Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah has castigated Israel and U.S.-allied Arab countries as Israeli troops press further into Gaza, but he has also refused to unleash Hezbollah’s rockets, which could wreak havoc in northern Israel. So why, as Tom Ricks wonders, hasn’t Nasrallah joined the battle?

Because he isn’t suicidal. IDF generals have made clear that another war with Hezbollah would likely be far more destructive than the 2006 confrontation and would likely include a ground invasion. Hezbollah is adept at fighting an insurgency in South Lebanon because they have always been able to draw on the support of the Lebanese Shia and capitalize on a weak or complicit central government in Beirut. If Hezbollah initiated a war with Israel, there is no guarantee that it would benefit from either of these factors.

“If they start something, they know the biggest loser will be their constituency, the Shia community of Lebanon,” former UN Interim Force in Lebanon spokesman Timur Goksel told me. Many of the predominantly Shia villages in South Lebanon have not yet been fully reconstructed from the Israeli assault in 2006. The Shia support Hezbollah because it represents their sectarian interests, provides social services, and defends them from Israel. Hezbollah does not want to test whether their constituency is ready to once again pay the price for furthering its international agenda.

In the larger Lebanese political scene, this is an awkward time for military adventurism. The pro-Western forces in the government have insisted on a “national dialogue” to determine a national defense strategy, which could constrain Hezbollah’s use of its militia. Hezbollah and its allies have managed to stall this discussion, but if Hezbollah were to unilaterally launch a war against Israel they would be subject to renewed pressure from their domestic opponents.

Lebanon is also gearing up for parliamentary elections on June 7, and Hezbollah hopes to win enough seats to be the primary player in a government of its own. The near-unanimous condemnation of Israel’s actions in Lebanon plays into Hezbollah’s hard-line stance towards Israel, and puts America’s allies in Lebanon in a difficult position. For Hezbollah, using the Gaza issue to sweep into power is a far better option than launching a war it cannot hope to win.

Photo: ANWAR AMRO/AFP/Getty Images

With the U.S. presidential election over, are you going through campaign withdrawal? Why not look overseas to get your fix?

2009 will see elections in Afghanistan and Iran, which will be vital to the Obama Administration's hopes for progress in that region. Israel and the Palestinian Authority will hold elections which will determine the course of the Israeli-Palestinian peace track, and serve as a referendum on Israel's campaign in Gaza. In Sudan, there will be the first election campaign in 20 years -- an important milestone for the country's Comprehensive Peace Agreement, but also a possible spur for political violence.

So check out our new list of the most important elections of 2009. (Sadly Palin-free.)

Photo: Majid/Getty Images

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is hitting all the Middle East power centers in a two-day tour of the region. First, he held talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak at Sharm el-Sheikh. Then it's off to Ramallah to meet with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, before landing in Jerusalem in time for dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. On day two, Sarkozy jets off to Lebanon and Syria.

The French president has tasked himself with the modest goal of negotiating an immediate ceasefire to the carnage in Gaza. Even if he fails to score a diplomatic victory, his whirlwind tour will no doubt represent a triumph of travel booking.

Sarkozy's extremely personal brand of diplomacy has taken him to over 40 countries in the first year and a half of his Presidency. His hyperactive travel schedule has spawned a long list of diplomatic initiatives: he went to Damascus to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, and attempted to enlist the Syrian president in joining his Union of the Mediterranean. He traveled to Moscow and Tblisi during the Russian invasion of Georgia, attempting to arrange a ceasefire.

He visited Abu Dhabi to sign a deal establishing a French naval base in the emirate, making it the only Western power other than the United States to have a permanent military installation in the Gulf. He paired with Gordon Brown to launch an initiative aimed at ending the genocide in Darfur, caused a diplomatic row with its traditional ally Morocco by first visiting its regional rival Algeria, and enraged many Africans by highlighting the positive aspects of European colonialism during a speech in Senegal.

All this travel has caused France's 2009 travel and entertainment budget for Sarkozy to balloon 29% over the previous year, to $55 million. The French taxpayers are getting precious few diplomatic victories for their money, but many headlines. And that seems to suit them just fine. Sarkozy's trips have raised France's international profile, much to the pleasure of many French voters. Whether the people of Gaza will reap any of the benefits of Sarkozy's diplomacy, however, remains to be seen.

