We're very excited to announce that Foreign Policy has won an Overseas Press Club award for general excellence on the web. In a reminder of the major international news stories this past year, six of the OPC's 27 awards were related to coverage of the Libyan uprising and four to coverage of Japan's earthquake and tsunami. The awards will be presented at a dinner tonight in New York.

Thanks to all of you for helping make ForeignPolicy.com such a vibrant destination!

When Mitt Romney's campaign announced on Thursday that the Republican presidential candidate had hired Richard Grenell, a former Bush administration spokesman at the United Nations, as his foreign policy and national security spokesman, early reports focused on the fact that Grenell is openly gay. 

But this afternoon, Politico highlighted another side of Grenell: The man is a prolific tweeter -- one who dishes out zingers to those who get on his bad side, whether they be Newt Gingrich ("what's higher? The number of jobs newt's created or the number of wives he's had?"), Callista Gingrich ("do you think callista's hair snaps on?"), or Rick Santorum ("im rick santorum and gay people should be deported").

As tends to happen in today's compressed news cycle, Grenell has already apologized for "any hurt" his tweets caused, telling Politico that they were meant to be "tongue-in-cheek and humorous" and that he'll remove them from Twitter.

But Grenell hasn't deleted all his scathing comments, many of them related to foreign policy. Here are some of the issues that provoke his anger again and again (as you'll see, there's a lot of overlap). Now that Grenell is Romney's spokesman, we'll probably be hearing these critiques of the Obama administration's foreign policy more and more in the months ahead.

• U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice: "can someone at the StateDepartment tell SusanRice that SHE'S the US Ambassador to the UN. #StatementsDontCutIt"

• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: "secretary of state hillary clinton speaks more clearly about finding amelia earhart's plane than the sudan crisis. #AllPoliticsForHer"

• Obama's open mic gaffe about needing flexibility on missile defense: "I'm waiting for Obama to whisper to Mexico's leader 'i need flexibility on the illegal thing til after November'"

• Obama administration's response to Syria: "why is SusanRice the only American left holding out for #Assad to 'seize the moment'. he's seized 9 thousand moments so far!"

• Obama administration's response to Iran: "SusanRice's tenure in short: no action on Syria's violence, trips to DC, nothing on Iran in 22 months, more trips to DC, lots of tweets"

• Media bias: "day 6 and still no tweet from Andrea @Mitchellreports on Obama's secret whisper requests for 'flexibility' from Russian president #oops" (Yes, there were previous updates.)

But come on, people. Today's episode is about more than what Grenell thinks of Callista's hair or Newt's marriage life (or, for that matter, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt's eyebrows -- another deleted tweet not mentioned by Politico).

No, the real question is: Why haven't politicos learned by now that you scrub your Twitter feed of all controversial content before you enter the political limelight?

The hamlet of Dixville Notch (population: 9) is famous for being the first town to vote in New Hampshire's primary and predicting the eventual Republican nominee in every presidential election since 1968 (its record in the Democratic primary and general election is spottier). France, it turns out, has something similar.

In recent days, there have been several reports on the Burgundy village of Donzy (with 1,700 residents, a pulsing metropolis compared with Dixville Notch), where electoral results have served as an uncanny bellwhether for the whipsawing national vote in every presidential race since 1981. And with the first round of voting in this year's election set to begin later this month, things are not looking good for President Nicolas Sarkozy, who won Donzy in 2007 but is currently trailing François Hollande in national polls as the French economy sputters.

Here's the Economist's report from the town:

The message I picked up from almost everybody I spoke to suggested that Mr Hollande is heading for victory. Jean-Paul Jacob, the current (independent) centre-right mayor, told me straight out: "My bet is that Donzy will vote Hollande." Not, he said, out of any great enthusiasm for the Socialist: "People find him cold; there's no fervour about him." (Indeed, there was little evidence of any political activism at all: the only poster pasted to the official campaign boards was for Philippe Poutou, an anti-capitalist candidate. Local talk is more often about "fishing and fêtes", said a local in the bar.) Rather, it was because people are disappointed with Mr Sarkozy. "His personality," said the mayor, a local notary, wryly, "doesn't leave people indifferent."

