Honduras, Red State

I think the plan for the ruling regime in Honduras is to negotiate out the clock on restoring Mel Zelaya. He only has a few months left on his term, and so endless talks would just serve to push resolution past the end. While they talk the talk of diplomacy, the government is using mercenaries, in violation of international conventions, to suppress dissent and support the rulers.

Meanwhile, the ruling regime has spent over $600,000 in a high-profile lobbying campaign, hiring those responsible for America's bloody crackdown in Central America in the 1980s like Otto Reich, along with corporate whores like Lanny Davis who will literally say anything for money. This has allowed them to gather friends at the top of the government, particularly Congressional Republicans like Sen. Jim DeMint.

Let's see, endless delays in negotiations, use of mercenaries, fealty to lobbyists, PR as a national policy.

They really are a mirror for American democracy! Circa 2002, at least.

Did They Not See The SNL Sketch?

The Nobel Peace Prize? Really? Really. Um, really? Srsly? OK. No, wait, really?

President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday

Say that again.

President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday

I'm going to have to ask for it one more time.

President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.

Nobel observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline.

OK. I've digested it.

Important to note that the President didn't go to Oslo to ask for this. He didn't have a team of lobbyists swirling around Norway. In fact, they seem as taken by surprise as anyone else.

FWIW, I think putting the United States on a path of diplomacy and multilateralism HAS made the world a more peaceful place. I think calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons IS noble. I think engaging the Muslim world WILL yield rewards. Cheneyist foreign policy was so damaging to the global equilibrium that anything contrasting it necessarily is a marked improvement.

That said, this is just weird. Not so weird that you have to be a malingerer about it like Richard Cohen or a concern troll like Mickey Kaus or a straight-up attack dog like the entire Republican Party. But weird, nonetheless.

I think Spencer Ackerman has as good a take as I've seen.

But turning it down would be a slap in the face to an international community that is showing, in the most generous way possible, that it wants the U.S. back as a leading component of the global order. The issue is not Barack Obama. It’s what the president represents internationally: a symbol of an America that is willing, once again, to drive the international system forward, together, toward the humane positive-sum goals of peace and disarmament. The fact that Obama hasn’t gotten the planet there misses the point entirely. It’s that he’s beginning, slowly, to take the world again down the path.

Still weird, but that's the closest interpretation I can manage. This is basically a real gift, and Obama can choose to use it on the journey toward global peace, or he can reject through in his actions. Maybe the enormity of the prize and the willingness to follow through on the mission will keep him from stumbling off the path.

...Wow, the DNC hits back HARD.

"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. "Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party.

"The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim," Woodhouse said.

The Grayson effect has really stiffened the spines out in Washington.

...I think what this says about the world is that yes, the Bush era was really that bad. Josh Marshall and Steve Benen have more.

Roll Out The Aluminum Tubes

In the days after the successful talks between Western powers and Iran, which yielded more in one day than eight years of threats by the Cheney Administration, those who profit off of belligerence and confrontation with the world had clearly circled the wagons and planted their stories in the nation's newspapers. If people got the idea that Iran was moving toward cooperation, why, what would the foreign policy "establishment" that thrives off of conflict and military deployment do? Where would the next enemy be found? It's very bad for business.

So out came the links. Helene Cooper typed up the fears of anonymous officials wondering if the agreements in the first round of talks, including a deal where Iran would ship its enriched uranium to Russia to ensure that it would be used for peaceful purposes, were just a tactic by the Iranians to "buy time." Practically the same article popped up in the LA Times, as "experts and government officials" questioned whether the timeline for IAEA inspectors to visit the recently revealed facility at Qom represented another stall tactic. Amid this suspicion, neocon emeritus Elliott Abrams surmised that Iranians would not oppose a military attack on their own country, because there's nothing dissidents enjoy more than bombs raining on their heads (the reformers don't want sanctions either, it will hurt ordinary Iranians rather than the ruling regime). And today, this bombshell is splashed across the New York Times:

Senior staff members of the United Nations nuclear agency have concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” atom bomb.

The report by experts in the International Atomic Energy Agency stresses in its introduction that its conclusions are tentative and subject to further confirmation of the evidence, which it says came from intelligence agencies and its own investigations.

But the report’s conclusions, described by senior European officials, go well beyond the public positions taken by several governments, including the United States.

Two years ago, American intelligence agencies published a detailed report concluding that Tehran halted its efforts to design a nuclear weapon in 2003. But in recent months, Britain has joined France, Germany and Israel in disputing that conclusion, saying the work has been resumed.

A senior American official said last week that the United States was now re-evaluating its 2007 conclusions.

I don't know why this is news. Three years ago, under pressure from House Republicans, the Bush Administration posted documents revealing how to build a nuclear bomb on the Internet. Even this article presumes that Iran received the nuclear knowledge from "external sources," most likely Pakistan's godfather of the atomic bomb A. Q. Khan. The NYT wrote about Khan giving nuclear secrets to Iran in March 2005, and in that story, it was floated that Khan and Iran discussed trading knowledge in 1987. (Meanwhile, Khan has been set free by our ally Pakistan.) This is an old, old story, resurrected just when diplomatic efforts to defuse the conflict are moving forward.

In reality, Iran has agreed to allow the UN to visit the facility at Qom, have set a date of October 25 for that inspection, and the IAEA has described a "shift to cooperation" in the Iranian stance. The President's national security advisor has called the efforts at cooperation significant and said things are moving in the right direction.

Just as a successful universal health care system would doom the Republicans, a successful negotiation on nonproliferation would doom the neocon vision that you cannot talk to adversaries and only force is advisable and just. So they plant stories with unproven allegations about secret uranium stocks. They even had to go to Canada to drop one rumor:

Iran has tried to acquire materials for a nuclear weapon in Canada, according to a top official in Canada's Border Services Agency.

George Webb, head of the agency's Counter Proliferation Section, says customs officers have seized centrifuge parts (centrifuges are used to enrich uranium) and electronic components for bombs and guidance systems.

Webb made the claims in a story published Thursday in Canada's National Post [...]

The article, however, offers nothing to corroborate Webb's claims and reports them without even a hint of skepticism, except to say that "The devices can be used in peaceful nuclear plants but are also required to produce nuclear weapons" and to note that there have been few arrests and no convictions in connection with Webb's far-reaching claims.

