That page of course only has room for one… But thats later.

The geopolitical gurus at Stratfor make the following analysis of the ongoing negotiations between the US and Iran (subscription only):

Iran handed over a proposal to [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker during a brief encounter at the May 5-6 Sharm el-Sheikh summit in Egypt, but also chose to unofficially publicize its terms for Iraq through the Saudi-owned, British-based daily Al Hayat. The Iranian Foreign Ministry likely chose Al Hayat, a major Arab news outlet, to make a back-channel broadcast of what concessions it is prepared to make to allay Sunni concerns in the region.

In sum, this Iranian proposal called for a non-rushed withdrawal and relocation of U.S. troops to bases inside Iraq, a rejection of all attempts to partition Iraq, a commitment by the Sunni bloc to root out the jihadists and acknowledgement by Washington that the Iranian nuclear file cannot be uncoupled from the Iraq negotiations. In return, Iran would rein in the armed Shiite militias, revise the de-Baathification law and Iraqi Constitution to double Sunni political representation, create a policy to allow for the fair distribution of oil revenues (particularly to the Sunnis) and use its regional influence to quell crises in areas such as Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian territories.

The terms put forth by the Iranians are so close to the U.S. position on Iraq that, with little exception, they could have been printed on State Department stationary and no one would have noticed the difference. If these are the terms Washington and Tehran are in fact discussing, then we are witnessing an extraordinary turn in the Iraq war in which the U.S. and Iranian blueprints for Iraq are finally aligning. It does not surprise us, then, that Crocker said after his meeting in Baghdad that the Iranian position “was very close to our own” at the level of policy and principle.

Extraordinary indeed. So is this finally a light at the end of tunnel? Maybe, except for a few small problems. Stratfor lists the problems as follows:

• The transnational Sunni Jihadists with their dreams of an Islamic State of Iraq
• the severely and perhaps irreconcilably split Iraqi Shia who are likely to a little rough on each other sooner rather than later
• the much less splintered Iraqi Sunnis, who, although by and large online with these negotiations must be satisfied of their future safety and a slice of the pie in the Shia dominated Iraq (these guarantees are already part of the deal)
• the Iraqi Kurds, who are the Iraqi faction that stands to lose most out of the above settlement and are not about to give up what they’ve worked so hard to finally achieve in Kurdistan
• Ultraconservatives in Washington and Tehran who “can’t negotiate with those people”
• Sunni Regional Powers with that whole Shia Crescent thing on their mind
• Syria, who is feeling pretty important, if not immune right now while the Great Satan is all tied up elsewhere and they are useful to Iran
• Russia, which has really been making the best of the US and Iranian preoccupation in Iraq and would be quite unhappy to have to start caring what the Americans (and even the much closer Iranians) think again

How is that light looking now?

A fascinating insight into what went on behind the scenes in Israel in the lead up to the Second Lebanese War, from an article by Caroline Glick:

At first glance the [Winograd Committee’s] report reads like an ideological indictment. The commission wrote that a great portion of the blame for the lack of preparedness of both the government and the IDF was rooted in the belief that “the era of big wars had ended.” Yet that belief did not stand on its own. It is rooted in the Left’s peace ideology.

This ideology maintains that even if a country is forced to fight a war, the aim of the war is to remain at the starting gate and give the enemy what it wants, not to defeat it. The belief that the era of wars is over stems directly from the Left’s ideological commitment to the belief that everyone is a potential negotiating partner.

The report demonstrates that from the outset of the war, it was this view that informed the decisions of both the government and the IDF. The report relates a notable exchange between Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Halutz during the cabinet meeting on July 12 when the decision to go to war was made. Livni asked Halutz, “What is victory?”

Halutz responded, “There is no victory here….What we need to do is to respond with a sufficiently strong reaction that will call the international forces to get involved and to intervene at the proper intervention points in order to place pressure on the right forces.”

Livni testified before the commission that the next day the Foreign Ministry began preparing position papers setting out the government’s preferred end state: foreign forces on the border separating the IDF from an undefeated Hizbullah.