But at a local bar (almost every report makes the obligatory stop at a watering hole), Reuters' Vicky Buffery files a slightly more encouraging dispatch for Sarkozy's camp:

Questions about the election draw Gallic shrugs. One man says he'll vote but hasn't decided which way. When pushed, he struggles to remember the name of Segolene Royal, the Socialist Party candidate for whom he voted in 2007.

There's a sense among Donzy's voters that the election result could go any way, despite polls pointing to a win for Hollande.

It is hard to find people who will admit to supporting Sarkozy but several say he will have their vote.

As for Dixville Notch, its predictive power appears to be intact. Mitt Romney, who's now cruising to the GOP nomination, won the town's vote. Well, actually, his two votes put him in a tie for first place with Jon Huntsman, who has long since departed the Republican race. But why let messy details like that get in the way of the mystique.

Something didn't happen at the sixth Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia over the weekend. Yes, Western hemisphere nations failed to reach consensus on including Cuba in the gathering, overhauling the region's drug policy (an expert taskforce will study the issue), or, really, much of anything. But I'm talking about something else: Barack Obama appears to have not worn a guayabera -- the light tropical dress shirt that several Latin American leaders are sporting in the summit photo-op above. And there's our president, looking decidedly stuffy in a suit jacket and (admittedly open) button-down. 

"Obama, loyal to his jacket. The others, in guayaberas," read a caption to a similar picture published in Venezuela's El Universal. (The article proceeds to critique the dress of several heads of state, noting that, among the female leaders, Costa Rica's Laura Chinchilla came closest to adopting the guayabera style.)

In the run-up to the summit, the daughter of Colombian designer Edgar Gómez Estévez told local media and the Spanish news agency EFE that she was making 130 guayaberas for Obama and that they would be more daring than usual because Obama was a "distinct, special, happy, and extroverted person." As far as I can tell, the White House never confirmed that Obama would be wearing a Gómez-designed guayabera.

Nevertheless, Cuba's Fidel Castro latched on to the reports, dubbing the event the "summit of the guayaberas" and criticizing the U.S. president for planning to wear a shirt that originated in Cuba while barring Cuba from attending the summit.

To be fair to Obama, it appears that several leaders at the summit decided to forego the guayabera (and some are even wearing ties!):

So what happened with Obama's wardrobe? Either the early media reports were wrong, or Obama had a change of heart about wearing the shirt. The real question: How long before we see a campaign ad accusing Obama of taking directives -- on fashion, no less -- from Fidel? 

Last week, I explained how upcoming nuclear talks could get bogged down in disagreement if Western powers demand that Iran, as a confidence-building measure, stop enriching uranium to 20 percent (which is steps away from weapons-grade material) and ship existing stockpiles of the higher grade uranium out of the country. 

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that the United States and its European allies will indeed open negotiations with this demand, along with a call for Iran to shutter a nuclear facility burrowed under a mountain:

The hard-line approach would require the country's military leadership to give up the Fordo enrichment plant outside the holy city of Qum, and with it a huge investment in the one facility that is most hardened against airstrikes....

"We have no idea how the Iranians will react," one senior administration official said. "We probably won't know after the first meeting."

Indeed, with negotiations set to begin this Saturday in Istanbul, the Iranians are already reacting. Fereydoon Abbasi, the head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, called the demands outlined in the Times article "irrational."

But Abbasi also struck a note of compromise (or, at the very least, flexibility) -- suggesting that Iran might consider returning uranium enrichment to the lower levels required for power generation once it had amassed enough 20 percent material to produce medical isotopes for cancer treatment and other research.