But skepticism is merited. The government claims and breathless media reporting – without adequate evidence – that Iran is a grave and looming threat is reminiscent of the same claims and media coverage in the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, as several commentators have pointed out. Remember Saddam Hussein's horde of yellowcake uranium?

These allegations aren't coming from the Office of The Vice President this time, at least not yet. But they are out there, the neocons are desperate to hold off anything resembling peace, and sadly the media isn't always appropriately skeptical of the claims. Arm yourself with the facts. Juan Cole's list of things you know about Iran that are not true is a good start.

Iran Powwow In Geneva

Today was the big meeting between the United States and other allies and Iran in Geneva. They ended with a pledge for follow-on talks, which is about all that could be expected at this point, and a good sign. The US and Iran even held bilateral discussions on the side.

Washington had hoped to begin bilateral talks with Iran on a range of issues, among them trade and Tehran’s support for Palestinian, Lebanese and Iraqi insurgent and terrorist groups, including Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

But after new disclosures of a hidden Iranian enrichment facility dug deep into a guarded mountain near the holy city of Qum, the immediate goal of the negotiations shifted, to the aim that talks would touch on Iran permitting serious nuclear inspections and suspending its nuclear enrichment program.

It “cannot be an open-ended process, or talks just for the sake of talks, especially in light of the revelations about Qum,” said the American official, who briefed reporters Wednesday on condition of anonymity. “We need to see practical steps and measurable results, and we need to see them starting quickly,” he said.

Speaking at the United Nations, the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, described the talks as “constructive,” and said they focused on a wide range of issues that Iran laid out in its five-page proposal for talks, which included talk of global nuclear disarmament but no specifics about the Iranian nuclear program.

The US position is a "freeze for freeze," where no new sanctions are implemented if Iran freezes their uranium enrichment. Iran may have some leverage to bluff here. China is unlikely to participate in any sanctions, given their desire to continue to receive Iranian oil and invest. An oil spike in China as a result of an embargo or trade sanctions would harm their economic growth. And I think everyone around the table knows that.

However, the timing of the Qom facility disclosure gives the West a bargaining chip. With the IAEA agreeing that Iran broke the law, a credible case can be made globally, based on that independent judgment, for punishment.

Ultimately, I think the third-way option, where Iran buys enriched uranium from a third party that it can use in its reactors under IAEA monitoring, could actually spark an agreement. Iran has shown a willingness to consider this in the past. That there will be future talks is a good sign. More talking, less posturing.

...Obama calls for inspections of the facility at Qom within two weeks.

Surprise Talks With Cuba

Tomorrow the US and other Western countries meet with Iran for diplomatic talks made more difficult by the disclosure of a nuclear facility in Qom. There are lots of reasons to be skeptical of the information out there about the facility, but nonetheless, it at least hasn't stopped the talks, although it's probably crippled them. On a couple other fronts, diplomatic actions are moving forward. North Korea has been offered direct bilateral talks on ending their nuclear program, as a preface to bringing them back into the six-party fold. That's further than we've gone with the DPRK in close to a decade, and perhaps could yield some substantive results. Meanwhile, a US diplomat held unscheduled talks with the Cuban government yesterday:

NEW YORK - A senior American diplomat has held unannounced, high-level talks in Havana with the Cuban government, three State Department officials told The Associated Press on Tuesday, raising hopes for a thaw in long-icy relations.

The talks were the first of their kind in years between representatives of the U.S. and Cuban governments, the bitter Cold War rivals among whom trust appears to be gradually building.

Bisa Williams, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, met with Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Dagoberto Rodriguez, visited an area affected by hurricanes in the Western province of Pinar del Rio and toured a government agricultural facility during a six-day trip to Cuba this month, the officials told AP [...]

One U.S. official described the talks as "respectful" and said they were more significant for having taken place, than for any substantive breakthroughs between the two sides, which have been at odds since shortly after former Cuban leader Fidel Castro marched into Havana on New Year's Day 1959.

"We were going over ground we haven't gone over for a long time," said the official. "Each side was taking advantage of the opportunity to size each other up."

I've said before that Cuba is the low-hanging fruit on the international diplomacy tree. The Obama Administration could pick up a quick and easy victory toward peace there if they just engaged. This unannounced set of talks is a sign that they might feel the same way.

Threats Before Diplomacy?

The White House is actually making threats to Iran on the eve of negotiations, and I would characterize these threats as somewhat empty.

The Obama administration is laying plans to cut Iran's economic links to the rest of the world if talks this week over the country's nuclear ambitions founder, according to officials and outside experts familiar with the plans.

While officials stress that they hope Iran will agree to open its nuclear program to inspection, they are prepared by year's end to make it increasingly difficult for Iranian companies to ship goods around the world. The administration is targeting, in particular, the insurance and reinsurance companies that underwrite the risk of such transactions.

Officials are also looking at ways to keep goods from reaching Iran by targeting companies that get around trading restrictions by sending shipments there through third parties in Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Hong Kong; and other trading hubs.

The administration has limited options in unilaterally targeting Iran, largely because it wants to avoid measures so severe that they would undermine consensus among countries pressing the Iranian government. A military strike is also increasingly unpalatable because, officials said, it probably would only briefly delay any attempt by Iran to produce a nuclear weapon.

As I noted yesterday, Iraq would presumably be able to provide Iran with lots of goods smuggled across the border, which would hurt efforts to isolate them economically. I don't think China would play entirely straight with this either. In addition, hanging a threat like this over negotiations like a cloud seems to poison those talks.

Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald actually made some points on the teevee this morning that you don't normally see, seeking to tamp down some of the generated hysteria about their nuclear ambitions.



Greenwald bats aside the silliness of hyping the fear over random statements from Ahmadinejad or missile tests (who makes more threats or tests more missiles, Iran or their counterparts like Israel?), and correctly notes that the Iranians have not violated anything under the Nonproliferation Treaty yet, having announced the existence of the facility at Qom before actually enriching uranium there. Iran is vowing to allow IAEA inspectors into the facility, which would comply with any order to "come clean" and end the potential for Qom to be used as a weapons production plant.

Scott Ritter makes some good points as well.

Beware politically motivated hype. While on the surface, Obama's dramatic intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The "rules" Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA [...]