Photo: AFP/Getty Images

The truce between Hamas and Israel in Gaza is nearing its end, and may have, for all practical purposes, already expired. While the ceasefire will officially terminate on December 19th, over 90 Qassam rockets and 70 mortar shells have been fired from Gaza into southern Israel during the past month.

The approach of Dec. 19 has created an interesting split within the Hamas leadership. Speaking from Damascus, the exiled leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, announced definitively that the truce would expire on the 19th. He was quickly contradicted by Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas leader in Gaza, who declared that Hamas had not taken its final position.

And it's not only the Palestinians who are embroiled in a leadership struggle. Lagging behind in the polls to the hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu, Kadima Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has recently been more aggressive in condemning Hamas. She told a group of high school students on Monday that Israel "cannot tolerate an extreme Islamic state on its southern border," and had previously remarked that she was "ashamed" about the state of the Gaza truce.

Further complicating matters, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah has also called for open-ended protests in Beirut to protest the "siege" of Gaza. With Lebanese Parliamentary elections scheduled for May, Nasrallah no doubt believes that he can rail against the situation in Gaza to cement his pro-Palestinian bona fides while not actually launching an attack on Israel, which could provoke an even more destructive conflict than the 2006 Hezbollah-Israel war.

Gaza seems destined to serve as a political football as all of these different actors vie for power. Until the conclusion of the elections in the Middle East next year, Gaza will likely be forced to muddle through -- neither at peace nor in a state of open war.

Photo: MAHMUD HAMS/AFP/Getty Images

With many of the Cabinet-level posts in the new Obama administration already filled, the identity of one big position -- the next U.S. ambassador to Iraq -- remains up in the air. Obama's national security team is convening today and the question of who will act as America's day-to-day emissary to the Iraqi government will likely be on the docket. So, who is in line to be our next man in Baghdad? Here are four possibilities:

Ryan Crocker

Former Ambassador to Syria and Israel Edward Djerejian pushed the possibility of keeping on a former member of his staff, current U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker. "He has a record of seeking out difficult assignments," Djerejian told me. "He knows the region like the back of his hand, [and] he works well with the military." Among other impressive assignments, Crocker served in the U.S. Embassy in Beirut during the Lebanese civil war, and became ambassador at the conclusion of the war in 1990. He also was sent to Kabul to reopen the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan in January 2002, and served as U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan from 2004 to 2007.

David Satterfield

One person who may be able to duplicate Crocker's knowledge of the Middle East, while still allowing Obama to claim the mantle of "change," is another career diplomat, David Satterfield. He currently serves as senior advisor to Secretary Rice on Iraq, and had previously been the deputy chief of mission in Baghdad. He has also served abroad in Tunis, Jeddah, Beirut, and Damascus, as well as a stint in Washington as director of the State Department's Office of Israel and Arab-Israeli Affairs.

Frank Ricciardone

Ricciardone served as the U.S. Ambassador to Egypt from 2005 until earlier this year. Ricciardone has long experience working with Kurdish groups in the north of Iraq. He served as U.S. political advisor for Operation Provide Comfort, an effort by the US and Turkish military to protect Kurds persecuted by Saddam Hussein following the first Gulf War. In 1999, he was selected as the State Department's special coordinator for the transition of Iraq, tasked with coordinating the overthrow of Hussein's regime with Iraq opposition groups.

Richard Holbrooke

Journalist and blogger Spencer Ackerman endorsed the former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke for the position. Ackerman speculates that Holbrooke could use his experience mediating in the Balkans to help Iraq overcome its sectarian obstacles. Having evidently missed out on a place in the cabinet, serving as U.S. ambassador to Iraq is one of the few remaining positions appropriate to Holbrooke's stature. However, he lacks the Middle East experience of the other candidates, as well as fluency in Arabic, which is crucial for public diplomacy.

These are some names currently grinding through the D.C. rumor mill. Who do you think would be right for the job?

Photos: CEERWAN AZIZ/AFP/Getty Images, Mohammed Jalil-Pool/Getty Images, cairo.usembassy.gov, Alex Wong/Getty Images

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, threw a U.S. military tribunal into turmoil on Monday by announcing that he and four compatriots being held at Guantanamo Bay wanted to plead guilty to coordinating the attacks. The move seems designed to force the government to make good on its stated intention to execute the prisoners.