And now to a far more important piece of the puzzle: evoking the “Away From My Desk” effect. More revealing quotes, this time from an Israeli General Staff meeting in the lead-up to the war (h/t Normblog):

Gentleman C: On the table before each of you, you’ll find a comprehensive study compiled by Middle East 101, looking at the academic year factor in Israel’s wars since 1948. What we’ve done is a statistical comparison of the amount of anti-Israel verbiage expended by American and European professors in all of Israel’s wars. I draw your attention to Table 8. You’ll see that in every war, our military operations have taken less incoming criticism during summer months. We call this the “Away From My Desk” effect. Professors on summer break are less likely to write op-eds and show up in the media. There aren’t any students to attend their campus teach-ins, and there’s no student press to cover them.

Bottom line is that summer remains an ideal time to launch a war. The operational readiness of academe is at its lowest.

But back to the serious stuff. The former IDF chief of General Staff Dan Halutz may no longer believe in victory. But here are some people that do. The following quotes from a sermon from Friday before last by the acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Sheik Ahmad Bahr:

   Ahmad Bahr began: ‘“You will be victorious” on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] “you will be victorious,” but only “if you are believers.” Allah willing, “you will be victorious,” while America and Israel will be annihilated. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America’s nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere.

   Bahr continued and said that America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims ‘“will be victorious, if you are believers.” Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel.’

   The Hamas spokesperson concluded with a prayer, saying: ‘Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet, defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them.’

Melanie Phillips comments:

Horrifying? Undoubtedly. Unequivocal? Most assuredly. No-one who is sentient and decent could possibly have anything to with such a bunch of genocidal psychopaths. Right?

Er, not quite. There is someone. It happens to be the British Prime Minister.

Last February, Tony Blair suggested that the British government might be prepared to do business with ‘the more sensible elements of Hamas’ in order to restore negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. This was about as rational as suggesting in 1942, say, that one might do business with the more sensible elements of the SS. But hey — this is Britain. It does appeasement. Produce a sect of fanatics who are totally beyond reason and bent on wiping out every last Jew and American, defeating the west and taking over the world and Britain will be beating a path to their door, cap in hand. This is because, in its unsurpassed cynicism, Britain believes there is no-one on the planet who is not basically turnable, susceptible to bribes or threats or flattery or what have you because everyone is out for their own self-interest.

Not quite alright, genocidal psychopaths abound as do Tony Blairs willing to “do business” with them, as Diana West points out:

Marvelous, isn’t it, that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice traveled to an Egyptian resort for a summit on stabilizing Iraq that was attended by, among other “neighbors” and interested parties, Iran and Syria? I mean, who better to discuss stabilizing Iraq than the very countries that are actually trying to de-stabilize it?

   Such wily statecraft. Now I see how it works: Only honest-to-goodness state sponsors of terrorism like Iran or Syria can really understand what it takes to stabilize a country, since it’s only honest-to-goodness state sponsors of terrorism like Iran and Syria that really understand what it takes to de-stabilize it — what it takes to smuggle into Iraq men and munitions, including deadly IEDs, what it takes to organize and sustain resistance to our utopian efforts. Iranian and Syrian expertise on such matters will prove invaluable to those same utopian efforts, right? After all, as Miss Rice put it, “Iraq’s neighbors have everything at stake here. Iraq is at the center of a stable Middle East or an unstable Middle East. We should therefore align our policies in ways that contribute to stability.”

   “Therefore.” Isn’t that brilliant? Never mind that Iran and Syria are in many ways responsible for the unstable Middle East Miss Rice is talking about. Let’s “therefore align our policies” just the same. Meanwhile, why haven’t we thought of talking with terror-states before?

“Can you do that Michael Jackson thing you do, again, Nancy?”

Michael Young with a reminder for Nancy Pelosi:

We can thank the US speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, for having informed Syrian President Bashar Assad, from Beirut, that “the road to solving Lebanon’s problems passes through Damascus.” Now, of course, all we need to do is remind Pelosi that the spirit and letter of successive United Nations Security Council resolutions, as well as Saudi and Egyptian efforts in recent weeks, have been destined to ensure precisely the opposite: that Syria end its meddling in Lebanese affairs.