In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the introduction of nuclear material.

While this action is understandably vexing for the IAEA and those member states who are desirous of full transparency on the part of Iran, one cannot speak in absolute terms about Iran violating its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So when Obama announced that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow", he is technically and legally wrong.

I think the problem is more with the Nonproliferation Treaty. As Matt Yglesias notes, the Qom plant almost certainly was designed as either a weapons production facility or a really inefficient facility for nuclear energy. But the NPT has no enforcement for preventing facilities that appear to be a weapons plant, and Greenwald is right that Iran met their treaty obligations to this point. The treaty itself needs to be tweaked to give less latitude over time for potential proliferation, given the standard of ending nuclear weapons on this planet. As Ritter says:

Calls for "crippling" sanctions on Iran by Obama and Brown are certainly not the most productive policy options available to these two world leaders. Both have indicated a desire to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran's action, in declaring the existence of the Qom facility, has created a window of opportunity for doing just that, and should be fully exploited within the framework of IAEA negotiations and inspections, and not more bluster and threats form the leaders of the western world.

Regardless, if Iran's plant is now under the inspection umbrella, then its threat is absolutely no different now than it was before we learned about this plant, and therefore the possibility of sanctions or even military action seems a bit much at this point, especially on the eve of talks. Let's have some discretion.

Iraq's Role In Iranian Sanctions

I do believe that the abolition of nuclear weapons is important enough that threats to that goal must be met with more than talk but action, and in the case of Iran economic sanctions is far preferable to any military hits, but without the cooperation of Iraq the sanctions simply will not work. We created a situation with the invasion where now a very pro-Iranian Shiite government is in control in Iraq, and they will smuggle whatever refined oil or other supplies are needed into their neighboring country. President Talabani didn't say this yesterday, but he didn't have to. I agree with Talabani that negotiation and diplomacy should take precedence, and this week Iran will meet with world powers to discuss their nuclear ambitions and more. But he goes further, saying that sanctions will not work to change policy, and that Iraq will not allow any country airspace to bomb Iran. If you wonder how they plan to enforce that, consider the 140,000 US troops on Iraqi soil and how precarious their situation, should the Iraqi leadership turn on them.

It was well-known that Iran won the Iraq war, and now we're starting to see the consequences. As long as our forces remain in Iraq, we cannot afford to use the kind of pressure some think would be necessary to get Iran to comply. As Juan Cole says, "Somehow I don't think this is what Bush was going for when he invaded Iraq."

Secret Enrichment Facility Discovered In Iran

A day after passing a UN resolution to move toward total nuclear disarmament, Barack Obama joined Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown to disclose the existence of a secret Iranian site used to enrich low-grade uranium. Iran has acknowledged the site, but “The (IAEA) also understands from Iran that no nuclear material has been introduced into the facility." Obama had this to say:

Appearing before reporters in Pittsburgh, Mr. Obama said that the Iranian nuclear program “represents a direct challenge to the basic foundation of the nonproliferation regime.” President Nicholas Sarkozy of France, appearing beside Mr. Obama, said that Iran had a deadline of two months to comply with international demands or face increased sanctions.

“The level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the entire international community,” Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain said, standing on the other side of Mr. Obama. “The international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand.”

It sounds like US intelligence had been monitoring the facility, near the holy city of Qom, for years, but recently had their cover broken, which led Iran to disclose the existence of the plant to the IAEA. Obama said today that "the size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program," although I'm wondering about the exact meaning of that remark, given the claim that no enriched uranium exists there, which American officials confirm (they say it could be ready by next year).

This comes right before the October 1 meeting between Iran and Western powers, and is sure to add some intensity to them.

This latest disclosure, along with the stolen election and state-sponsored repression of dissent, is turning Iran into a pariah regime, like North Korea.

Iran has the right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to learn how to produce enriched uranium to fuel the reactors it is building. But the centrifuges it is using are an open-ended technology, such that if a nation can learn to use them to enrich uranium to 22 percent (enough for reactor fuel), there is no absolute bar to its learning to enrich to the 95 percent required for a nuclear bomb. Iran can therefore only allay suspicions that it actually wants a bomb by allowing thorough (and even surprise) U.N. inspections and by granting greater access to its scientists, engineers and equipment. Iran was caught doing undeclared weapons-related research in 2002, which is forbidden in the NPT, so it is on a kind of probation from the point of view of the West [...]

Iran may be counting on Russia and China to come to its aid. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad would be foolish to make that bet. Although Russia's prime minister (and de facto leader), Vladimir Putin, recently spoke out against further sanctions on Iran, President Dmitry Medvedev indicated in a CNN interview on Sunday that Russia's patience is not infinite. He said, "Iran must cooperate with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], this is an absolutely indubitable thing, if it wishes to develop its nuclear dimension, nuclear energy program." It is possible that Russia will be more flexible on the Iran sanctions issue now that President Obama has canceled plans to build missile shield facilities in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic, plans to which Moscow had vehemently objected. Likewise, Obama is seeking to blunt Iran's propaganda campaign concerning the nukes of the great powers by pushing for further nuclear disarmament in the U.S. and Russia.

From the standpoint of Obama, who may be on the verge of a reality check on Afghanistan, he cannot vow to end the existence of nuclear weapons in the world and then sit idle as Iran reveals yet another secret facility. The sanctions may only endanger the Iranian people; but so many are fed up with the ruling regime anyway that it could tip the balance.

Juan Cole has a photo essay contrasting Ahmadinejad's UN rhetoric with reality.

The 1979 Iranian Revolution Started In 1978

That's all you have to remember when reading about another sparking of protests in Tehran.

Tens of thousands of green-clad protesters chanted and carried banners through the heart of Tehran and other Iranian cities on Friday, defying tear gas and truncheons as they turned large swaths of a government-organized anti-Israel march into the largest opposition rally in two months [...]

Conservatives had warned against using the annual pro-Palestinian march as an excuse for renewed protests against Mr. Ahmadinejad, whose election plunged Iran into its worst internal crisis in three decades.

But the protesters turned out anyway, often walking alongside larger groups of state-sanctioned marchers bearing huge banners denouncing Israel. The protesters even flouted the day’s official message, chanting “No to Gaza and Lebanon, my life is for Iran.” And when government men shouted “death to Israel” through loudspeakers, protesters derisively chanted “death to Russia” in response. Many opposition supporters are angry about Russia’s quick acceptance of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s electoral victory.

