|
|
|
Archives By SubjectAfghanistanArts & LettersBlogging The LouvreBlogommageChess, Jazz & EthicsChinaDear LeaderDomestic PolicyEuropean UnionFeatured LinkForeign PolicyGlobal War On TerrorGood News Of The DayHoops, Hardball & FisticuffsHuman RightsIndiaInternational RelationsIranIraqLa France PolitiqueLa PresidentielleLas AmericasMarkets & FinanceMedia CoverageMorning News RoundupOdds & EndsOpen ThreadPakistanPoliticsQuote Of The DayRace In AmericaRussiaSay What?The Middle EastThe Natural WorldTurkeyVerse & ProseArchives By DateOctober, 2008September, 2008August, 2008July, 2008June, 2008May, 2008April, 2008March, 2008February, 2008January, 2008December, 2007November, 2007October, 2007September, 2007August, 2007July, 2007June, 2007May, 2007April, 2007March, 2007February, 2007January, 2007Search Headline Junky |
January, 2008Thursday, January 31, 2008 Heads We Win, Tails They LoseIt looks like I was a bit premature in my previous comments about the state of the Democratic campaign. Obama really does look like he's changing the political landscape in the way he needs to do in order to pull this out. No telling if the trend holds, but if he does end up winning the nomination, it would be pretty tough not to admire the story arc. Meanwhile, for no real reason I found myself spontaneously and very forcefully declaring earlier this evening in a conversation with a friend that John McCain doesn't stand a chance in the general election, against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. And surprised as I was to find myself saying it, I realized as the words left my mouth that I really believe that's true. Clinton's mastery of policy detail would simply outclass McCain in a debate, and she's smart enough to adopt her disarming, charming persona (the one she used so well to deflect the question about why she's unlikable) to do it. As for Obama, even granting that McCain might edge him out for the independents and centrists (which I really don't see happening), there's a possibility Obama could actually win over some of the disenchanted evangelicals who would never support McCain. But beyond the polling and demographics, both Obama and Clinton are just so much more visibly dynamic and alert than McCain that the difference would be too apparent over the course of the campaign. Just as importantly, if McCain wins the GOP nomination, it will be a default victory. His poll numbers since last year show that. Republican voters have at one time or another virtually begged every other candidate -- with the exception of Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Alan Keyes -- to take the nomination from him. The fact that they've wound up coming back to McCain says more about the rest of the field than it does about their enthusiasm for him. What it all means is that the idea floating around out there that Democrats should be wringing their hands and biting their nails, worried that no matter who they vote for they'll wind up sending the wrong candidate out to the general election, thereby snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, is a total bunch of crap. Both Obama and Clinton are strong candidates, and regardless of how tough the battle for the nomination is, the party's going to rally around the winner come the convention. And then whichever one of them is the Democratic nominee, they'll promptly go out and turn John McCain into a pile of chopped liver in a crewneck sweater. There. You read it here first (unless you read it somewhere else before). Wednesday, January 30, 2008 Republicans Only?A lot has been made of the fact that by winning Florida, McCain just won his first Republican-only Republican primary. I haven't seen mentioned anywhere the possibility that independent voters might have prepared for the fact that the Democratic primary was invalidated by re-registering as Republicans. Wednesday, January 30, 2008 The SodfatherEvery now and then, one man's insanity becomes so powerfully sane that it's worth paying attention to. Tim Dundon is just such a man: Instead of studying what he was doing and implementing it, the county came after Dundon because "...they were afraid that good health was gonna break out." Of course, Dundon's the type of American original that counties have been trying to shut down for two hundred years. Fortunately for us, they haven't managed to yet. (Via The Revealer.) Tuesday, January 29, 2008 After South CarolinaI optimistically promised some thoughts on the state of the Democratic campaign yesterday, before the flu bug I'm fighting off sent me to bed early. In the meantime, it occurred to me that we've entered the phase of the campaign where the horserace coverage kind of takes a backseat and the organization kicks in. So to a large degree (and barring any major gaffes on either side), I think that what will happen on February 5th is already decided, whether or not the pundits or the polls manage to accurately predict the outcome. That said, what strikes me as significant about the very tumultuous month of campaigning we've just seen is that it has prevented both Obama and Clinton from fully imposing their narratives on the campaign. After a moment where Obama looked poised to ride a post-Iowa wave of euphoria straight to the nomination, it has become clear that hope, while a major part of any successful formula, won't be enough. Neither will bi-partisanship, which despite being warmly received by Obama's Republican admirers (no surprise there given the GOP's 2008 chances) is regarded with either suspicion or derision by most self-identified Democrats. So while Obama continues to surprise and impress with his ability to attract new voters and thereby change the political landscape to his advantage, and while he does so largely with these themes, he'll have to find some way to graft some other element onto his core message if he's going to attract the rest of the Democratic base. For Clinton, the story is similar. In the aftermath of Iowa, the air of inevitability that she hoped to ride to the nomination took on a close resemblance to the political equivalent of the Titanic. But despite the iceberg that Iowa tossed into its path, the Clinton campaign has managed to not only survive its disastrous maiden voyage and right itself, it has somehow managed to recloak itself with an air of... inevitability. It's a neat trick, but one that is betrayed by the fury with which she, her husband and various and sundry proxies have been campaigning. Meanwhile, if neither candidate was able to fully impose their narrative on the campaign, neither, too, were they able to distance themselves from their perceived weakness. What's most significant here, though, is that neither has actually suffered for it. What do I mean by that? Again, let's start with Obama. Despite his ability to take the Clinton campaign's post-Iowa barrage of bare-knuckled, hard-nosed, tag-team politicking and remain standing, he's left many observers (Josh Marshall here, for example), unimpressed with his ability to fight back against Clinton's attacks. In other words, the questions about his toughness linger, even if the impact of his opponents' attacks has been put in doubt. (With all the comparisons that have been made between Obama and Reagan, it won't be long, I'm sure, before we start hearing talk about the Teflon Candidate.) The same thing, though, holds true for Clinton. Her Achilles' heel was supposed to be the polarizing effect of her take-no-prisoners brand of politics. But while Bill Clinton's role in the campaign has drawn quite a bit of criticism, it has also (up until South Carolina) seemed to work. It's also far from universally accepted that Clinton has in some way crossed the lines of a hard-nosed political campaign, and some have even been reassured by her combatancy. What this all means to me is that the campaign has served its function very well. No one got a free pass, the major