From the Atlantic to the Pacific, Argentina to the Philippines, here are the six areas of conflict -- all tied to energy supplies -- that have made news in just the first few months of 2012:

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

Hadley was an early and enthusiastic functionary in the war against Iraq. During the George H. W. Bush administration, he was a Pentagon aide to uber-hawk Paul Wolfowitz, and later served as a senior foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush’s presidential campaign. Hadley was instrumental in allowing the "Yellowcake Forgery" fabrication into Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address, a mistake for which he reportedly offered to resign. Taking over as national security advisor in 2005 from Condoleezza Rice, he was known for being on the relatively moderate spectrum of the Bush administration (well, at least when compared to Cheney and Rumsfeld). Upon leaving office, he formed a consulting shop with Rice, and he recently co-wrote a piece calling for negotiations with the Taliban.

Continue Reading...

In a rhetorical style that was less hostile than usual, Ayatollah Khamenei hailed Obama’s comments as “good words” and called them “an exit from delusion.” Meanwhile, his nuclear negotiator, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, resumed talks in Vienna over Iran’s controversial nuclear program with five western powers including China for the first time in more than a year. He called the talks “a new chapter.”

Continue Reading...

But for Payman Maadi, the star of "A Separation," it feels a little like home. Los Angeles, he says, is in many ways just like Tehran. He's here for the Academy Awards, which are quintessentially Los Angeles. But Tehran, of course, is nothing like the Academy Awards; the transitive property does not apply here.

So when I see Maadi dead asleep in the passenger seat just before the Oscars, I see the exhausting wear of Los Angeles -- the city takes an unsuspected toll on an Iranian who runs a luxury watch shop in the country’s capital, and now finds himself in the throes of the movie industry’s biggest night.

Continue Reading...

Obama faced a very delicate task this week. Netanyahu came to town to address the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s big conference. This is Washington’s annual pro-Israel orgy, in which politicians from both parties vie with each other to declare their undying fealty to a tiny foreign country. Sitting out this bizarre ritual is not an option. As the New York Times reported, AIPAC delegates from all 50 states scheduled 530 meetings with members of Congress: Only five congressional offices did not take meetings, and two of those were vacant.

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

AIPAC and the rest of the pro-Israel lobby remain influential despite the extraordinary shift in public opinion and popular discourse over the last several years that has put the lobby on the defensive everywhere but Congress.  Obama’s AIPAC speech reflected that influence and the perceived need of mainstream politicians to adhere to its demands, especially during the pressures of an election cycle. It would give, he and his advisers hope, a powerful boost to his campaign.

But on the critical question of Iran, his speech also highlighted the small but significant divide that continues to split U.S. from Israeli policy.  Obama offered a rhetorical embrace, but a much less-than-desired military promise to Israel on Iran, while delivering a slap in the face to human rights, international law, and any U.S. responsibility for ending support for Israel’s anti-Palestinian occupation and apartheid policies.

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

The matter was at the root of wry commentary accompanying a flurry of visits not seen in years.

In the past few weeks, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon have all held high level meetings in Jerusalem. Barak is scheduled to meet with Panetta and with Vice President Joe Biden. Peres will meet with President Barack Obama, as will Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will fly to Washington for a much anticipated meeting on March 5.

Continue Reading...

Long famous for such tendencies, Iranians are once again asserting their love of what they call "Vatan," or Homeland, as both real and perceived threats from abroad continue to mount.

On the part of the government, the prideful rhetoric is nothing new. The threats of preemptive strikes, oil embargoes and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, together with bluster about its capture of a downed U.S. spy plane, all appear to be posturing as the conflict with the West over its nuclear program continues to seethe.

More quietly, however, everyday Iranians too are beginning to feel the pull of national pride. Crippled in their daily lives by skyrocketing energy costs and the weight of economic sanctions, many of Iran's citizens appear to be seeking refuge in their own history, steeped as it is in power and prestige.

Continue Reading...

A casual observer would probably say Netanyahu. He’s the Likud hard-liner, the settlement-builder, the one who’s always comparing Iran to the Nazis; Barak is the peacemaker from Camp David, the good friend of Bill and Hillary. Barak is an honorary Democrat; Netanyahu is the Republicans’ fantasy pick for president.