There is little doubt that Mohammed wants to turn the tribunal into a soap box for his anti-American statements. The Washington Post speculated that the timing of the announcement may be related to Bush's imminent departure from office. The Obama Administration has not yet made clear if it will press for the death penalty, and would likely transfer the inmates to a federal detention center in the United States -- a far less dramatic fate than the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison. Indeed, when the military judge speculated that a guilty plea could complicate their chances for a death penalty, the detainees withdrew their plea until the issue had been clarified.

The true danger of Mohammed's ploy is his attempt to turn the military tribunals into a mockery. In the courtroom, Mohammed declared that "[a]ll of you are paid by the U.S. government...I'm not trusting any American." In questioning the legitimacy of our system of military detention, Mohammed may, sadly, have a point.

Only 80 of the 255 men currently held at Guantanamo face domestic criminal charges, and only two full trials have been completed under President Bush's military tribunals. Furthermore, the Bush Administration has reserved the right to continue holding indefinitely those acquitted in its military tribunals, or even those who were convicted and have served their sentences, indefinitely. This is hardly a system that builds respect for the rule of law.

If Mohammed wants to hurry along his "martyrdom," the United States government should oblige him. But it should do so with a judicial system that has clear rules and standards that apply to all prisoners captured in the war on terror.

Sketch by Janet Hamlin-Pool/Getty Images

The explosive events that regularly occur in Lebanon tend to obscure, rather than reveal, the balance of power in the country. Analysts have a habit of taking the latest news as proof that the country is completely dominated by America and its allies, or by Syria's proxies in Lebanon.

By far the worst example of this is former Middle East correspondent Thanassis Cambanis, who pontificated recently in the Middle East Bulletin that, "Hezbollah, Syria and Iran are stronger in Lebanon that any point in the last decade." Cambanis went on to argue that this new balance of power required the United States to reconcile itself to negotiations with those sympathetic to Hezbollah.

Are Hezbollah and Syria really stronger than at any point in the last 10 years? Syrian troops occupied Lebanon until 2005. Until that time, all of the country's major Christian leaders were either in exile for their anti-Syrian views, or imprisoned. The Sunni and Druze political leaders were uniformly loyal to Syria, an alliance these Lebanese politicians broke in 2005 and one that has never been revived. The Syrians strong-armed Lebanese parliamentarians into accepting their hand-picked choice for president in 1998, and then into unconstitutionally extending his term in 2004. The main thing we learn from Cambanis's analysis is that he doesn’t have the first clue about recent Lebanese history.

Hezbollah recently won an important victory against the government through an armed invasion of Sunni areas of Beirut. But they were fighting against attempts by the Lebanese government to rein in their autonomy -- a fact that Lebanese parties had assented to quietly until just a few years ago, out of fear of the power of Syria and its allies. Syria occupied Lebanon for 25 years, and it was never reasonable to assume that all Syrian influence would be eradicated immediately. A little perspective shows that, rather than being in ascendance, Syria and Hezbollah's clout in Lebanon is close to its historical low, and the balance of power is not nearly as grim as some would have us believe.

The International Atomic Energy Agency's probe into the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor, which Israel bombed last year, has been hobbled by a mysterious lack of satellite footage. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei referred to the absence of commercial satellite footage of the site after Israel's attack last year as "baffling."

Adding to the intrigue, the Associated Press quotes unnamed diplomats as claiming that IAEA officials are considering the possibility that Syria, or another country with an interest in a coverup, bought the rights to all the commercial satellite photos. Others have proposed more mundane explanations for the lack of satellite imagery, pointing out that the countries involved gave out very few details after the attack, making it difficult for companies to find the site immediately after the bombing.

Coupled with last month's IAEA report, which stated that the building that was bombed shared similarities with a type of nuclear reactor design and that inspectors had found trace amounts of uranium particles there, the site in northern Syria continues to raise more questions than answers. Certainly, there are already enough doubts to delay Syria's request for U.N. aid in planning a commercial nuclear reactor. And if definitive proof emerges that Syria was covertly building a nuclear plant, it could derail the much-anticipated American-Syrian rapprochement.

Photo: SAMUEL KUBANI/AFP/Getty Images

Tequila doesn't just produce hangovers any more. Under the right conditions, the alcohol can be turned into diamonds.