Iran meter: The Times report hasn't just provoked a strong reaction in Iran. In the United States, former CIA officer Paul Pillar is dismayed by America's reported negotiating position -- particularly the part about dismantling the Fordo nuclear facility.

"The Western message to Tehran seems pretty clear: we might be willing to tolerate some sort of Iranian nuclear program, but only one consisting of facilities that would suffer significant damage if we, or the Israelis, later decide to bomb it," he writes. "Not the sort of formula that inspires trust among Iranian leaders and gives them much incentive to move toward an agreement."

Here at Foreign Policy, Stephen Walt homes in on the same demand, and is equally concerned that the United States is formulating fatally flawed opening bids. "It would be an extraordinarily humiliating climb-down for [the Iranians] to agree to shut the facility down at this point and then dismantle it," he notes.

If Pillar and Walt are right, is there any reason for optimism about the upcoming talks? In fact, there are hints that while the Fordo demand may be a non-starter, uranium enrichment could offer more fertile ground for negotiations -- and that both sides recognize this reality. Take this passage from the Times article: 

While opening bids in international negotiations are often designed to set a high bar, as a political matter American and European officials say they cannot imagine agreeing to any outcome that leaves Iran with a stockpile of fuel, enriched to 20 percent purity, that could be converted to bomb grade in a matter of months.

Or this report today from the Associated Press on the buzz in Iran:

What could get traction -- suggested the hardline newspaper Kayhan -- is a so-called "enrichment level stabilization." That means halting the 20 percent enrichment, the highest level acknowledged by Iran, and continuing with lower levels of about 3.5 percent needed for ordinary reactors....

Mehdi Sanaei, a moderate lawmaker, said a possible bargaining position could be an agreement to temporarily stop 20 percent enrichment in exchange for lifting some economic sanctions.

In other words, there's still hope for a diplomatic breakthrough, though it's difficult to stay optimistic when these reports mingle with the news that the United States is dispatching a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. 

If you believe the buzz among political pundits this week, Mitt Romney may have not just picked up a primary win and endorsement from Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) in Wisconsin. He may have found a running mate. The Washington Post's Philip Rucker notes that Ryan, in what smacked of a VP tryout, appeared by Romney's "side at every turn" in Wisconsin, while the Washington Examiner's Charlie Spiering highlights a recent speech in which Ryan sounds very much like a vice presidential candidate -- conjuring up memories of "flipping burgers at McDonalds" and "waiting tables to pay back my student loans" in a paean to the American dream.     

Other political analysts are arguing that whether or not Romney puts Ryan on the ticket, President Obama may run as much against the Wisconsin congressman -- the architect of the House Republican budget plan -- as against Romney. On Tuesday, Obama declared that the budget proposal, which would slash $5.3 trillion in federal spending over the next decade, would pit rich against poor in what amounted to "social Darwinism."   

As the campaign spotlight lingers on Ryan, it's worth pointing out that the House Budget Committee chairman isn't a one-trick pony. Sure, he's styled himself as an intellectual leader on fiscal policy. But he has a distinct worldview as well. Here are some of the components of the other Ryan plan.

• American exceptionalism: In a June 2011 foreign policy speech at the Alexander Hamilton Society, Ryan rejected isolationism and argued that "America is the greatest force for human freedom the world has ever seen," warning that "a world without U.S. leadership will be a more chaotic place." A firm believer in American exceptionalism, he agrees with columnist Charles Krauthammer that American decline "is a choice." The country's fiscal policy and foreign policy "are on a collision course," he explains, "and if we fail to put our budget on a sustainable path, then we are choosing decline as a world power."

• China: Ryan appears to be less hardline and hawkish about China than Romney, who has pledged to designate Beijing as a currency manipulator on his first day in office. True, Ryan has shuddered at the idea of a world led by China and Russia and criticized China's restrictions on freedom of expression, "coercive population controls," and "unsound economic policies." But he's also argued that "we stand to benefit from a world in which China and other rising powers are integrated into the global order with increased incentives to further liberalize their political and economic institutions." 