Opposition leaders Mir Hussein Moussavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and Muhammad Khatami joined the crowds in Tehran, drawing appreciative cheers and chants of support. Later, Basij militia members tried to attack Mr. Khatami and Mr. Karroubi, but defenders fought them back, opposition Web sites reported [...]

There were reports of similar demonstrations and clashes in other cities Friday, including Isfahan, Tabriz, Yazd, and Shiraz, where protesters skirmished with Basij militia men, and freed a group of fellow protesters who were being arrested, opposition Web sites reported.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad called the Holocaust a lie, which is basically the closer in his comedy set. It's a bit upsetting that the White House even bothered to respond to this, as Iran is being squeezed internally to support a less belligerent approach to foreign policy. The October negotiations with the West on the nuclear question and other issues have been called a window of opportunity by the top Iranian envoy. Clearly the cracks in the ruling regime's legitimacy is pushing them to accept something broadly agreeable to their increasingly alienated public. I don't know if it will work. But that's driving the new approach. Ahmadinejad's a pleasant comic, but he's the opening act, not the headliner.

Between A Rock And A Hard Place In Iran

In the next few weeks, expect to hear the Wurlitzer ramp up again for action against Iran. We got a taste of this already this week, when a US envoy to the IAEA claimed that the Islamic Republic had enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon. That's not been confirmed anywhere, but it's a sign that Washington is moving toward tougher rhetoric as a precondition to action. Engagement went out the window after the election chaos, I fear, and while Iran has delivered a document calling for a global nuclear freeze, which the US, despite President Obama's call for an end to nuclear weaponry, summarily rejected. The document isn't really much of a proposal; it doesn't mention Iran's nuclear program at all, and is generally vague about its offer to help fight terrorism and collaborate on energy issues.

The problem for the United States is that Russia seems to be satisfied with the document.

Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov on Thursday all but ruled out imposing new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, brushing aside growing Western concerns that Iran had made significant progress in recent months in a bid for nuclear weapons.

Mr. Lavrov said he believed that a new set of proposals that Iran gave to European nations on Wednesday offered a viable basis for negotiations to end the dispute. He said he did not believe that the United Nations Security Council would approve new sanctions against Iran, which could ban Iran from exporting oil or importing gasoline.

“Based on a brief review of the Iranian papers, my impression is there is something there to use,” Mr. Lavrov said at a gathering of experts on Russia. “The most important thing is Iran is ready for a comprehensive discussion of the situation, what positive role it can play in Iraq, Afghanistan and the region.”

Without Russian buy-in on sanctions, they won't happen. Either the Russians will block them in the Security Council or they won't participate, rendering them meaningless.

Obama, almost to a fault, seeks common ground, so I could see him accepting the Iranian document and moving forward with it. But there will be a lot of pressure on him to take action as well.

...True to my theory, the US did accept the Iran talks. They had little choice given Russia's intransigence, and I actually think it's the right move, not the least of which because it will piss off John Bolton.

In coordination with European allies, Washington said today it would accept Iran's offer of comprehensive talks, to test out if Iran was serious about negotiations.

The comments from the State Department came as China and Russia said they weren't prepared to support new sanctions on Iran at this time given Tehran's written proposal this week [...]

"The United States and five partner countries have decided to accept Iran's new offer to hold talks, even though Iran insists it will not negotiate over its disputed nuclear program," State Department spokesman PJ Crowley was cited by the AP.

"As the EU indicated today, Javier Solana is in touch with Iranian officials to try to set up a meeting as soon as possible," Crowley further said in an email.

They're basically calling Iran's bluff.

And Why Are We In Afghanistan?

The DFHs have convinced the nation about another misguided war.

A majority of Americans now see the war in Afghanistan as not worth fighting and just a quarter say more U.S. troops should be sent to the country, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Most have confidence in the ability of the United States to meet its primary goals -- defeating the Taliban, facilitating effective economic development and molding an honest and effective Afghan government -- but very few say Thursday's elections there are likely to produce such a government.

When it comes to the baseline question, 42 percent of Americans say the U.S. is winning in Afghanistan; about as many, 36 percent, say it is losing the fight.

The new poll comes amid widespread speculation that the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, will request more troops for his stepped-up effort to root the Taliban from Afghan towns and villages. That is a position that gets the backing of 24 percent of those polled, while nearly twice as many, 45 percent, want to decrease the number of military forces there. (Most of the remainder say to keep the level about the same.) [...]

Should President Obama embrace his general's call for even more U.S. military forces, he risks alienating some of his staunchest supporters While 60 percent of all Americans approve of how Obama has handled the situation in Afghanistan, his ratings among liberals have slipped and majorities of liberals and Democrats alike now, for the first time, solidly oppose the war and are calling for a reduction in troops.

Overall, seven in 10 Democrats say the war has not been worth its costs, and fewer than one in five support an increase in troop levels. Nearly two-thirds of the most committed Democrats now feel "strongly" that the war was not worth fighting. Among moderate and conservative Democrats, a slim majority say the United States is losing in Afghanistan.

The Afghanistan issue has crept to the sidelines of the national debate, but thousands of families are still directly affected. People still die; 6 more Americans fell today, and August 2009 could be the deadliest month in Afghanistan of the entire war. The President calls it a "war of necessity" and "fundamental to the defense of our people" but cannot credibly articulate what that actually means. Juan Cole identifies three main points that Obama makes about the war, which seem fine in isolation, but not in practice:

1. "This strategy recognizes that al Qaeda and its allies had moved their base to the remote, tribal areas of Pakistan."

2. "This strategy acknowledges that military power alone will not win this war—that we also need diplomacy and development and good governance."

3. "And our new strategy has a clear mission and defined goals—to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies."

These three are praiseworthy points in themselves, but the question is how they work together. I couldn't catch the significance of al-Qaeda's move to northwest Pakistan for US military operations in Afghanistan itself. I agree that the key to success in Afghanistan is diplomacy, development and governance, but worry that the major emphasis being is put on sending more troops there and on highly kinetic military operations? And I'm not sure that the Taliban can be effectively disrupted by military means; why isn't diplomacy being mentioned in this third part?