Researchers at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, experimenting with making thin films of diamond from organic solutions, decided to conduct their tests using a "pocket-size bottle of cheap white tequila." They heated the tequila to 1,470ºF, breaking down its molecular structure. The resulting carbon film, upon close examination, had formed into an almost perfect diamond structure. Tequila's mix of 40 percent ethanol and 60 percent water is the reason it serves as the perfect compound for creating synthetic diamonds.

The diamond film, while not useful in jewelry, could be used to coat cutting tools and perhaps most profitably as a substitute for silicon in computer chips. The researchers hope to begin mass-producing the synthetic diamond film by 2011. The advance could be a boon to both tequila manufacturers and Mexico's agave farmers, who would benefit from the increased demand for tequila. Watch out, Botswana!

Chris Hondros/Newsmakers

President-elect Obama's plans to engage the Syrian regime may have just hit an early snag. Diplomats have revealed that samples taken from the site in Syria which Israel bombed in September 2007 contained traces of processed uranium. This evidence, along with uranium traces found by the International Atomic Energy Agency in oil or air samples, lends credence to the hypothesis that a covert nuclear reactor was being constructed in northern Syria, a thesis that some analysts had been skeptical of after the Israeli attack.

Syria's diplomats are going to have a hard time convincing the Obama administration that Syria can be a force for stability in the Middle East if conclusive proof emerges that they were developing a nuclear program on the sly. The regime seems to have already been spooked by the latest revelations. Syrian Ambassador Mohammad Badi Khattab, his country's chief delegate to the IAEA, allegedly suggested that Syria will not allow further IAEA visits "under any circumstances," citing concerns that an IAEA probe could pass on Syria's military secrets to Israel.

The IAEA is annoyed that diplomats leaked its findings before the release of its formal report. Given the timing of the leak, the diplomats may have been specifically aiming to disrupt any rapprochement between Syria and the new Obama administration. But of course, just because they may have ulterior political motives doesn't mean they are wrong about Syria's nuclear ambitions.

It was inevitable that the world would eventually realize the unhappy fact that President-elect Barack Obama will not represent a complete break with the past 60 years of American diplomacy. By tapping Rahm Emanuel, a fierce partisan of Israel who volunteered as a mechanic in northern Israel during the first Gulf War, it is fair to say that process has already begun.

For example, what does Abu Jayab, the young Palestinian in Gaza who was cold-calling Americans, imploring them to vote for Obama, think about the fact that the president-elect's first major appointment is a man who is being hailed by the Israeli press as "our man in the White House?"

Rahm's father Benjamin Emanuel served in the Irgun, a Jewish terrorist group that targeted British and Palestinian civilians -- most famously with the King David Hotel bombing and the Deir Yassin massacre -- to advance the goal of creating a Zionist state. This week, the elder Emanuel has not exactly assuaged doubts about his son's pedigree. "Obviously, he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he told the Israel daily Maariv, "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab?"

But Rahm Emanuel has always combined hyper-partisan rhetoric with relatively centrist policy views, and that may hold true for his stance on Israel as well. During his work on the Oslo Accords under President Clinton, he developed his closest relationships with the aides to the dovish Labor Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. If Emanuel is seen as sympathetic to Israel's plight, but also unafraid to use his legendary toughness to pressure Israeli leaders during the inevitable foot-dragging over the removal of key settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, he could be a key player in the upcoming Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Photo: Lauren Victoria Burke/ABC NEWS via Getty Images

The International Energy Agency's upcoming World Energy Outlook predicts that oil prices, which have sunk to nearly $60 per barrel, will likely rise once again to above $100 a barrel when the world economy rebounds. By 2030, the report estimates that the prices could exceed $200.

This price increase will be driven primarily by a decline in the supply of oil, as production from the world's older oil fields begins to slow. In order to counter this decline in production and provide for the growing demand in developing countries, the IEA estimates that oil companies will have to invest $350 billion each year until 2030 to develop new fields and improve their equipment. Naturally, that cost will be passed on to the consumer.

I'm reminded of Tony Soprano's famous advice to buy real estate: "Because God's not making any more of it." That maxim may not be working out so well these days when it comes to real estate in particular, but investors should certainly keep it in mind when it comes to oil.