candidates' strengths and weakness were brought out, and both Clinton and Obama had to fight from a position of frontrunner and comeback kid. What it also means, though, is that from here on out, it favors the status quo. And unless there's some seismic shift in the political landscape, the status quo favors Clinton. It could be I'm speaking on the eve of just such a seismic shift, given all the endorsement moves being made this week. If so, we could see a major surprise come February 5th. But truth be told, I have a hard time seeing Obama do better than nibble away at the edges and draw the race out. Monday, January 28, 2008 Lying In His SleepI know it's a bit stale, but I just saw the video of Bill Clinton dozing off during an MLK memorial service. The footage is damning enough given the racially charged atmosphere that preceded it the week before on the campaign trail. And the unfavorable comparison with Barack Obama's inspiring performance at Ebenezer Baptist is obvious. But it also struck me as revealing that the first thing Clinton does when he catches himself dozing off is to immediately nod his head and pretend as if he'd been listening. Take a look at 0:47 and again at 1:18 of the clip. It's as if his first instinct upon waking is to lie. It's unfortunate that the damage he's done to Hillary's credibility is inescapable, although I don't think it will necessarily prove fatal to her chances for the Democratic nomination, or irreversible come the fall should she wind up the nominee. The same can't be said, as far as I'm concerned, to the damage he's done to his own credibility. At the risk of repeating myself, I was never very susceptible to the much-vaunted Clinton charisma while he was president. It was largely in his role of ex-president that he won me over. And if that role represents an office of some sort, Clinton has for all intents and purposes abdicated it. Monday, January 28, 2008 Monday Flu BloggingYou may have noticed that I've instituted what seems like a radical measure among bloggers and begun taking the weekend off. Independently of that, though, I'm sick as a dog, so I don't think I'll be up for the Louvre today. I will get some thoughts on Obama's South Carolina victory and the Democratic campaign in general up, though. Meanwhile, I know it's the Super Bowl bye week and all, but I'm still a bit surprised that this hasn't gotten more press attention. Friday, January 25, 2008 ThreatsRemember how removing the threat of an American military strike was supposed to allow the political faultlines in Tehran to resurface, enabling Iranian moderates to push back against Ahmadinejad's brand of radicalism? Not happening. In fact, according to the LA Times, so many of the reform candidates for Iran's parliamentary elections have been barred from running that they're threatening to boycott the elections entirely should Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei reject their appeal. On the other hand, a more credible threat is being mounted from Ahmadinejad's right by former nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. As negotiator, Larijani was able to balance an appearance of flexibility with a refusal to compromise. So he represents more of a change in tone than policy from Ahmadinejad. In any event, I'm increasingly of the opinion that, in the final analysis, the actual consequences of the Iran NIE will bear no resemblance to what people predicted at the time of its release. Friday, January 25, 2008 More ProgressI can't resist flagging this article about the first women's soccer match ever held in Saudi Arabia. The match, in which The Prince Mohammad bin Fahd University team defeated visitors Al Yamamah College on a penalty shoot out, was played in front of a capacity crowd of 35,000... women. The referee and line officials? Women. Why? you might ask. Because no men were allowed into the stadium. Hey, at least the ladies'll be able to drive themselves home after games sometime soon. Friday, January 25, 2008 Eighty-SixedLately it's seemed like anyone with a blindfold and a dartboard can pick a primary winner. What separates the men from the boys when it comes to political prognostication these days is marital predictions. So, now that Dennis Kucinich is out of the presidential race, we'll see just how prescient my pre-Iowa handicapping really was:
Granted, I was a little bit off about the timing of his withdrawal, but I'd forgotten how quickly Kucinich would be eighty-sixed from the debates. I'm banking on a divorce announcement by this time next week. And I'll go out on a limb and wager that the title of her book will be "Don't Hate Me Cuz He's Ugly: How To Win When Your Husband Loses". Friday, January 25, 2008 Talking Nuclear TurkeyYou wouldn't know it from the American press, but President Bush just cleared the way for a nuclear cooperation agreement with Turkey that had been on ice since 2000, submitting it to Congress for approval on Wednesday. The deal, signed under the Clinton administration, had been stalled by a subsequent finding that certain Turkish "private entities" posed a proliferation threat. That threat has been addressed by Turkey, according to President Bush in his message accompanying the bill to Congress. This is a very significant move, part of a larger initiative I've written about before, designed to help Turkey secure its energy supply, and to keep it from slipping further out of the West's sphere of influence and into energy-based tactical alliances with Russia and Iran. The nuclear angle will become even more central to that effort given the difficulties encountered in moving the EU's Nabucco pipeline project forward. The deal does not allow for the transfer of sensitive technology or data, and the Secretaries of State and Energy as well as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission all signed off on the updated Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement (NPAS). Still, the timing of the Bush administration's announcement seems suspect, coming as it does on the heels of a meeting between President Bush and Turkish President Abdullah Gul where energy policy figured prominently, as well as on the eve of Turkey's call for tenders for the construction of its first reactor. It also comes in the immediate aftermath of Sibel Edmonds' accusations, reported widely in the English and Turkish press but ignored Stateside, that Turkey was the longstanding beneficiary of nuclear secrets funneled out of Washington. The agreement is being submitted for disapproval, which means it will take a Congressional majority within the next ninety days to keep it from taking effect. And the bulk of the NPAS is classified, so it's unlikely we'll ever know just who the "private entities" are, what they were doing, and what's been done to remedy the situation. So despite Turkey's strategic importance to American regional interests, it seems like a bit of media attention on the issue might be worthwhile. Friday, January 25, 2008 We Try HarderThat's the ad campaign that Avis launched in the early sixties to turn its no. 2 position in the rent-a-car business into a strength:
It's the first thing I thought of when I saw that Chinese President Hu Jintao had met with the chairman of Kazakhstan's senate on the latter's state visit to China. Now it's not surprising that China would want to provide a warm welcome to its neighbor, especially its neighbor that ranks eleventh in the world in both gas and oil reserves. But a president giving face time to the visiting senate leader of a "minor country" is almost a breach of diplomatic protocol, and it's the sort of thing that's hard to imagine an American president doing, even though the impact of the gesture is undoubtedly significant. On a related note, compare the travel itineraries of President Bush, who just made his first visit to the Middle East after seven years as president, to Nicolas Sarkozy, who in less than a year has visited the Middle East, North Africa, China and now India, signing major contracts and nuclear cooperation agreements everywhere he goes, and vastly improving France's strategic position in the process. The president of the United States might very well be the most powerful person on earth, but that shouldn't get in the way of trying hard. Friday, January 25, 2008 Morning News RoundupTop of the news and stories of interest from the American and global press:
That's it for this morning. Friday, January 25, 2008 Reverse Peter PrincipleThere are two really spectacular aspects of the Jerome Kerviel story, the French rogue trader responsible for $7 billion in losses at Societe General. The first leaped out at me from the very first accounts, namely that although his trades were being described as fraud, it was hard to see where his angle was. Now the WaPo confirms that he was basically balancing the books by recording fake trades to offset real ones, but he wasn't cashing out his positions. Which leads to the second spectacular aspect. Were it not for the global sell-off that hit the markets Monday, his positions were potentially winning ones. Not only that, some analysts are speculating that the global panic was in part caused or at least contributed to by Societe General's secret liquidation of his unauthorized investments. Which leads me to wonder why SG would cash out winning positions just because they were unauthorized, especially on such a massive scale? Surely there was a more measured way to deal with the problem. As for Kerviel's angle, it's possible that he was playing long, intending to cash out gradually over time. But it almost seems from the coverage that he was trying to prove something (ie. that despite not coming from the best schools and upper crust society, he "belonged"), more than profit from his trades. Unfortunately for Kerviel, though, by the logic of these things (ie. the relevant legal statutes) he's most likely going down. But every time I read about a criminal mastermind or hacker savant, it occurs to me that outlaws suffer from a reverse Peter Principle. Regardless of his authorization, Kerviel's trading record apparently looked pretty good up until Sunday night. And I'm not sure how many traders were looking too hot as of Monday evening. So it could be that, judging his record from a legal "absolute value" perspective, he deserves a promotion. At the very least, his ability to devise methods to avoid security detection seems like it could prove pretty valuable to Societe General in the future. Instead he'll be doing time, while some other trader rises to the level of his own incompetence. Thursday, January 24, 2008 The New Black GoldAs if all the soap opera-like drama of the past couple weeks involving pipeline shutdowns and jockeying for supply routes through Eurasia and the Balkans weren't enough, now comes news that Iran and Russia are spearheading an effort to bring the long-rumored "natural gas OPEC" to fruition. A draft drawn up by Iran last year and tweaked by Russia will be presented this June to the members of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum. The group's member nation's control 73% of the world's gas reserves and 42% of its production. Needless to say, such a cartel poses a strategic problem for the US and EU. But there are plenty of faultlines that they could take advantage of to create a wedge between Iran and Russia. In particular, Iran is in desperate need of foreign investment to develop its natural gas capacity. The fatal flaw of current American policy is that by continuing to drive Iran and Russia together in a tactical arrangement, eventually we'll have helped them form the basis of a strategic alliance. Thursday, January 24, 2008 Not So FastI have to admit I was a bit surprised when I saw the news earlier this week that Israel had put a new spy satellite into orbit with the help of a rocket designed, built and launched by India. Apparently India's Communist Party was, too, and has demanded that the government -- which depends on its support to maintain its majority coalition -- explain the extent of the two countries' satellite cooperation. According to Defense News, India, which has been desperately seeking a military satellite capacity, is interested in leasing the Israeli satellite, which was reportedly launched to spy on Iran. This isn't the first time that the minority Communist faction of Indian PM Singh's governing coalition has caused him problems. If you'll recall, they're also responsible for the US-India nuclear deal being stalled in the Indian parliament. There's something refreshing about the way a democratic system can screw up the best-laid plans of realpolitik strategic planners. Thursday, January 24, 2008 It's The Economy, StupidRegular readers of this site will already be aware of the flour shortage in Pakistan, since I flagged it three weeks ago. So this lede from McClatchy should come as no surprise:
Meanwhile, there have been a string of stories this past week regarding Musharraf's loss of support among the current and former army officer corps that makes up his real base of power. The likely beneficiary is his replacement as Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. Ashfaq Kiani. I predicted back in November that Kiani would be running the country before the month was out. It looks like it took him a bit longer to make his move. But don't be surprised to see him do some serious maneuvering, either just before or just after the upcoming elections. The assumption that we'll be stuck with Musharraf as "our man in Islamabad" when we've got the President of the Pakistan Golf Association waiting in the wings strikes me as inherently flawed. Thursday, January 24, 2008 Third Round Of Iran SanctionsI didn't notice much discussion of them, but there were a couple of major developments on the Iran nuclear dossier yesterday. To begin with, representatives of the 5+1 (the permanent UNSC members and Germany) who met in Berlin announced that they'd agreed on a text for a third round of UN sanctions against Iran. The new sanctions themselves are largely watered down from what the US and the EU 3 had been hoping for before the release of the NIE in December. But the fact that despite the NIE's findings, Russia and China were willing to keep the matter before the Security Council -- instead of referring it back to the IAEA as Iran has demanded -- sends a signal to Tehran that there's a price to pay, albeit a symbolic one, for its strategy of confrontation (with the EU) and delay (with the IAEA). It also strengthens the credibility of an American/EU sanctions threat by providing multi-lateral cover to the assertion that Iran is still not in compliance with its NPT obligations. Meanwhile, for the first time Iran allowed IAEA inspectors to visit its advanced centrifuge laboratory, where it is developing a new generation of more dependable enrichment technology. The visit is the first of a series of outstanding compliance issues that Iran has promised to resolve with the IAEA within the next four weeks. In the past Tehran has used Security Council sanctions as an excuse to cease cooperating with the IAEA. Should it adopt the same approach this time, look for a strong push from Washington (with a major assist from Paris) for a US-EU round of sanctions. That could be determinant, since the actual sanctions to be included in the UN resolution will have little coercive effect. The risk is that such a push could threaten the fragile support of Russia and China at the UN. Ironically, Iran has been using the NIE as proof of the civilian nature of its program, instead of fully satisfying the IAEA's inspection regime and thereby removing the legal basis for sanctions. Given that the West was able to get this round of sanctions in spite of the NIE, that strategy might prove to be shortsighted. Thursday, January 24, 2008 Morning News RoundupTop of the news and stories of interest from the American and global press:
That's it for this morning. Thursday, January 24, 2008 Happy Belated BirthdayI guess I'm supposed to remember these sorts of things, but Sunday, January 20 marked the one-year anniversary of Headline Junky. In that time, I wrote 1089 posts and linked to 2578 news and blog articles in the sidebar. (That's not counting some articles that were only linked to in posts and others that I read without linking to.) The benefit to me in terms of my awareness and understanding of global developments has been clear. I hope it's been of some use to you all, too. Thanks for supporting the site. Hopefully there will be even more of you this time next year. Wednesday, January 23, 2008 The Promissory Notes Of HopeI just watched Barack Obama's speech/sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church, and was not at all surprised, given his enormous oratorical skills, to find that it lives up to its billing. It's an inspirational and impressive speech, and the way he articulates and contextualizes his vision of hope as an active force for change is effective. I found his arguments for unity less compelling, since I think what he's talking about is more solidarity than unity. Progress has always been a polarizing proposition, as most of the examples he cites to illustrate it (the American Revolution, abolitionism, the Civil Rights movement) demonstrate. The key is not to get unanimity or consensus but a solid majority. Ronald Reagan, for instance was a very polarizing figure. That didn't keep him from winning 60% of the popular vote in 1984, which is what makes it hard to call him divisive. Three things occurred to me, having watched the video. First, the white-haired gentleman with the kente-cloth stole sitting behind the pulpit above Obama's right shoulder is Dr. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Obama's church, Trinity UCC. Wright, you'll recall, was asked by the Obama campaign not to attend Obama's speech announcing his candidacy last year. So the fact that he was in attendance at Ebenezer so soon after the recent publicity over Obama's ties to him strikes me as significant. Second, there were a couple of moments in Obama's speech that I found symbolically awkward. The first came when he began his litany of "hope moments" from American history with the American Revolution. It seemed like you could almost feel the enthusiasm in the pews dip for the second or two it took him to hurry on to the abolitionists (not surprising given how many of the patriots that took on the British Empire were slaveholders). The second was at the very end, when a story used to illustrate the unity driving his campaign culminated in a young white campaign worker inspiring an elderly black man to rediscover the fight he had left in him. Something about the "single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man", as Obama put it, struck me as tone deaf to the patronizing hint of paternalism in the story, to say nothing of our country's particularly charged sexual-racial history. I wonder if the two moments reflect the difficulties that Obama is bound to encounter in tailoring his message to the various audiences of what seems like a decidedly less post-racial America with every week of this campaign (although I leave open the possibility that I'm paying too close attention and reading too much into both). Finally, there was a noteworthy moment when, in telling his own story, Obama says, "I got in trouble when I was a teenager, did some things folks don't like to talk about..." Compare that to the language BET founder Bob Johnson used ten days ago, for which he was later forced to apologize: "...Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood -- and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book..." Now, granted, Johnson's remarks were objectionable, but this strikes me as similar to a dynamic that Matthew Yglesias already identified with regard to Obama's middle name. Namely, that his supporters don't hesitate to use his background and the impression it will make abroad as an appeal, while getting outraged by every mention made of it by his opponents. Yes, the attacks are cheap and unseemly, but as Matthew put it:
Obama seems to do a lot of talking (and writing) about the things he's done that "folks don't like to talk about". So he ought to have some responses ready when other people mention them. Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Pipeline FaultlinesIn the latest development in the ongoing pipeline diplomacy roiling the Middle East and Europe, Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, announced that Iran was willing to supply gas for the EU's Nabucco pipeline project. Most significant about the announcement, which comes on the heels of two major Russian gas deals that strengthened Moscow's grip on European supply routes, is that Mottaki made specific mention of Europe's desire to diversify its gas sources. Obviously, the offer must be understood principally in the context of the ongoing nuclear standoff, as an Iranian attempt to weaken European opposition to its uranium enrichment program and create a wedge between Washington and its European allies. In light of today's announcement about the agreement reached over a third round of UN sanctions, that's unlikely to happen. Even if the sanctions were watered down to bring Russia and China on board, they are symbolically extremely significant. But the offer also coincides with Tehran's lingering and increasingly bitter dispute over a gas delivery contract with Turkmenistan. Turkmenistan has shut down its pipeline to Iran citing technical problems, but most observers believe the move, coming in the midst of a particularly cold Iranian winter, is a bareknuckled attempt to renegotiate the contract to reflect the higher price (roughly double) that Moscow recently agreed to pay for Turkmenistan's supplies. If the Iranian offer signals a potential faultline in the Iran-Russian tactical alliance, it's one worth pursuing. While sitting on the second largest known natural gas reserves (after Russia), Iran would need enormous investment to develop its extraction and delivery capacities, which explains its vulnerability to Turkmenistan's tactics. So far, the Russians have continued to supply the nuclear fuel to the Bushehr reactor, and their reticence has contributed to watering down the latest round of UN sanctions. But Moscow did sign on, and its efforts to solidify its energy position have come at the expense of Iran's domestic supplies. In response, Iran seems to be signalling that its allegiance is not set in stone, and that for the time being all its alignments are tactical rather than strategic in nature. Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Dept. Of Shameless PlugsI've got a very brief English-language theatre review of a production of Racine's "Berenice", directed by Lambert Wilson, up on a Paris website. It should be an ongoing gig, so if you know anyone in Paris, send them over. Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Morning News RoundupTop of the news and stories of interest from the American and global press:
That's it for this morning. Tuesday, January 22, 2008 Balancing Resolve With RestraintIn a monograph for the Army War College, Nobel prize-winning economist Roger Myerson uses game theory to explain why, contrary to the assumptions of the Bush administration's doctrine of unilateralism, reinforcing multilateral institutions and subsequently respecting the restraints they place on American use of force reinforces the effectiveness of American deterrence. A policy balancing resolve (the willingness to respond to aggression) with restraint (the willingness to accept limits on the use of force) provides the necessary disincentives to aggression while maintaining the incentives for cooperation. If, on the other hand, a country knows it's going to catch hell whether it cooperates with the US or not, it has no incentive to cooperate. The key, according to Myerson, is a reliable reputation for reasonable restraint among the international community. Our promises of restraint must not only be as clearly communicated as our threats of military action, they need to be as credible as well:
In the light of Myerson's analysis, the idea that America must at times submit its use of force to the judgment of the international arena takes on a central evaluative function:
Myerson's theoretical models reinforce a recurring sentiment in foreign policy circles that American foreign policy is in need of a corrective period of restraint. It's also comforting to know that the multi-lateral system works on a theoretical level to deter conflict in an increasingly multi-polar world. With any luck the Bush doctrine will soon be squarely behind us, and the suggestion that we should be formulating our deterrent policy based at least in part on the perceptions of those we're trying to deter will no longer be portrayed as a lack of resolve, but as an abundance of wisdom. Tuesday, January 22, 2008 One Strike You're OutThis is pretty serious stuff. Five senior Western military strategists, each of them a former Chief of Staff and some of them former high-ranking NATO commanders, just submitted a report that will be discussed at the upcoming NATO summit this April arguing that the risk of nuclear proliferation is "imminent", that as a result the West must seriously contemplate the possibility of limited nuclear exchanges, and that the option of a nuclear first strike should not be removed from the "quiver of escalation". Beyond that, they call for overhauling NATO's decision-making procedure, eliminating consensus and national veto and replacing it with a majority rules arrangement, in order to facilitate rapid response. It's hard to ignore the fact that the announcement of the report comes on the heels of the Russian Chief of Staff's reiteration yesterday of Russia's longstanding first strike policy. But more than anything, the report represents an acknowledgement that the rules of the deterrent game have been scrambled and that from here on out we'd better be willing to scrap because chances are we're going to have to. That's a pretty frightening scenario when you consider the impact of even a limited nuclear exchange on a second-rate power, and then consider the role failed states play in the current proliferation outlook. In other words, we're entering into a period where the only response left doesn't only fail to solve the problem, it exacerbates it. As I said at the outset, pretty serious stuff. Tuesday, January 22, 2008 Late Morning News RoundupTop of the news and stories of interest from the American and global press:
More updating this evening. Monday, January 21, 2008 Iraq War RepublicansIt's worth clarifying, because I don't think Barack Obama has really formulated it this way yet: He might have made mention of Ronald Reagan the other day, but he was actually talking about America. But while he's right when he says that the mood of America allowed Ronald Reagan to capture the famous Reagan Democrat votes, he keeps leaving two things out. First, Ronald Reagan did not change the political landscape of America by working across party lines. He did it by getting voters who traditionaly identified as Democrats to not only vote Republican, but to identify as Republican, as least temporarily. Specifically, he appealed to blue collar Democrats' social conservatism, to middle class Democrats' fiscal conservatism, and to both groups' susceptibility to a reinvigorated American triumphalism. If Obama really wants to change the political landscape of America in the way that Reagan did, he needs to claim the political space on the other side of the center line. But first he needs to identify exactly who he means to win over and how. Which brings me to the second point Obama keeps leaving out. The Reagan Democrats were driven to change party allegiances not just by an intangible national mood. They were driven by a Democratic Party in which they had lost faith and by which they felt abandoned. I wrote about this three times back in Novemeber, (here, here, and here), because it seemed at the time like the GOP was headed for a meltdown. And if Mike Huckabee ends up winning the nomination, I think the logic of an "Obama Republicans" groundswell still holds. But the overwhelming factor in the GOP's self-examination, at least as I saw it at the time, was the Iraq War. It's what led Republicans like Wesley Clark and Jim Webb to run as Democrats in 2004 and 2006, and I think they were early adapters for a much broader movement that might have followed in 2008. But Iraq, for the time being, has quieted down. Which suddenly makes the GOP -- especially one led by John McCain or Mitt Romney -- a less threatening proposition, especially to Republicans most susceptible to an Obama appeal (ie. the sane ones). So while I understand why Obama is using the Reagan analogy, I'm no longer sure it will be borne out by the electoral dynamics come November. Monday, January 21, 2008 Narrower Than ZeroThe LA Times has a sadly comic article on how the Bush administration is now narrowing its "foreign policy horizons" for its last year in office. Apparently, instead of magically solving all of the problems he either created or ignored, President Bush has decided it might just be better to play out the clock and let someone with more competence handle them come 2009. One administration official claimed that they're still aiming high, but aded, "What you can do versus what you end up doing is always different." In this case, they can't do much and will end up doing less. But I guess that's what you get when you elect a guy president whose only travel abroad was a beer run into Tijuana. Monday, January 21, 2008 Pipeline Diplomacy, ReduxThis little item got buried over the weekend, but it's a pretty significant development. Russia just signed a major pipeline contract with Bulgaria which, combined with the imminent deal giving Russia a controlling interest in Serbia's largest gas and oil company, tightens Russia's grip on the Balkans' energy supply. Russia will now be able to pipe gas directly to the European market, bypassing Turkey as a transit point altogether. Meanwhile, the EU's Nabucco project, whereby gas from Azerbaijan and Iran would be transitted through Turkey to the continent, has been bogged down by disputes over financing, transit routes, and the Iran nuclear standoff. With Russia having already locked down Turkmenistan's entire annual gas production and already in possession of the major supply lines, any hope for diversified European gas sources just grew much slimmer. How Turkey reacts to these developments will be very significant. They've been stalling on a deal to develop Iran's gas reserves in order to entertain the US' offers of becoming a regional energy hub for Iraqi and Azerbaijan gas and oil reserves. The problem is that Iraq is far from stabilized, and so far no acceptable route has been found for the Azerbaijan supplies. Should Turkey decide that one tactical energy alliance in hand is better than two in the bush, it could have a dramatic impact on the region's strategic realignment. And history, when it gets around to the Iraq War, may very well decide that while Bush and the neocons were emptying the American treasury to conquer the last of the dwindling oil reserves, Putin and the mullahs were turning a profit off of locking down the gas supplies. Monday, January 21, 2008 The Former Ex-PresidentI took the weekend off to rest my eyes and spend some quality time with my son. Which means I just spent quite a bit of time catching up on my regular blog reading. (Apparently one of the consequences of paid bloggers is that there's no such thing as a weekend