I'd expand on this critique. The goal of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda has almost no place in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan, where many Al Qaeda leaders are now stationed. Gen. Petraeus admitted back in May that Al Qaeda is no longer operating in Afghanistan - we're fighting a home-grown Taliban insurgency more nationalist than religious extremist in nature. You could make the argument that a Taliban able to take over the country could usher in Al Qaeda safe havens, but the Taliban insurgents are small in number, and have been unable to gain acceptance in anything other than the Pashtun areas. I agree with Steven Walt on this:

First, this argument tends to lump the various groups we are contending with together, and it suggests that all of them are equally committed to attacking the United States. In fact, most of the people we are fighting in Afghanistan aren't dedicated jihadis seeking to overthrow Arab monarchies, establish a Muslim caliphate, or mount attacks on U.S. soil. Their agenda is focused on local affairs, such as what they regard as the political disempowerment of Pashtuns and illegitimate foreign interference in their country. Moreover, the Taliban itself is more of a loose coalition of different groups than a tightly unified and hierarchical organization, which is why some experts believe we ought to be doing more to divide the movement and "flip" the moderate elements to our side. Unfortunately, the "safe haven" argument wrongly suggests that the Taliban care as much about attacking America as bin Laden does.

Second, while it is true that Mullah Omar gave Osama bin Laden a sanctuary both before and after 9/11, it is by no means clear that they would give him free rein to attack the United States again. Protecting al Qaeda back in 2001 brought no end of trouble to Mullah Omar and his associates, and if they were lucky enough to regain power, it is hard to believe they would give us a reason to come back in force.

Third, it is hardly obvious that Afghan territory provides an ideal "safe haven" for mounting attacks on the United States. The 9/11 plot was organized out of Hamburg, not Kabul or Kandahar, but nobody is proposing that we send troops to Germany to make sure there aren't "safe havens" operating there. In fact, if al Qaeda has to hide out somewhere, I’d rather they were in a remote, impoverished, land-locked and isolated area from which it is hard to do almost anything. The "bases" or "training camps" they could organize in Pakistan or Afghanistan might be useful for organizing a Mumbai-style attack, but they would not be particularly valuable if you were trying to do a replay of 9/11 (not many flight schools there), or if you were trying to build a weapon of mass destruction. And in a post-9/11 environment, it wouldn’t be easy for a group of al Qaeda operatives bent on a Mumbia-style operation get all the way to the United States. One cannot rule this sort of thing out, of course, but does that unlikely danger justify an open-ended commitment that is going to cost us more than $60 billion next year?

There's more at the link. As Cole says, nobody disagrees that Al Qaeda may want to attack America, but we should wonder about their capability, and seek to thwart that. And that's not a fight that can be had in Afghanistan anymore - they have no presence there.

Actually, we have morphed our goals in Afghanistan, from counter-terrorism to counter-insurgency, without anyone really challenging it. The commanders on the ground have decided that making America safe from potential safe havens in Afghanistan means ensuring the legitimacy of the government at every level, as if we can replicate this in every unstable government in the world or even in Afghanistan, a tribal society that has not really known centralized leadership. Indeed, we're only getting a minimal competence from the current government by allowing it to create laws that harm women and court Uzbek human-rights-abusing warlords to gain votes. If we really want to involve ourselves so deeply with a government like this, we should at least gain some semblance of a national security benefit, and yet none really exists, especially relative to the costs incurred in lives and treasure.

This, over everything else, is why public support is sapping. As long as this is a back-burner issue, that may not hurt the President - even in the poll, respondents give him generally decent marks for his performance on the issue, mindful of the knottiness of the problem. But I would argue it should hurt him to an extent. We have been in Afghanistan eight years, and at this point nobody can credibly explain our presence.

The Great North Korean Thaw?

What's up with Lil' Kim and the gang over in North Korea? First, they release two American journalists who they accused of "hostile acts." Then they send their condolences to South Korea on the death of Kim Dae-jung, and plan to send a delegation to the funeral, an unusual show of diplomacy between the two countries who are technically still at war. And then, they set up a meeting with Bill Richardson, out of the clear blue sky:

Senior North Korean diplomats are heading to meet with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on Wednesday, opening a new front in informal discussions the country has sought in recent days.

The two diplomats, who are with the North Korean mission to the United Nations, sought out Richardson for the latest encounter, an official said. Richardson is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He last visited North Korea two years ago, on a mission to retrieve the remains of Korean War veterans.

The DPRK has not committed to returning to six-party talks. But there are a lot more constructive actions going on now than when they were firing off rockets every two weeks. Perhaps the nuclear tests actually failed? Maybe Bill Clinton let them know that the US knew about that? Or maybe they just wanted the respect of an ex-President coming to their doorstep?

Who knows, but aside from Afghanistan, which is a horror show, Obama's foreign policy is really starting to pay off.

Karzai Courts The Taliban

Afghanistan holds an election in two days, and the expectation of a walk for current President Hamid Karzai has changed.

When the presidential campaign began two months ago, Karzai looked like the hands-down favorite to win a second five-year term. But heading into Thursday's vote, it was anyone's guess whether he would manage to fight off the challenge from a clutch of competitors.

The 51-year-old Afghan leader is still expected to pick up the largest share of votes, despite widespread disillusionment with drug-fueled corruption and inefficiency in his government and simmering anger over Afghanistan's continued wretched poverty. But he needs more than 50% to win outright. Failing that, the race goes to a runoff in about six weeks between the top two vote-getters [...]

Now, Karzai's relations with the international community are frayed to the breaking point, and many Afghans who voted for him the first time around have declared their intention to change sides.

"Our country is in a lot of trouble -- so much trouble! -- and he is not helping," said Duljan, a 50-year-old woman who switched her allegiance to (former foreign minister Abdullah) Abdullah.

Apparently Karzai just let in the warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum from exile because he thought it would attract some votes.

Interestingly, the biggest issue in the election, according to the New York Times, has become how to negotiate peace talks with the Taliban.

Although Mr. Karzai has often talked about negotiating with the Taliban, little concrete has happened. The government’s reconciliation program for Taliban fighters is barely functioning. A Saudi mediation effort has stalled. Last-minute efforts to engage the Taliban in order to allow elections to take place remain untested. Meanwhile the Obama administration has just sent thousands more troops here in an attempt to push back Taliban gains [...]