Photo: YASSER AL-ZAYYAT/AFP/Getty Images

A wedding in Afghanistan reportedly ended in tragedy on Monday, when a missile fired by a U.S. aircraft slammed into the crowd, killing 40 civilians and wounding 28 others. When I saw the news, I wondered, why does the United States always seem to bomb weddings in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Part of the reason is that America's enemies are lying about the effects of American air strikes. "During the air war leading up to Gulf War I, it was amazing how U.S. airstrikes seemed to systematically hit Iraqi schools and hospitals," noted Wayne White, a former deputy director in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research for the Near East and South Asia, in an interview today. "[These claims] turned out to be, in most cases, Iraqi propaganda."

But that does not minimize the very real limitations of air power, and the fact that many strikes do indeed hit civilians. As far as weddings are concerned, a crowd of revelers can be hard to distinguish from a gathering of insurgents from the bird's-eye view of a spy drone. From afar, celebratory gunfire can also make a joyful wedding appear to be an angry mob. Air power's trouble in delivering pinpoint strikes, combined with the time lag between receiving intelligence and bombing a target, also increases the likelihood of civilian casualties.

White knows the limitations of allegedly "smart" munitions. "An airstrike which generally uses a 500-pound bomb, even if it hits its target in many cases, there's going to be collateral damage," he notes.  Airstrikes were never meant to be used in an urban environment or in villages, he argues, because of their lack of precision.

However, there has been an increasing reliance in air power in Iraq and Afghanistan, in order to make up for a lack of troop strength and also out of concern for soldiers' safety. In Afghanistan, air missions have risen 31 percent during the past year due to increased fighting and a lack of boots on the ground. Faced with the decision of killing a high-value target with a missile, which could also claim the lives of civilians in the area, and sending in ground troops, which could result in the death or injury of American soldiers, commanders are increasingly looking to air power. "It really comes down to the belief that they are more expendable than we are," White says. "[Iraqis and Afghans] see this as something that indicates that they count less than we do."

The lag time between receiving intelligence and launching a missile at a target also increases the risk of civilian casualties. Let's say an intel unit intercepts a phone call from a known insurgent in which he reveals his location. A spy drone would then be vectored towards that area to pinpoint the target. Half an hour may pass from the moment the intelligence arrived to the time a bomber is in position. During that time, the insurgent may have left, and unrelated activity in the area -- a wedding, for example -- can be mistaken as the target.

Photo: FILE'; Joseph Giordono-Pool/Getty Images

In the post-election lull, every pundit from the left and right will offer President-elect Obama advice about how to run his administration. Oh, and the emir of the Islamic Army in Iraq, an insurgent faction, also wants to throw in his two cents.

The emir's dispatch, translated by the SITE Intelligence Group in Maryland, summarizes the election quickly: "This day... a mad elephant fights an ambitious black donkey to reach the destination of America's decision." It goes on to attack George W. Bush and his supporters as "war criminals" and "Darwinists," both charges which Bush would probably deny.

But if one can get beyond the ridiculous imagery, the letter offers is a fairly standard, nationalist case against the occupation of Iraq. "America should know that a people never lost a struggle for freedom," it warns. America should depend "on dialogue and cooperation with others in order to achieve goals."

Odds are, Obama won't be listening to the advice of the Islamic Army in Iraq, but his most trusted advisors will soon be telling him some of the very same things.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, following closely on Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's decision to deploy missiles near NATO's borders, is the second international hotspot already making a bid for President-elect Barack Obama's attention. The relative quiet that has prevailed in the Gaza Strip since June, due to a ceasefire observed by Israel and Hamas, is at risk of collapsing because of renewed clashes late Tuesday night.

Fighting began when Israeli troops moved to destroy a tunnel "aimed at abducting soldiers," approximately 300 meters into Gaza. Six Palestinians were killed in the ensuing firefight between Israel Defense Force troops and Hamas gunmen. Hamas retaliated by launching more than 40 Qassam missiles and mortar shells at southern Israeli towns. Defense Minister Ehud Barak met today with senior security officials to discuss the possibility of a complete breakdown of the truce between Israel and Hamas. Amid information that Hamas has consolidated its power in Gaza, an Israeli security source claimed today that "it's hard to predict what will happen in the next 24 hours."

Someone has talked to Obama today and made sure that he still wants this job, right?