anymore.) And the first thing that occurred to me upon seeing that Bill Clinton is running for president again is that I'd experienced a Newhart ending. But while starting over in 1996 would be the equivalent of hitting the trifecta (no Monica, no W., and no 9/11), the fact is that it's still 2008. And in 2008, Bill Clinton's campaigning looks like a triple loser: bad for Hillary, bad for Obama, and bad for the Democratic Party. I say looks like, because it really isn't. The only person Bill Clinton's campaigning is bad for is Bill Clinton. Unlike a lot of people criticizing him these days, I was never a very big fan of his while he was president. But I, like most people, make an enormous allowance for former presidents. (Hell, I had to fight off a round of revisionist emotion that welled up when Richard Nixon died.) But Clinton's attack dog campaigning for Hillary, while perfectly understandable in political terms, are incompatible with his stature as a statesman. Which means that he has, in effect, forfeited his former president status. But this is about Bill, not Hillary. Whatever impact his negative campaigning has on her candidacy (the advantages will be short term, the disadvantages long term), it doesn't diminish her strengths as a candidate. People who are criticizing her because she's allowing him to do it are forgetting that a large part of her sales pitch is that she gets the job done. If it wins, it stays in the game. That's how she's promised to beat the Republicans. And that's how she's promised to govern. Obama, on the other hand, has promised that his emphasis on unity can successfully defeat this kind of campaigning. That's how he's promised to beat the Republicans. And that's how he's promised to govern. The rest of the primary campaign will be a proving ground for each candidate's promise. And the winner will have been borne out by the result. Meanwhile, the rest of us need to keep our cool, because the Deomcratic Party isn't going to fracture. There will be some bandages to be applied and some very sore ribs come the summer, but nothing a few promised cabinet positions won't heal. Monday, January 21, 2008 Blogging The LouvreToday I set out for the Louvre with the mud of the French countryside on my boots leftover from a Sunday afternoon outing to Chevreuse. If at first it seems like an affront (to the museum, to the royal palace), I quickly think of it as an offering to the spirit of the French kings that haunt the halls: a bit of earth to remind them of their lost kingdom. I've also got a mission. Last night I saw a performance of "Berenice" by Jean Racine, with Carole Bouquet in the lead role, and Lambert Wilson both playing Titus and directing. In Racine's tragedy, Titus, on the verge of being named emperor by the Roman Senate, is forced to choose between his passion for the Jewish queen Berenice and his ambition (Roman law forbids a foreign-born emperess). He chooses ambition. Now I'm curious to see how the same story might play out on a canvas. It strikes me as a primitive form of multimedia hyperlinks. But a docent confirms what an internet search had already suggested. There are no canvases of Berenice and Titus. I wander through the French painting wing until I stumble on "The Painting of the Month": Mercury Orders Aeneis to Abandon Dido. I never read the Aeneid, so the story is unfamiliar to me. But the parallels are there and the canvas, hanging alone in a small alcove off a passage, is a beautiful one, so I take a seat. Aeneis sits on a chair, a child servant lacing his sandals, while Dido reclines naked on the bed beside him. Her expression is one of resignation, youthful but somehow not innocent or naive. As if she understands her status as object of desire, a footnote to the larger narrative of Aeneis' destiny. Berenice disappeared from the historical record after Titus' death, and it seems safe to assume, given the nature of Western mythology, that the same will be Dido's fate. From her expression and her languid posture it's clear, too, that she understands her essential failure. She has offered her being, her self. And it was not enough. Clearly, the unmade bed he's rising from is their lovers' bed. She lies in it, still naked, a living echo of the passion they've shared, while he is present but already gone, his eyes directed towards Mercury, messenger of the Gods: to his destiny, to his glory. It's a moment we've all lived, if we've lived: the interior farewell that precedes the last goodbye. It's a moment of brutal rejection, a declaration that all that the other has to offer is not enough. That the unknown offering in destiny's outstretched hand is more tempting than all that is known and cherished in the soon-to-be-abandoned lover. The brutality of the moment is magnified in the canvas by the public nature of the scene. The servant lacing Aeneis sandal, two old maidservants huddled in the background gossiping, the courtyard in the distance representing the public square and community, and the Gods all witness Dido's humiliation. From Dido's attitude and expression, I wonder if Aeneis has left her carrying their child. At least, it occurs to me, the deadbeat dads of antiquity abandoned their families to accomplish heroic deeds. What began as a pursuit of glory has, in modern times, devolved into a shirking of responsibility. But were the ancients really all that glorious? Titus, I learn once back at my desk, was a violent and lethal chief of his father Vespasian's "secret police" (the Praetorian Guards), a Putin-esque figure at best, an Uday Hussein type at worst. Nicolas Sarkozy, whose name came up last night after the theatre performance, is more a child in a toystore than a hero in search of glory. But is glory even possible in the age of google, when all of a man's shortcomings are stored in a database for instant recall? The colors of the painting are evidence of its recent restoration. The vibrant pastels of Mercury's rose tunic, the servant's peach shawl, Aeneis' blue armor almost leap out from the canvas. Aeneis' pink and ruddy skin contrasts sharply to that of Dido, pale and porcelain. Outside, through the window, the sky bleeds grey. It's barely dawn; he'll be gone before the light. I wonder if she'll rise and carry on as if nothing has happened? Or lie in bed all day long, wondering where she went wrong? Image of Mercure ordonne à Enee d'abandonner Didon. Orazio Samacchini (1532-1577). Richelieu Wing, 2nd floor, French painters, Room 17. Monday, January 21, 2008 Morning News RoundupTop of the news and stories of interest from the American and global press:
That's it for this morning. Saturday, January 19, 2008 Quote Of The Day"All I know is whatever personality he had when he had the football was the one I liked." -- Former University of Georgia football coach Vince Dooley on Herschel Walker's revelation that he has multiple personality disorder. Friday, January 18, 2008 The New BlackLast week I mentioned that Baitullah Mahsud is one Taliban worth watching. Over the past year, he's increasingly shown up on the South Waziristan scouting report radar, but a steady proliferation of recent articles about him seemed to strongly suggest that he was about to have something of a breakout season. That suspicion is only reinforced by the news that the CIA has now concurred with the Pakistani government and identified Mahsud as the prime suspect in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. In addition to his stellar rise through the Taliban ranks and his reported links to people reportedly linked to Al Qaeda, Mahsud has something else to recommend him to take over the role of chief terrorist bogeyman and principle fallguy for all things nefarious. Namely that he shuns publicity and has almost never been seen in public. This guy is like the Clear of badguys: He only shows up in the statistics. With Osama Bin Laden's marquee value largely tarnished by six years of