Abdullah Abdullah, Ashraf Ghani and Ramazan Bashardost all oppose the Taliban, but they also promise if elected to do better and to make peace a priority. The candidates differ on how to pursue a settlement: by negotiating a comprehensive peace with the Taliban leadership; or by trying to draw away midlevel Taliban commanders and foot soldiers, an approach that has been tried with little success over the past seven years as the ranks of fighters have swelled.

The Western diplomat quoted in the piece might as well have been speaking on behalf of the Nixon Administration in 1969: “Reconciliation is important, but not now ... it’s not going to happen until the insurgency is weaker and the government is stronger.”

This "peace through strength" thing really isn't going to help the Afghan people. More of them will die, and the deal negotiated with the Taliban - who are less religious extremists and more ethnic nationalists - will be fundamentally the same, at the end of the day. I would like to see Karzai get defeated, but I'm interested in the fact that the election is pushing him in the direction of peace. This is another instance of foreign political candidates in occupied territories making their bacon off opposing the presence of the occupiers, as Karzai is advocating publicly for an end to combat. Barack Obama in his VFW speech yesterday called Afghanistan a "necessary war." Maybe he thinks it is politically, but in Afghanistan there's nothing necessary about it. They're tired.

...Meanwhile, suicide bombings continue throughout the country, even in Kabul. This one killed UN staff.

The Serious People

Happy to see Jim Webb with an achievement, adding him to the rolls of Democrats who can use diplomacy to provide positive outcomes abroad. There is simply no antecedent on the Republican side. Who is the GOP daddy who can walk into Myanmar and get an American rescued? On the Democratic side you have Bill Richardson, Bill Clinton, Jim Webb - heck, even Jesse Jackson has pulled this off.

But Republicans are the adults, remember.

Ahmadinejad's Inauguration Day

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was sworn in for a second term yesterday amid much protest and even more defiance.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was sworn in for a second term as Iran's president Wednesday while security forces battled hundreds of protesters chanting "Death to the Dictator" in the streets around parliament where the ceremony was held.

Key opposition leaders, moderate lawmakers and all three of Ahmadinejad's election challengers boycotted the swearing in ceremony. State-run Press TV said more than 5,000 security forces were in the streets around parliament and police with sniffer dogs patrolled the area after the opposition called for demonstrations to coincide with the inauguration.

Hundreds of protesters chanted "Death to the Dictator" before security forces broke up a demonstration near parliament, striking people with batons and blasting them with pepper spray, witnesses said.

The opposition has vowed to continue rolling protests. Iran society will never be the same, at least not until the regime either restores its legitimacy (through concessions or official violence), or is driven out.

And then there's the issue of engagement with the West, obviously strained even further by the arrest of three American hikers along the border with Kurdistan, who the Iranians have designated "spies." I do not hold high hopes for engagement, which is probably why the Administration is foregrounding the big stick in their public diplomacy right now:

The Obama administration is talking with allies and Congress about the possibility of imposing an extreme economic sanction against Iran if it fails to respond to President Obama’s offer to negotiate on its nuclear program: cutting off the country’s imports of gasoline and other refined oil products.

The option of acting against companies around the world that supply Iran with 40 percent of its gasoline has been broached with European allies and Israel, officials from those countries said. Legislation that would give Mr. Obama that authority already has 71 sponsors in the Senate and similar legislation is expected to sail through the House.

In a visit to Israel last week, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, James L. Jones, mentioned the prospect to Israeli officials, they said.

I wonder whether this will actually backfire and punish those in the street who are battling the regime, while the hardliners manage to keep what refined oil can get produced and shipped for themselves and their cronies. A country that is already beating and imprisoning its own people shouldn't have much difficulty causing them more suffering. There's also the question of getting the world to go along with this.

The promise of Iranian engagement has been really wounded by this internal strife.

Slow Creep Back To The Bargaining Table

North Korea has consistently preferred bilateral talks with the United States over the six-party talks that have become the current framework. Now they have again asked for a one-on-one dialogue, this time as the only available diplomacy.

North Korea has again insisted it will not return to six-party talks aimed at ending its nuclear weapons programme.

But it hinted it was still open to "a specific and reserved form of dialogue", state media quoted a foreign ministry statement.

The statement did not elaborate on what form any new dialogue could take but Pyongyang has previously said it was open to direct talks with the US.

The US has said it will hold talks with the North within the six-party format.

Some analysts are seeing the statement as a sign that after a series of provocations to the international community, North Korea may now be ready to find a way to ease tension.

Hillary Clinton brushed this off on Meet The Press yesterday. But it does represent a step forward, of a kind, because earlier this year the DPRK would not agree to talks of any kind. So we're getting somewhere.

They want the respect of bilateral talks on an equal footing with the United States. If that means the release of political prisoners like Euna Lee and Laura Ling, and an equitable swap of ending the nuclear program for humanitarian aid and diplomatic relations, I don't really see the holdup.

CA-10: An Interview With Adriel Hampton

We have less than 50 days until the special election in the 10th Congressional District to replace Ellen Tauscher, who resigned to take a job at the State Department. The candidates include local members of the legislature, the state's Lieutenant Governor, and several candidates with interesting resumes. There's even word that New Age guru and Oprah pal Marianne Williamson may get into the race, although she doesn't have much time to make her decision. The 2nd quarter fundraising totals revealed some interesting outcomes, and the campaign staffs have debated who has the most local support and the most endorsements. There's even a burgeoning controversy about Ellen Tauscher's presence on Sen. Mark DeSaulnier's mailers, which may violate the Hatch Act now that she works in the State Department.

We've heard a lot about strategies, funding and endorsements, but a little less so about where the candidates stand on the issues. So I'm making an effort to interview all the Democratic candidates in the race, to discuss their views on the type of vexing problems that the country faces which they would be expected to deal with in Congress. The first candidate to respond was Adriel Hampton, the former Political Editor at the San Francisco Examiner and an investigator in the SF City Attorney's Office. What follows is a paraphrased transcript of the interview I conducted last week.

DD: Thanks for taking some time to talk with me.

Adriel Hampton: Thank you for contacting me, this is great.

DD: How are things going with the campaign?