Photo: SAID KHATIB/AFP/Getty Images

As news of Barack Obama's victory spread across the globe, the foreign press questioned how the incoming Obama administration will influence politics in their parts of the world. Foreign analysts reacted with emotions ranging from elation to cautious hope, but a few also revealed frustation with how the election campaign was run, and a sense of realism about the daunting task facing President-elect Obama. Above, a celebratory sand sculpture on a beach in Puri, India. Below, a brief roundup of some of the most interesting commentary and headlines from around the world.

Kenya

AllAfrica.com:

Kenya is ecstatic at the news of Barack Obama's historic election as president of the United States. Upon hearing news of their beloved "son's" win Wednesday morning (East African time), residents of Kogelo village burst into song and cheers of joy. [...]

American flags, stars-and-stripes-themed clothing and slogans praising America are highly visible today. One very small, sleepy restaurant in Siaya town, the nearest town to Kogelo, was playing CNN International to a small but rapturous audience, one of whom was wearing an American flag hat."

The Daily Nation:

[Kenyan] President Kibaki: 'This is a momentous day not only in the history of the United States of America, but also for us in Kenya. The victory of Senator Obama is our own victory because of his roots here in Kenya. As a country, we are full of pride for his success.'"

Israel

The Jerusalem Post:

Regarding concern in Israel about an Obama presidency, [longtime Obama friend and former Congressman Abner] Mikva said that 'Barack will be the first Jewish president in the US.'

'He has a yiddeshe nishama,' [a 'Jewish soul'] Mikva said. 'He is committed to Israel and its security concerns and understands that democratization does not happen by force but by example, and there is no better example in the Middle East than Israel.'

Haaretz:

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Israel hoped the president-elect would maintain the U.S. friendship with Israel and commitment to peace talks. 'Israel expects the close strategic cooperation with the new administration, president and Congress will continue along with the continued strengthening of the special and unshakeable special relationship between the two countries.'"

Lebanon

The Daily Star:

The deeper hurtful reality this election campaign has revealed is that Arabs and Muslims are the new Jews and blacks in the US, because they are treated today in the same way that Jews and blacks (then called negroes) were treated in the early-mid-20th century…The new president will inherit this world where racism against Arabs-Muslims is the last permissible form of wholesale slander and denigration."

al-Akhbar:

The black Kennedy to the White House.

Canada

The Globe and Mail:

[T]oday, Ottawa will make its own transition from George W. Bush's security agenda to Barack Obama's economic agenda. The changing times mean Canada must focus on finding shelter from a wave of protectionism expected in Congress, persuading Washington's new power brokers that U.S. and Canadian jobs are linked, and possibly, selling Canada as a path to reducing U.S. dependency on Middle East and Venezuelan oil, analysts say."

Germany

Spiegel Online:

Obama is America's offer of reconciliation after all those years of premeditated political provocation, of military action not backed by international law, of America's claim to be entitled to military pre-emptive strikes. The Bush doctrine was scrapped last night. The unilateralist stance of the Western superpower is likely to be over for now."

Britain

The Times of London:

Yesterday’s results were head-spinning stuff… The country regarded loftily by many Europeans as hopelessly racist and irredeemably right wing has voted to be ruled by a black man, at the head of a party committed to economic redistribution and a foreign policy rooted in peaceful diplomatic engagement."

The Telegraph:

José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President, expressed hopes that the incoming Democrat President Elect will reverse the policy of George W Bush by uniting with the EU to fight global warming. 'This is a turning point for the United States. It may also be a turning point for the world,' he said."

France

Le Figaro:

The World Waits For Obama's 'Change': The victory of Barack Obama arouses hope and attention in the four corners of the globe, even in countries usually hostile to Washington"

Le Monde:

Barack Obama's victory brings a new American dream"

Australia

The Australian:

Obama’s New Dawn: President-elect to reshape America"

Venezuela

Ultimas Noticias:

A Black in the White House"

Photo: SANJIB MUKHERJEE/AFP/Getty Images

In the 2006 midterm elections, Americans living abroad returned only a third of the approximately one million absentee ballots mailed out to them. With roughly six million Americans serving in the military overseas or living abroad eligible to vote, that works out to a pretty dismal 5.5% turnout rate. In this election, expatriate voting rates should be much better -- and not just because of the presidential race at the top of the ballot.

