who told Congress in April that Iran was waging a 'proxy war' against the US in Iraq – expressed skepticism, noting how even the ambassador's Green Zone residence had recently come under fire from 240-mm rockets made in Iran." Via FLC.

More from Dr. iRack.

NCT: Cunningham co-conspirator and FBI informant Tommy Kontogiannis sentenced to eight years. More here.

Ha'aretz:

Avi Sherman, a limousine driver who drove Olmert during his tenure as mayor of Jerusalem, testified to police on Thursday that he personally gave Olmert envelopes stuffed with cash from several businessmen, among them [Morris] Talansky and [Slim Fast founder Daniel] Abraham.

Channel 2 on Thursday aired excerpts from Sherman's testimony. "When Olmert would arrive in New York," Sherman is heard saying in one of the excerpts, "he would coordinate his trip with [Olmert chief of staff] Shula Zaken, and I would go to the offices of the non-profit organization raising funds for Sha'arei Tzedek -- which was headed by Talansky -- and I would collect an envelope from his secretary. The envelope was full of cash dollars. Then I would go to the Regency Hotel and give the envelope to Ehud personally, in his hand."

Sherman also testified that he gave Olmert funds from Abraham, who denied any connection to the money. Sherman said that the money was hidden in packages of the diet drink "Slim Fast," which is a product manufactured by Abraham's company. ...

"If I Were Sheldon." One of Israel's top journalists and commentators Nahum Barnea writes in his column at Yediot Aharanot today about how Israelis view Sheldon Adelson, who was here with President Bush this week:

When Sheldon Adelson gave his speech on the podium of the International Convention Center two days ago, I looked at Shimon Peres.

I was happy for him. The impressive, sparkling conference that he convened will warm his heart on the cold evenings when he is stuck alone, he and his security guards, in the desolate cage on Jabotinsky Street in Jerusalem. Many important, highly-respected people. An excellent organization. Well done.

As a citizen of the country, I was less happy. I saw a gambling tycoon from Las Vegas who bought my country's birthday with three million dollars. I thought with sorrow: Is the country worth so very little? Were the champagne and the wine and the sushi that were given out for free in the lobby, unlike what is conventional for such events, worth the humiliation?

Adelson is a Jew who loves Israel. Like some other Jews who live at a safe distance from here, his love is great, passionate, smothering. It is important to him that he influence the policies, decisions and compositions of Israeli governments. He is not alone in this, either: even back in the days of Baron Rothschild, wealthy Jews from the Diaspora felt that this country lay in their pocket, alongside their wallet. Regrettably, in the latest generation, we are being led by politicians who look at these millionaires with calf's eyes.

This kowtowing to other people's wallets-that is the common denominator of Rabin and Peres, Netanyahu, Barak and Olmert. Where are the good old days of Pinhas Sapir, who used to shout from the top of his lungs about these millionaires, who would let them wait for hours near the door of his office, who would pour soda into the glass of Chateau Rothschild that he was served and, afterwards, would make them sign the check? Sapir did not abase himself to anyone because, unlike them, he never expected to receive anything for himself.

Adelson is like the others, and yet different. He has the gift of authority and the bluntness of someone who made a lot of money quickly. He does not ask. He commands.

"He talks to me as though I were his property," the director of an important Jewish-American organization, one of the guests at the conference, told me. I heard similar complaints from others, Israelis and Americans, who got scandals from Adelson. Not long ago, the mayor of a large city received word that he had to meet Adelson immediately. He acceded, of course: the man is a big donor. When they met, Adelson ordered him to tell the municipal inspectors to leave the employees of his business, who were violating municipal law, alone.

There is a story about an anti-Arab propaganda film that Adelson heard about. He telephoned the director-general of a Jewish organization, asking him to buy and distribute the film. But the film is distorted, said the man. No one will believe it. So edit it, Adelson commanded. The film is not editable, said the man. All right, Adelson said. I will buy the film at my expense, but you will distribute it.

"He would like all the Arabs to disappear," another activist for a Jewish organization told me. "It seems that he thinks that the Arabs are gambling chips."

Several months ago, Adelson contacted another Jewish-American millionaire and asked him to donate a large sum of money for a campaign that he was organizing against the current Israeli government. The man politely refused. You know what, Adelson told him, do not donate. Just sign. The man refused again. Adelson accused him of funding anti-Israel research. I do not know what you mean, the man answered. When my man in charge of these things is in Las Vegas, he will come to you. Look into the matter.

The meeting at Adelson's office, in the Venetian hotel-casino, was a stormy one. Adelson took out a written list of accusations, many of them childish. You hosted (PA prime minister) Salam Fayyad, he said. He is a terrorist with blood on his hands. He is one of the founders of Fatah. Salam Fayyad was never involved in terrorism, his interlocutor said. He is not a member of Fatah. Where did you get these accusations from?

From Steve Emerson, said the billionaire. Emerson is an American Jew who often analyzes terror matters. You work with Olmert's government, accused Adelson. This is an illegitimate government. It must be thrown out.

I thought that Olmert is your friend, said the man.