AH: Things are good. I kind of feel on the razor's edge here, where I could either do really well or crash out. Obviously, (Anthony) Woods and I are the underdogs, while the elected officials are duking it out. Woods focused on fundraising and did a pretty good job, while I focused on building a volunteer organization. I'm working on voter ID in a distributed way using volunteers, and I've dropped 8,000 pieces of literature, half of it myself. I have two little kids, and I've been canvassing basically every night after they go to sleep since April. I got a designer in Los Angeles to deliver sharper literature, with a better printer, and I'm starting some targeted PAC fundraising among peace groups and progressive organizations. I think Anthony and I are running a bit to the left of the field. And then you have the possibility of Marianne Williamson getting in, and she has a major public profile as well as having worked with Kucinich in the past. I think she takes votes from everybody a bit, but certainly (Assemblywoman Joan) Buchanan.

I've just been trying to build a consistent presence on the ground, through appearances and volunteer events. The other campaigns have big staffs, especially (Lt. Gov. John) Garamendi. (Sen. Mark) DeSaulnier has the Democratic club circuit down, and Garamendi is kind of running an air war. But the poll he put out showed an 80% name ID and only 24% of the vote. I've been campaigning everywhere, all over the district, and we'll see how it goes.

DD: Let's get into the issues. I've been looking at your 12 ideas to change the nation, and right at the top is economic reform. Could you talk about that a bit?

AH: Absolutely. I got into this race to discuss economic issues and taking on Wall Street. In fact, I was strongly considering running a primary against Ellen Tauscher, I have been critical of her since her vote to authorize the Iraq war. Then I learned about how she was one of Wall Street's biggest friends. I'm running as an economic progressive. A big problem with the Democratic Party is that they consistently fail everyday citizens on economic issues. In many ways, they're just as corporate as the other party. I was active in the grassroots against the Bush bailout. Obama brought in some of the same people responsible for taking us down that road with Wall Street. I supported the stimulus, and the opportunity for New Deal-type spending, but I think we need to go further and break up the political power of Wall Street.

DD: You mention supporting credit unions. How exactly would Congress be able to do that?

AH: I think we can favor them with an FDIC guarantee, promoting them as an alternative to the global banks. During the financial crisis, the banks outside the big national firms tended to do better. And so I think we should encourage that more local approach.

DD: There's been a lot of talk recently about bankslaughter, this idea that we could add a new crime to hold bank managers personally responsible for behaving recklessly or in a negligent way. Do you support bankslaughter?

AH: I would tone down the name to enact popular support! But you know, when you see someone like Angelo Mozilo, he certainly engaged in what I would call a dereliction of duty. I don't have a problem with holding bankers personally responsible for failing to hold to certain consumer protections. What I've seen is that the grassroots folks who are not necessarily active in politics are very receptive to this. They want to see some accountability. And I don't want to harp on Obama entirely about these issues, he needs a progressive Congress as well to push this through, it's not all on him.

DD: OK. Another one of your 12 issues I read kind of surprised me, it was about conscience clauses. As it turns out, there was a federal ruling recently saying that pharmacies must dispense the Plan B pill and cannot use their religious beliefs to deny women legal medical aid that they seek. How you do respond to that?

AH: I am not for restricting access to the morning after pill or abortion information. All I'm saying is that there has been a robust system of jurisprudence around reasonable exemptions. You cannot fire disabled people because they cannot perform one task in a job, you have to make an exemption. If a pharmacist doesn't want to provide those pills, some other pharmacist can in their place.

DD: But some people live in rural areas where they have no other choice but one pharmacist for possibly hundreds of miles. If that person doesn't want to provide legal services, shouldn't he find another job?

AH: Well, I'm for reasonable accommodation, not blocking access to health care. I believe in allowing people to exercise their individual liberties as long as they don't infringe on others. I'm willing to talk about the nuance of issues like this, to see if we can come to an understanding.

DD: The biggest issue in Congress right now is health care. Where do you stand?

AH: Well, I'm for single payer. Pete Stark, up here in the Bay Area, decided to vote against that cap and trade bill because it was too weak, and conservatives now love him for it. But I don't think that should come into account, and I don't think the grassroots should give up. Some of my opponents say we should get what we can get, but we might lose the momentum for reform if we do that. But I understand that we have to treat those millions of people who are suffering right now without health insurance.

DD: Let me ask you this, would you agree to refuse to sign any bill without a robust public option that is available immediately and can use Medicare bargaining rates to drive down costs?

AH: You know what, I would. I would not vote for anything that didn't severely change the insurance system. I'm not a violent person, but the system is so violent right now that I feel the need to do violence to it. And the same with war funding efforts without drawdowns and timelines, I couldn't vote for that. I know that the ads would kill me, defying the President. But I think it's important to talk about the issues, meeting as many people as I can, going right to them and explaining myself. There have to be lines in the sand. We have a radical right-wing party in this country that is almost insane. And the Democrats are playing down the center. We need some organizing from the left. Just imagine someone like me, a regular guy, expressing the beliefs of Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee. I'm not afraid of the word socialist in certain respects. I think there's a role for government in equalization, to provide an economic bulwark against death, disease, and poverty. And I get that regular people in the insurance industry may suffer, but are they worth the struggle of 47 million uninsured? At least we can start these debates on the left, I think it would result in a better outcome.

DD: Obviously at Calitics we're focused on the budget issues. What help do you think the federal government could provide to help get some systemic reform here?

AH: Well, I voted all No on May 19, because I didn't see any serious reform efforts in there. One benefit of the problems now in California, which are tragic, is that I hope people are waking up. There's such a right-wing influence in the media and the popular consciousness. As it turns out, California's taxes are not progressive. I just think there's a rage on the populist level that can be tapped by progressives. Everyone in this race is a strong liberal, but I think I'm the only progressive, fighting for progressive taxation and labor rights.

DD: So what reforms can we get out of Congress? Some want the Feds to provide loan guarantees to the states, or they can condition a second stimulus to real budget reform, or even take Medicaid out of a state/federal partnership and into the realm of a purely federal program to smooth out outcomes throughout the country. Where do you fall?