• BRICS: Ryan wants to forge better relations with the world's emerging economies -- particularly "the rising democratic powers of India and Brazil, which share many of our core principles and interests." America, he says, "must be willing to listen and accommodate their legitimate concerns as we preserve the framework of the international system and solidify our leadership within it." More generally, he charges the Obama administration with taking America's "allies for granted" and wants to revitalize those relationships. 

• Arab Spring: Ryan has greeted the uprisings in the Middle East with the same mixture of praise and trepidation that several Republican presidential candidates have displayed this year. "We are seeing long-repressed populations give voice to the fundamental desire for liberty," he's observed, while adding ominously that in these societies "the most organized factions often lack tolerance and reject pluralism." It's too soon, he says, "to tell whether these revolutions will result in governments that respect the rights of their citizens, or if one form of autocracy will be supplanted by another."

• Saudi Arabia: Ryan cites America's alliance with the Saudis as an example of when its interests run up against its ideals, and when "American policy should be tempered by a healthy humility about the extent of our power to control events in other regions." There are "voices in the Kingdom calling for reform," he notes. "We should help our allies effect a transition that fulfills the aspirations of their people."

• Iraq/Afghanistan: Ryan believes that America's "ability to affect events is strongest in Iraq and Afghanistan," and that the United States can't cut and run from the battle against "global terrorism" in these countries. Ryan was an early supporter of the surge in Iraq. "This whole thing is a big gamble," he said in 2007. "But it's probably the best gamble to take before throwing in the towel and allowing sectarian genocide to take over." His estimate that America could save roughly $1 trillion over the next decade by winding down the wars was later adopted by congressional Democrats and the White House.   

• Defense spending: Ryan's 99-page "Path to Prosperity" plan, released last month, provoked an outcry in calling for boosting military spending while slashing the international affairs budget -- funding for entities such as the State Department and USAID -- by nearly $5 billion. When Ryan said "we don't think the generals are giving us their true advice" in reference to the military budget, he was quick to walk back his comments. "I really misspoke," he explained.

In the wake of Ryan's foreign policy address last year, Matthew Yglesias argued in the American Prospect that Ryan seemed to subscribe to "more or less the liberal internationalist vision that's already at the core" of the Obama administration's approach. The New Republic's Jonathan Chait mocked Ryan's "Norquistian-Churchillian foreign policy." The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin wrote that Ryan was one of the few politicians who could draw a connection between "conservative economic principles and American foreign policy and values."

Ryan's worldview, in other words, appears to be a bit of a Rorschach test. And in a general election where appealing solely to the Republican base just won't cut it, that might be exactly what Romney needs.

The "Pareto Principle" posits that, for many phenomena, 80 percent of output comes from 20 percent of input (you can apply this "80/20 rule" to everything from the large share of business a company derives from its small base of dedicated customers to, more depressingly, the short period of time you spend getting most of your work done at the office). 

As the world's top powers prepare for nuclear talks with Iran in mid-April (today's over-heated sideshow: Iran is dithering about whether to hold the summit in Turkey, Iraq, or China), we should keep the 80/20 rule in mind. Particularly the fact that much of the initial disagreement between negotiators may stem from one thorny number: 20 percent.  

On Wednesday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak revealed that Israel is asking its allies to pressure Iran at the talks -- wherever they take place -- to transfer all uranium enriched to 20 percent to another country. "Israel is prepared to wait for the negotiations' results before it decides on a course of action," he explained. "It's not a matter of weeks, but not of years either."

Iran meter: Barak may not have a difficult time convincing Western powers to pursue his goal. Greg Thielmann of the Arms Control Association recently told Reuters that the White House may focus "on halting 20 percent enrichment of uranium as a first-step confidence-building measure." (Other experts predict Washington's opening salvo will also include an attempt to suspend work at the Fordow enrichment facility.) 