The voting process has always been especially difficult for Americans serving in the military, who are often posted to remote locations and move around a great deal. The military postal service recommends that soldiers mail their completed ballots by Sept. 30 in order for them to be counted, but acknowledges that only 24 states have absentee ballots available by that date. Some states also prohibit methods of delivery other than by the United States Postal Service, or require American witnesses to verify the legitimacy of absentee ballots, which further complicates the process.

This year, however, a joint effort by the nonpartisan Overseas Vote Foundation and Fedex has made voting easier for Americans abroad. The Overseas Vote Foundation showed voters how to order their ballots online -- and Fedex shipped the ballots back to the United States for free, or at drastically reduced rates. Expatriates who ordered an absentee ballot that never arrived also have the option to print and fill out a federal write-in absentee ballot, which allows them to vote only for federal officials, and then mail it back to their voting office.

In this election, expats have no excuses.

OMAR TORRES/AFP/Getty Images

Zambia has chosen today, of all days, to act out every American's worst fears about their own election. Michel Sata, leader of the Zambian opposition Patriotic Front Party, announced that he will challenge the result of Zambia's election last week. Sata had announced before the vote that he would not accept a defeat, and has evidently made good on that promise by accusing the army of "intimidating people," and "[fixing] the election" in favor of his opponent, Rupiah Banda.

Could the American election reach Zambia's levels of dysfunction? Well, probably not, though there have been signs that the voting hasn't gone entirely smoothly. The process got off to a bad start yesterday, when thousands of pages of voter information were found inexplicably lying on the side of a highway in Florida. Today, The New Republic's David Jamieson reported complaints ranging from a lack of ballots at polling places, flyers telling people to vote on Wednesday, and even "wet ballots."

Here's hoping for an Election Day with a bare minimum of soggy ballots, and which evokes no parallels to Zambian politics.

An unusual visitor is being hosted by Lebanon's political leaders today: Khaled Meshaal, the head of the political bureau of the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, is making the diplomatic rounds in Beirut. In the past, Hamas's primary interest had been in its activities within the Palestinian territories, and the organization had exerted only limited influence on the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.

The visit puts Lebanon's pro-Western leaders, particularly Sunni leaders such as Saad Hariri, in an awkward situation. Hariri has been a vocal supporter of the Palestinian resistance, which is a prerequisite for maintaining his status as leader of Lebanese Sunnis. However, he cannot ignore the United States, which has propped up his government, and will not look kindly on Hariri's embrace of a leader they consider a terrorist.

So, why would Hamas leaders risk upsetting this delicate balance of political alliances by heading to Beirut?

It is possible that, as they feel more secure in their control of Gaza, they are looking to extend their influence to the Palestinian camps in Lebanon. They would find ample opportunity in the Ain al-Helwe camp, which has been a consistent flashpoint for violence between Palestinians loyal to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and those belonging to the disparate Islamist groups in the camp. Meshaal specifically mentioned Ain al-Helwe after meeting with Lebanese officials, calling for "the launch of a Lebanese-Palestinian dialogue to discuss all the problems of Palestinian camps, Ain el-Helwe or others."

If Hamas is indeed looking to move in on the PLO's turf in Lebanon, don't expect much from the PLO-Hamas "reconciliation" talks scheduled to take place in Cairo on Nov. 10.

Photo: AFP/Getty Images

Syria's ambassador to Washington, Imad Moustapha, in an interview Thursday with Foreign Policy, complained that the Syrian government had approached the United States about cooperating to seal the Syria-Iraq border from foreign fighters -- only to be repeatedly rebuffed by U.S. officials. This claim gained more credence today, as ABC News published an "exclusive" report revealing that Gen. David Petraeus had proposed visiting Syria shortly after assuming command of U.S. forces in the Middle East. The general's proposal, however, was quickly rejected by Bush administration officials.

This is less of a scoop than ABC would have its readers believe. Joshua Landis, an assistant professor of Middle Eastern studies at the University of Oklahoma who is sympathetic to the Syrian regime, reported back in August that General Petraeus tried to visit Syria in December 2007. However, there are signs that Petraeus remains skeptical about Syria's stated desire for cooperation. Landis reported that "there are real issues at the border," and that Petraeus's interest in going to Syria stemmed in part from a desire "to read Syria the riot act about compliance [on border security]."

Moustapha also revealed in the interview that Sen. Joseph Lieberman personally assured him that a John McCain administration would be be inclined to sit and talk with Syria. Check it out.

Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images