While all this seems true, it doesn’t necessarily tell you which of them is more determined to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, and Ha’aretz is reporting (here and here) that U.S. officials say Barak is the one. As National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon and National Intelligence Agency chief James Clapper arrived in Jerusalem this week to press the case against an Israeli attack, Ha’aretz reported:

Continue Reading...

The age old rivalry between Russia and the West is being played out in the Middle-East, pitting the largely Sunni Muslim Arab states against Russia’s ally  in the region- Iran. An important player bridging the gap between Shi’ite Iran and the Arab Sunnis is Lebanon’s Shi’ite resistance movement known as Hezbollah (Party of God.)

Hezbollah has enjoyed enormous popularity across the entire region, perceived by many as the champions of the Arab world, successfully standing up to the bully in the playground, Israel. There was a time when the portrait of Hassan Nasrallah hung on the walls of homes and cafes from Baghdad to Casablanca. Yet, following a relatively cool reception of Nasrallah’s speech on the 16^th of February , one got the distinct impression that the Lebanese resistance leader may not enjoy the same popularity he once did with the Arab masses.

Continue Reading...

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and some right-leaning voices in the United States, including most of the GOP’s presidential contenders, continue to pound the war drums over Iran’s nuclear program.

But over the past several months, the image of the regime as a snake coiled to strike has lost some of its appeal to Iran observers. The erratic and often amateurish mix of bungled attacks and histrionic threats has prompted a reassessment of Iran and its putative allies.

Its thwarted attempts to assassinate Israeli and Saudi diplomats, stubborn defense of — and covert aid to — the bloodthirsty Syrian regime and its inept economic policy moves and apparently empty bluster about closing the Strait of Hormuz all have contributed to the belief that Iran may not be the fearsome adversary its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would have us believe.

Continue Reading...

An updated list of talking points distributed by the national advocacy desk in the Prime Minister’s Office  sought to connect the wave of terror with the international community’s efforts at tightening sanctions on Iran, and also to prepare the ground for a military option to stop Iran’s nuclear program.

According to Yediot, the new talking points read: “Iran and Hizbullah are behind these terror attempts. If this is what Iran is doing now, imagine what it will do if its nuclear arms project reaches the goal.” The tabloid's story was headlined “Iran’s long arm,” and the subhead read, “Israel to the world: ‘Terror acts show nuclear Iran cannot be allowed.'" The story’s ominous tone meshed perfectly with the talking points.

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

But on Dec. 28, 2011, a revolutionary court sentenced him to eight years in prison and a five-year ban from civic activities for “acting against the national security” and “publishing lies.” It is often said that “revolutions eat their children.” In the case of Iran, the Islamic Revolution of 1979 swallowed up some of its children whole, chewed and spit out the ones who strayed from the proper path, and mercilessly gnaws on those it cannot disown.

Continue Reading...

What quickly followed is well known. Several days later, in what journalist James Fallows called “probably the most direct public dressing-down of a military officer, a four-star general, by a civilian superior since Harry Truman and Douglas MacArthur, 50 years ago,” Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz called Shinseki’s estimate “wildly off the mark,” and said that “it’s hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself.”

Continue Reading...

Dumb because like the targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists rarely cited by columnist commandoes, bombing raids alone can’t achieve the alleged goal: preventing the Ayatollahs from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Slow them down, probably. Stop them, no. Short of a full-scale invasion and occupation of a nation three times larger than neighboring Iraq in population and five times larger in land area, that can’t be done. Global disapproval didn’t stop North Korea, Pakistan or, for that matter, Israel.

Exponentially dumb because it could set the entire Middle East aflame.

You’d think the Israelis, of all people, would recognize that threatening a people with death and destruction hardens their resolve. Yet the New York Times reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “told visitors that he believes the Tehran government to be deeply unpopular, indeed despised, and that a careful attack on its nuclear facilities might even be welcomed by Iranian citizens.”

Continue Reading...

All of which makes his views on Iran both surprising and significant. Pollack’s 2004 book "The Persian Puzzle" contended that containing a nuclear Iran was possible, if not desirable. Nearly eight years later, he has just written an important piece for the New Republic warning that the Obama administration's  policies are unwittingly leading us to war with Iran.

Continue Reading...