And, indeed, they were friends. Such good friends that Olmert wrote him a letter and asked him to buy mini-bars for his hotels from a company that Talansky represented.

("This is not something new," one of the Americans who came to the conference told me. "One day I get a call from an Israeli, a former senior government official. I have a request, he said. Talk to Adelson about buying safes for the rooms in his hotels from a company that I work with. If the deal goes through, your organization will get a donation of USD 1 million." The man absolutely rejected the request.)

Adelman is convinced that Netanyahu, not Olmert, must be prime minister of Israel. In order to advance this idea, he established a newspaper, which devotes it pages to the fight against Olmert and praises Netanyahu. Allegedly, this investment is the largest election gift given to Israel ever. I do not claim this. Firstly, it is a legal gift, legitimate. Secondly, when Netanyahu is elected prime minister, he will have to act within the constraints of the State of Israel, not take dictates from a patron in Las Vegas.

Adelson, surrounded by guards, was king of the conference. He sat in the first row, with Shimon Peres between him and Olmert. He put his hand out to Olmert. Olmert shook it with a sour face. They did not exchange a single word.

It was striking seeing Sheldon and Bush in the front row of the Jerusalem conference the other day, Israeli president Shimon Peres, the conference host, between them, as if they were diplomatically speaking some sort of equals. Then again, Adelson reportedly chipped in $3.5 million for the conference.

(Thanks to the Israel Policy Forum's MJ Rosenberg for the heads up.)

Journalist Tim Shorrock, author of a new book, Spies for Hire, reports at his blog that the Carlyle Group buys Booz Allen intel unit. (Check out the NY Post graphic on his book).

MJ: Bush's politicking at Israel's Knesset neglects his role in Hamas' election win

... Beyond the fact that Bush's own administration has repeatedly offered to negotiate with Tehran should Iran suspend uranium enrichment, and that his top diplomat in Iraq has talked with his Iranian counterparts, as well as his former ambassador to Afghanistan, both with the White House blessing, as well as the ongoing negotiations with Pyongyang, Libya, and the Syrian deputy foreign minister's visit to Annapolis; beyond those recent demonstrated exceptions in action to Bush's rhetoric (I guess the word for it is "hypocrisy"): It's also worth pointing out, as several Israeli security officials and political observers have recently done to me here, a bit of recent history Bush neglected to mention at Israel's parliament. That Israel and the Palestinian Authority have chiefly him to thank for Hamas having a degree of political legitimacy it otherwise would not have had. After all, they point out, it was the Bush administration that "twisted the arm" of Israeli and Palestinian leaders against consideridable resistance and skepticism on their part to allow the Palestinian militant group Hamas to run in 2006 Palestinian elections that Hamas won -- an outcome to its interventions that the Bush administration once again failed to anticipate.

"It never occurred to them, as in Iraq, that the two goals – regime change and democracy – may not work together," Jerusalem-based writer Gershom Gorenberg recently told me. "That psychology left them open to the idea that on the one hand they can have their cake and eat it too. You could get rid of Arafat, have democratic elections and you will get Republicans." Or so the Bush administration wished.

“And the Israelis completely didn’t agree,” Gorenberg added.

Such Israeli (and Palestinian moderates') skepticism about the Bush administration's naive and wishful thinking that elections would swiftly topple extremists proved correct. "This administration, which says it has a principled approach [of not talking to terrorists], is the very administration that in 2006 twisted the arm of the Israeli government and of the Palestinian authorities and forced them both to accept Hamas as a participant in the elections," former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy told me. "When the result of the election was a surprise, the immediate reaction was, 'Okay, We don’t like this result, so we’ll change the rules.' ... The administration is inconsistent in its approach."

And equally inconsistent in the case of Hezbollah, Halevy adds.

More at the link.

Update: Further observations from Peter Scoblic in the LA Times, "Negotiating isn't Appeasement," Eric Martin and commenters at Obsidian Wings, Foreign Policy's Josh Keating, TBogg, Jim Lobe, MJ Rosenberg and Ha'aretz's Shmuel Rosner, here and here: "U.S. policy under Bush's watch has failed on the Iranian issue."

NBC: US cuts ties to Chalabi over ongoing contact with Iranian operatives. More from Newsweek.

New Stuff: Bush in Israel, Gershom Gorenberg on Losing Lebanon, and Daniel Levy in the International Herald Tribune, "Roadmap to Nowhere."

Wipe Out. TPM: Dem takes Mississippi's "incredibly Republican" first district. "To put this into some broader perspective, the Republicans have lost three straight Republican districts to the Democrats in by-elections this year. Hastert's district in Illinois, Louisiana 6th, and now Mississippi 1st. Each successively more Republican than the last. In Mississippi 1st, President Bush got 62% of the vote there in 2004."

MJ: Las Vegas casino mogus Sheldon Adelson questioned by Israeli fraud squad detectives as part of Olmert corruption probe.

Update: Great Peter Stone profile of Adelson at National Journal, a fuller version of the piece he recently did for Mother Jones. Best pull quote from the piece:

Given Adelson’s vast wealth and wide-ranging interests, it’s not surprising that he