The Lebanese people with a different take on what lies for Lebanon on the road through Damascus.

and with another reminder on the nature of Hezbollah:

For years, pundits and analysts have spoken of Hizbullah’s “integration into Lebanese society.” Their underlying premise was that the party somehow desired this. Optimists pointed to Hizbullah’s participation in successive parliamentary elections as an example of its willingness to “assimilate.” The naivete deployed was remarkable.

It rarely occurred to the experts that Hizbullah did not start as, nor truly is, a social services organization. It is an Iranian-financed military and security enterprise overseeing a vast and competent patronage system designed to win Shiite backing, allowing Hizbullah to retain its weapons. It never occurred to the experts that Hizbullah’s objective in participating in the political system was not to jettison its military identity, but rather to safeguard it within the confines of Lebanese institutions it could thereafter influence. And it never occurred to the experts that Hizbullah was not interested in integration at all, at least on terms that would require surrendering its autonomy, even if it readily exploited its stake in the state as an additional means of patronage, much like other Lebanese political actors.

h/t Across the Bay, which has an excellent post on the topic.

By the way, apparently the Alawites, a pseudo-Islamic sect that Syrian President Bashar Assad belongs to, believe women do not have souls:

The father of Syrian President Bashar Assad, the late Hafez Assad, led a regime dominated by the belief that women do not have souls.

Assad originated from the Alawite religious minority, though in essence a sect of Shiite Islam is a world apart from Islam in doctrine and practice.

“The secretive faith—in name indicating followers of Ali, son-in-law of Islam’s founding Prophet Mohammed—also combines elements of Christianity and astrology.” (Apologetics Index).

Peculiar to the Alawites is the belief that women do not have souls.

Politically Bashar Assad is a chip off the proverbial old block. Shaped by his father’s lifetime crusade against Israel, he has steadfastly resisted Israeli and American pressure to abandon support for Hezbollah.

Head scarf for the mosque, mini-skirt for the Presidential Palace. I see where she is going with this.

Baby Assad: “Don’t give me that smile, I know what you’re trying to do. I’ve seen Basic Instinct.”

(h/t Wake up America)

So many friends, so little time.

I am having a visual day, evidently.

A great Churchill quote, from this editorial by Michael Barone:

“Law, language, literature — these are considerable factors. Common conceptions of what is right and decent, a marked regard for fair play, especially to the weak and poor, a stern sentiment of impartial justice and above all a love of personal freedom … these are the common conceptions on both sides of the ocean among the English-speaking peoples.”

‘Secular Muslims’ in the US are holding a “Secular Islam Summit”, with guests from around the world:

NEW YORK, Feb 27 (KUNA) - The first ever “Secular Islam Summit,” to be convened in St. Petersburg, Florida, on March 4-5, will bring together hundreds of thinkers and activists worldwide to counter the voices of reactionary Islam which have been speaking on behalf of all Muslims, the organizers of the event said late Monday.

About 500 people from all over the world are expected to attend, including speakers and government guests from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Europe, Canada and the US. Iranian Banafsheh Zand, one of the organizers, told KUNA that people in Islamic countries were taken into the “dark ages by the politicization of Islam.” “An age of reformation is upon us that needs desperately to be responded to by people who embrace not only the faith as a personal and private matter, but who also wish to see their countries and nations move forward in a progressive and prosperous way to catch up with the 21st century,” she added.

[..]

Another organizer Austin Dacey also told KUNA that the most important thing for participants is the hope that this Summit will be the “beginning of a coherent cross-culture movement for secularism in Islamic societies.” “There are countless individuals who are standing up for critical reasoning and freedom of conscience and secular values, but until now there really hasn’t been a global movement that brings them together as a force for change, ” he argued.

He explained that the “forces of reactionary Islam have their own global networks, which are very well established and well funded. These secular Muslims hope to do the same.” “We do think it is important that these alternative voices from the Muslim World are heard by policy makers and government officials in the US,” he stressed.

In Germany ex-Muslims have formed a “Central Council of ex-Muslims in Germany”:

An Iranian human rights activist living in Germany has formed a “Central Council of ex-Muslims in Germany” with 40 others and has received anonymous death threats after declaring she wants to