spotty video production values and his ability to strike fear into the hearts of the nation on the wane, I think Mahsud's time has come. Friday, January 18, 2008 Ain't Going NowhereIf you've had trouble accessing the site, it's because despite having paid to re-register the domain name two weeks ago, despite having confirmed a week ago that the payment had been recorded and there would be no disruption of service, the domain name was not correctly re-registered. Leading to a moment of cold panic that I'd lost a trademark I've spent a year developing. But miracle of miracles, Skype actually held for the entire time it took to straighten things out. The domain has been correctly re-registered, and now it's just a matter of time before it re-propagates. Of course, that means that you'll probably be reading this a few days from now. But the worst has been avoided. Friday, January 18, 2008 Fair TaxIt took a while of reading about Mike Huckabee's 30% sales tax, which he dubs the Fair Tax, before it occurred to me that here in France, we pay 20% sales tax on goods and services (basic foodstuffs are taxed at a 5.5% rate). The main difference between the French system and Huckabee's is that here, that's in addition to a pretty stiffly progressive income tax that tops off at 40%. And that's in addition to a pretty stiff Social Security tax. Socialized medicine does have its costs. Friday, January 18, 2008 The End Of DeterrenceRecently reports surfaced that Pakistan had used huge chunks of American cash grants to procure military hardware better suited to a conventional conflict with India than to the counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations the money had been earmarked for. The obvious conclusion was that as long as Pakistan feels more threatened by India than it does by the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the problem on the Afghan border will remain a low priority in Islamabad. Another obvious conclusion was that a coherent American policy in the region would be to encourage to the greatest degree possible a detente between the two nuclear-armed countries, thereby progressively freeing Pakistan up to concentrate on counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency. Instead, Lockheed Martin is in discussions with New Delhi to help the Indians polish off their homegrown ballistic missile defense system. The system, once perfected, would effectively counter the threat of both Pakistan's and China's strategic forces, destabilizing what's already a precarious regional balance of power and possibly provoking a nuclear weapons build-up. Of course, America could not very credibly try to dissuade India from developing its own missile defense system, given our own insistence on dismantling the ABM regime. But we shouldn't be helping them put the finishing touches on it either. The issue brings into focus one of the less-covered developments of the past seven years. The attacks of 9/11 demonstrated how non-state actors could use assymetric tactics to render conventional deterrence useless. Simultaneously, the Bush administration has worked tirelessly to render conventional deterrence between state actors obsolete. The net result is a world in which the threat environment has dramatically proliferated and diversified, and the disincentives to using force have been dramatically reduced. Either one would be alarming. The two together are potentially catastrophic. Friday, January 18, 2008 French TouchKevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias have both flagged the news that France has just signed an agreement with the UAE to establish a permanent military base just across the Strait of Hormuz from Iran. Kevin cites Marc Lynch, who writes:
Matthew suggests that the latter might be a good thing, in that it will re-balance the dysfunctional relationship between American military commitments and European strategic interests. The fact is, there's a bit of all three going on. The base in question is for the moment largely symbolic given its limited size and the fact that it won't be operational for a year at least. But its location at the bottleneck of the Strait of Hormuz and very close to Iran does in fact constitute a pressure point on Tehran. That France happens to be the most forceful and most credible advocate right now for preventing Iran from developing a nuclear fuel enrichment capacity is significant. Their position is not so much in alignment with ours on Iran so much as it is an ideal version of what ours should have been from the start: Clear-sighted, non-hysterical, with firm demands and rewarding incentives. On the other hand, as I argued on the very first day of Nicolas Sarkozy's presidency, he has a very ambitious vision for France's role in the world, and he's pretty savvy about getting what he wants. As for the French presence he's establishing, it's not limited to the military and it's not limited to the Gulf. Sarkozy has been using a nuclear energy foreign policy to establish France's strategic position throughout the Arab world. In the eight months since he took office, he has already signed civil nuclear cooperation agreements with Morocco, Libya, Algeria, and the UAE, while offering assistance to Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Significantly, this is in direct opposition to the American line of discouraging the proliferation of civil nuclear capacity in the Middle East, especially in the circumstances now surrounding the Iranian standoff. So while Matthew is correct in suggesting that Europe in general and France in particular having the capacity to put their military money where their mouth is will balance the trans-Atlantic relationship, that will in effect be a development that lessens America's strategic leverage in the world. In other words, good-by to the world's reluctant policeman, hello to the long-announced French vision of the multi-polar world. This isn't going to happen overnight, but it is definitely the way Sarkozy would like to see things develop. That it's ineluctable does not necessarily mean that it will be advantageous to the US. The alternative, however, of an America that serves as the military firewall to all the world's brushfires, is no longer sustainable. Friday, January 18, 2008 Morning News RoundupTop of the news and stories of interest from the American and global press:
A quick word on sourcing. I try not to cite official news organs or local versions of Fox News (ie. IRNA & Press TV from Iran) unless it involves an item of local or non-partisan interest. In the event of a spin piece (ie. Foreign Ministry announcements, etc.), if I can't find a more objective outlet for the story, I'll tend to pass. Also, when I come across something in the French press, I try to find an English-language substitute. That's it for today. Friday, January 18, 2008 EvenhandedIt's reassuring to see that Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is as serious about instances of partisan pulpit endorsements when it comes to Democratic candidates as it is for Republicans. Two days ago, it asked the IRS to investigate a Las Vegas church whose pastor introduced a surprise appearance by Barack Obama by announcing his intention to vote for him. What will be worth keeping an eye on, especially if Obama eventually wins the nomination, is whether the IRS is as evenhanded in its enforcement as AU is in its watchdog efforts. Update: Melissa Rogers has a very informative discussion of partisan pulpits with regard to a Wisconsin pastor who took out a full page ad in the WSJ basically challenging the IRS to come and get him. Definitely worth a read if you're interested in the freedom of speech and religious practice issues at stake in the IRS' enforcement of tax-exempt status. Friday, January 18, 2008 The Sarko ShowYesterday I was the guest of an invitee to Elysee Palace for Nicolas Sarkozy's speech to "les Forces vive de la France". I wrote it up as a guest post over at Art Goldhammer's blog, French Politics. If you're interested in what the Sarko Show looks like from the live studio audience, take a look. Thursday, January 17, 2008 Morning News RoundupTop of the news and stories of interest from the American and global press:
Slightly abridged. Gotta run. Thursday, January 17, 2008 Just WonderingQuestion: Is the headline "Giuliani Tries for a Hail Mary in Florida" an innocent reference to football, or a subtle attempt to call attention to his Catholic faith? Wednesday, January 16, 2008 Process vs. MethodThe GAO basically confirmed what I'd suggested last night. The impact of unilateral American sanctions against Iran is questionable at best. Meanwhile Iran has racked up $20 billion in energy contracts with foreign firms since 2003. You do the math. The reason Iran is maintaining such an intransigent posture on uranium enrichment is that they're convinced they can get away with it. And that's a direct consequence of the Iran NIE report. Take that report away and Tehran's recurring delay tactics with the IAEA, combined with its confrontational negotiating stance with the EU, would almost certainly have provoked a third round of UN sanctions, and perhaps even meaningful ones at that. There's a lot of good to be said about the Iran NIE, not least of which being that it was an accurate reflection of the US intelligence community's thinking on Iran's nuclear program, as opposed to a cooked up report meant to support an already decided upon policy. That does not necessarily make it the truth, but it is a victory of process over cynicism. But as recent comments by President Bush made clear, it's done nothing to change the Bush administration's opinion of the Iranian nuclear program, and had only a minor impact on the tone of American rhetoric. By torpedoeing any hopes for further UN sanctions, it's also made it more likely that one or both of the worst case scenarios (as Nicolas Sarkozy put it, an Iranian bomb or the bombardment of Iran) will wind up occurring. Process is good. But sometimes a bit of method helps, too. Wednesday, January 16, 2008 Not So Morning News RoundupVery sorry, but I was bit busy this morning. I'll try to get some links up later today. Wednesday, January 16, 2008 The Will To PowerSomething to remember regarding the unseemly innuendo about Barack Obama that's been spread by Clinton surrogates and Richard Cohen this past week, as well as some of the coded language that's been used to accentuate his race. These are tactics that we knew would be used. We thought it would be a Republican 527 slime outfit using them, but we all knew they would come up. And from the start, Obama's candidacy was based upon, among other things, the assurance that he could handle them. There's no justice to the fact that he has to. It's actually a pretty depressing hangover following the "post-racial America" euphoria of his victory in Iowa. But it's the reality of electoral politics as things stand today. If this can derail his campaign for the Democratic nomination, then no matter how inspiring he is, no matter how legitimate a candidate he is, he simply stood no chance of winning the general election. So far the endorsements have continued to come in, and by all appearances he should do well enough in South Carolina and Nevada to legitimize his campaign for the longrun, which suggests that he can, in fact, deliver on his promise. If he does do well in those two states, it will be a major boost to his electability argument. And if he goes on to win the nomination, this will prove to be the Nietzschean stretch of the campaign that, in not destroying him, made him stronger. In the meantime, I'll be pretty happy when my posts on Obama in particular and the Democratic campaign in general can be archived solely under "Politics", without the "Race in America" tag behind it. Tuesday, January 15, 2008 The Strait Skinny, ReduxTo follow up on a post from yesterday, I found this comment regarding transit passage and the UNCLOS at Eagle Speak:
So maybe we are back to provocative episodes with a CB prankster grafted on top. Tuesday, January 15, 2008 Sanctions vs. IncentivesIn the process of digging around for something to tie a few Iran-based stories together, I actually got around to reading the UN sanctions resolution to see just what kinds of economic activities had been prohibited. Not much, it turns out. Anything relating to uranium enrichment is off the table, as are Iranian arms exports. A handful of nuclear-related organizations got blacklisted and had their foreign assets frozen, and a number of high-ranking officials involved with the nuclear program were forbidden to travel abroad. (There's a summary of the sanctions here.) But besides that, it's hard to see how they're supposed to put the squeeze on Tehran. So it's no wonder that the Bush administration has resorted to unilateral sanctions (most notably a banking blacklist that's gotten some results but is gradually being weakened), as well as exerting bi-lateral pressure in order to isolate Tehran economically. It's also no wonder, given Iran's enormous gas and oil reserves, that for every one step forward on the isolation front, there's three steps back. (Step one, step two, step three.) The biggest surprise I got from reading the UN resolution, in fact, is the pretty generous package of incentives codified into the resolution's 2nd Annex titled "Elements of a long-term agreement" (scroll about halfway down the link), all in return for Iran quite simply suspending its uranium enrichment activity, submitting to the Additonal Protocol it has already signed with the IAEA, and satisfying all of the IAEA's outstanding concerns about the history of its program (which allows the IAEA to account for material and verify that nothing's been diverted towards military uses). It's a pretty comprehensive incentive package, which makes Iran's adamant refusal to suspend its enrichment program while at the same time refusing to comply with its obligations under the NPT (which would legitimize its right to the nuclear fuel enrichment cycle) all the more incomprehensible. One of the reasons for their high-risk posture is obviously that they feel pretty confident they can get away with it. But if the goal is really just to increase its domestic energy supply (despite its massive reserves, Iran has an underdeveloped domestic energy sector), it seems like a less confrontational stance would accomplish the goal more quickly and with more longterm stability. Tuesday, January 15, 2008 The Sub In SubprimeA few days ago Josh Marshall wondered whether he should be unnerved about the fact that foreign governments (read: sovereign investment funds) were snatching up large equity positions in cash-strapped American financial services companies. I think it's more unnerving when the foreign governments decide that it's just not worth the risk anymore:
These guys have got a pretty big incentive to keep the dollar from bottoming out. The question is whether there's anything they can do about it. Tuesday, January 15, 2008 Wooing AnkaraI once wondered whether the loss of Turkey might end up being the worst strategic outcome of the Iraq War. It looks like that was a bit premature, as American-Turkish relations have thawed out considerably in the aftermath of last November's meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Erdogan. A great deal of that has to do with the operational agreement they reached to help Turkey target the PKK in Iraqi Kurdistan. But if the PKK is the high profile issue that drove the headlines, the subtext of this rapprochement is the "Turkey-USA-Iraq trilateral energy working group", a seriously underreported initiative on the part of the Bush administration to win back Ankara's goodwill. Basically it amounts to an attempt to pry Turkey away from its flirtation with the Russian-Iranian |
RSS Feeds