Why 20 percent in particular? "Nuclear bombs," Reuters explains, "require uranium enriched to 90 percent, but much of the effort required to get there is already achieved once it reaches 20 percent concentration, shortening the time needed for any nuclear weapons 'break-out.'" 

But the 20 percent goal may be a hard sell. Iran began enriching uranium to 20 percent in 2010 -- after previously enriching it to the 3.5 percent level required to fuel nuclear power plants -- and it's been doing so in earnest. Tehran now has roughly 250 pounds of 20 percent enriched uranium and has nearly tripled the number of devices producing the higher grade uranium in the past three months, according to the Associated Press.

And while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggested in September that Tehran would stop refining uranium to 20 percent if it received fuel for a medical research reactor (which requires higher-level enrichment than power plants), there are signs that Iranian negotiators may be less amenable to such a fuel swap this time around. In March, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei boasted that Iran's 20 percent enrichment had "surprised the enemies," while the Iranian lawmaker Aladin Borujerdi declared that "the parliament will never allow the government to go back even one step in its nuclear policy."

Sure, it could all be bluster. But we shouldn't underestimate the power of that 20 percent figure to cause big problems -- and undercut confidence before it has a chance to take root.

In media, timing is key to breaking news and getting recognized for original journalism. But it can also sting you, as Vogue and Condé Nast Traveler learned during the Arab Spring after publishing, respectively, a glowing profile of Syrian first lady Asma al-Assad and a list of the "15 Best Places to See Right Now" that included Libya.

Today, the New York Times fell victim to the timing trap. The paper led its print edition with a story by Jeffrey Gettleman entitled "A Taste of Hope in Somalia's Battered Capital," only for a suicide bomber to attack a gathering of Somali officials this morning in Mogadishu's National Theater, killing the heads of Somalia's Olympic committee and soccer federation, among others.

Gettleman had even mentioned the National Theater in his piece (key lines in bold):

Outside, on Mogadishu's streets, the thwat-thwat-thwat hammering sound that rings out in the mornings is not the clatter of machine guns but the sound of actual hammers. Construction is going on everywhere - new hospitals, new homes, new shops, a six-story hotel and even sports bars (albeit serving cappuccino and fruit juice instead of beer). Painters are painting again, and Somali singers just held their first concert in more than two decades at the National Theater, which used to be a weapons depot and then a national toilet. Up next: a televised, countrywide talent show, essentially "Somali Idol."

Mogadishu, Somalia's capital, which had been reduced to rubble during 21 years of civil war, becoming a byword for anarchy, is making a remarkable comeback. The Shabab, the fearsome insurgents who once controlled much of the country, withdrew from the city in August and have been besieged on multiple sides by troops from the African Union, Kenya, Ethiopia and an array of local militias.

Today the theater is a scene not of cultural renaissance but of carnage:

Yet only weeks ago, when the theater was reopened, the atmosphere at the Chinese-built complex very much matched Gettleman's description:

On Twitter, some people are tweaking the Times for being a bit trigger-happy on the optimism ("NYT story on #Somalia illustrates the danger of proclaiming peace in such places; new violence was bound to happen," argued the Atlantic Council's Barbara Slavin), while others are simply discouraged ("Wanted so badly to believe NYT's article on Somalia today," photographer Ed Suter wrote. "Guess it was a bit premature").

The Times, for its part, has put the two stories into a dialogue of sorts on the World page.

And it's worth pointing out that Gettleman tempered his report with the sober assessment that Mogadishu "and the rest of Somalia still have a long way to go," citing a recent attack on the presidential palace in the capital as just one example.

"Who says it's just bad news coming out of Somalia?" Gettleman tweeted early this morning. Indeed, any positive news out of war-torn Somalia is welcome. In the news business, sadly, you can never pick the right day to highlight a heartwarming story.