AH: Probably along the lines of more extreme reforms. I appreciate Calitics' reporting on this. The loan guarantees sound like a good idea. I could live with centralized funding of Medicaid with local administration. And I'm for carrots and sticks in any stimulus funding, the idea that if you bail out a state, they have to have additional guarantees. Overall, I'm for structural reform. One of my opponents, Sen. DeSaulnier, is pushing a Constitutional convention. But we all need to stay on top of that.

DD: One final question, with respect to Iran. You wrote in your 12 points to change the nation that "I will oppose, by any means necessary, Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon." Obviously, a lot has happened since you wrote that. Are you revisiting this, and how can we engage with Iran now given the scenes of repression?

AH: Iran is one of the most difficult issues we have right now. We shouldn't forget the amazing turnout in their election, almost 85%. What did we have for the special election, 25%? We shouldn't really be in the position of telling Iran what to do. And you cannot give a state democracy, the people have to want it for themselves, things have to happen. Military intervention in Iran right now would be terrible. And we have to be careful, because the students over there are already being scapegoated as US puppets. It's also an open question whether Mousavi has clean hands, or if he's just an outlet valve for the current system. But I still believe we have to have negotiations. I think Woods and I are the only two who said that at our last forum. Garamendi was talking about banning the import of refined oil. That would only hurt everyday people in Iran. So I think we need diplomatic relations and a strategic dialogue. I'm not happy about dealing with Ahmadienjad, but you have to play the hand you're dealt.

DD: OK, thanks-

AH: Can I add one final issue? I am the only candidate in the race who supports the full legalization of marijuana, I think Woods supports decriminalization. We're seeing a modern prohibition movement, and that leads to inefficient and dangerous outcomes. We have a highly regulated alcohol industry, and I think we could do the same thing with marijuana. I don't smoke, but people like me, squares, need to say, "what is the policy benefit of continuing the drug war?"

DD: All right. Thanks for your time.

AH: Great, thanks.

Coup Watch

Just in case you're wondering, the President of Honduras, Mel Zelaya, is still outside the country, negotiations are still ongoing (though not producing much of value), and now he's called for a popular insurrection.

"The Honduran people have the right to insurrection," said Zelaya, speaking Tuesday in the neighboring Central American country of Guatemala.

Insurrection is a legitimate democratic right "when faced with a usurping government and a coup-supporting military," he added, urging his supporters in Honduras to strike, march and engage in civil disobedience because that is "a necessary process when the democratic order of a country is disrupted.

"I want to tell you to not leave the streets, that is the only space that they have not taken from us," he told a news conference alongside Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom.

Zelaya has issued an ultimatum to the interim government led by Roberto Micheletti that it must relinquish power within the week and demanding his own immediate restitution.

This is in the middle of negotiation sessions, mind you. I guess Zelaya is playing bad cop.

...which seems to be working!

(CNN) -- Provisional Honduran President Roberto Micheletti told reporters Wednesday that he would be willing to step down as long as ousted President Jose Manuel Zelaya ceases his claims to the presidency.

The provisional president said that if it became "extremely necessary" for him to step down in order to maintain peace in the country, he would, as long as Zelaya was not restored to power, Micheletti's son, Aldo Micheletti, confirmed to CNN en Español.

It seems like the best practice here is to allow Zelaya to serve out his term but leave after that without expanding term limits. That is not what Micheletti is offering here, but it's closer.

Neogtiations In Honduras

Some better news out of Honduras. After a meeting between ousted President Mel Zelaya and Secretary of State Clinton today, a diplomatic agreement has been brokered, though I don't think it will be entirely smooth.

Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya on Tuesday accepted a U.S.-backed effort by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias to mediate an end to the political crisis in Honduras and said talks with his rivals would begin on Thursday.

"Our first meeting is set for Thursday, in Costa Rica," Zelaya, told Honduran radio from Washington, saying he would meet the "protagonists" of the June 28 coup that ousted him.

But Arias, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, faces mediating between sharply opposed positions.

Zelaya said that his reinstatement as president was "nonnegotiable," adding of the talks, "What this is is not a negotiation, this is the planning of the exit of the coup leaders."

In Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, who was appointed president by Honduran lawmakers after the coup, also said he accepted Arias as a mediator, but added his government maintained his position that Zelaya could not return.

If you can squint and sort of see the outlines of any deal, let me know. But dialogue can bear fruit if given enough time and backing. You could see some sort of deal where Zelaya gets to serve out his term (which has less than a year left) in exchange for a vow not to change Presidential term limits. And then the people of Honduras get their elected leader and can choose another one. Obama made a good statement:

"America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected president of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies," Obama said in a speech in Russia.

"We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not," he added.

Sounds reasonable to me, which is why he'll get endlessly attacked for "siding with Castro and Chavez."

And That's That

Sadly, the biggest near-term result of the election strife in Iran is the end to diplomatic channels for the Obama Administration. I have no doubt that he still wants to talk with the Islamic Republic, but as a political reality, that's dead for now.

President Obama acknowledged yesterday that his hopes for a direct U.S.-Iran dialogue, one of his signature foreign policy initiatives, had been dashed for now by the Iranian government's violent quashing of protests over the disputed June 12 election.

Obama's proposed direct outreach to Iran dates to the 2008 presidential campaign. Even last week, well after Iranian police began beating and shooting at mostly young protesters, the president and his aides insisted that engagement was still possible.

Yesterday, however, Obama said there was "no doubt that any direct dialogue or diplomacy with Iran is going to be affected by the events of the last several weeks."

Nevertheless, Obama said Washington would continue to take part in multination talks with Tehran over its suspected nuclear-weapons program "because the clock is ticking," a reference to the possibility that Iran in the coming years will acquire enough fuel to build a nuclear weapon. That's the approach former President George W. Bush adopted during his last six months in office.

I don't see what choice the President has. Clearly the right wing would pounce if engagement continued with an illegitimate government last seen beating and killing their own people. In the long run, however, the uprising of more moderate voices in Iran, which will play out over years, does strengthen the hand of engagement, and while I don't think Obama played a huge role in that, he is well-positioned to capitalize on it down the road.

The other part of this is that reducing countries like Iran to a caricature and preferring to bully them around than talk with them has led to a serious proliferation in their nuclear capability since 2000. I agree that acting like the repression inside the country didn't happen would be a mistake now, but that doesn't mean isolation and belligerence are somehow vindicated as a foreign policy.