The news gods have apparently decided it's time for yet another round of Washington's favorite parlor game: "Will Israel attack Iran?"

The latest round of speculation was kicked off by a mammoth New York Times magazine article by Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, who concluded, "After speaking with many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of the military and the intelligence, I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012."

Veteran Iran hand Gary Sick ably dispensed with Bergman's argument here, noting that his reporting actually points toward the opposite conclusion:

Like virtually all other commentators on this issue, Bergman slides over the fact that the IAEA consistently reports that Iran has diverted none of its uranium to military purposes. Like others, he focuses on the recent IAEA report, which was the most detailed to date in discussing Iran’s suspected experiments with military implications; but like others, he fails to mention that almost all of the suspect activity took place seven or more years ago and there is no reliable evidence that it has resumed. A problem, yes; an imminent threat, no.

Bergman also overlooks the fact that Iran has almost certainly NOT made a decision to actually build a bomb and that we are very likely to know if they should make such a decision. How would we know? Simply because those pesky IAEA inspectors are there on site and Iran would have to kick them out and break the seals on their stored uranium in order to produce the high enriched uranium needed for a bomb.

Would Israel actually attack while these international inspectors are at work? No, they would need to give them warning, thereby giving Iran warning that something was coming. The IAEA presence is a trip wire that works both ways. It is an invaluable resource. Risking its loss would be not only foolhardy but self-destructive to Israel and everyone else.

But Bergman's article isn't the only recent bite at this apple. Foreign Affairs hosted a debate between former Defense Department officials Matthew Kroenig and Colin Kahl on whether the United States should bomb Iran itself; Foreign Policy's Steve Walt went several rounds with Kroenig; defense analysts Edridge Colby and Austin Long joined the discussion in the National Interest. Many others weighed in.

Today, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius threw another log on the fire when he reported that U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta "believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June" and that the Obama administration is "conducting intense discussions about what an Israeli attack would mean for the United States." He added: "U.S. officials don’t think that Netanyahu has made a final decision to attack, and they note that top Israeli intelligence officials remain skeptical of the project." (Reuters notes archly that Ignatius was "writing from Brussels where Panetta was attending a NATO defense ministers' meeting.")

There have also been a number of items in recent days about Iran's murky ties to al Qaeda, including this Foreign Affairs article by Rand analyst Seth Jones and what appeared to be a follow-up report in the Wall Street Journal (never mind that the information was nearly two years old), as well as a steady drumbeat of alarmist quotes from top Israeli officials -- all reminiscent of the run up to the Iraq war. Add to this mix Iran's threat to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, an ongoing congresssional push for tougher sanctions, and the heated rhetoric coming from Obama's Republican challengers, and you have a recipe for a media feeding frenzy.

Most likely, the real drivers of this latest round are the Western attempts to persuade Iran's Asian customers -- China, India, Japan, South Korea -- to stop buying Iranian oil by persuading them that the only alternative is war. Those efforts are probably doomed, despite Israel's increasingly convincing ambiguity about its ultimate intentions. Asian countries simply don't care all that much about the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon -- they care about their own prosperity above all.

So, is Israel going to attack Iran, despite all of the doubts many have raised? There are only two people who know the answer to that question -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Ehud Barak -- and I don't think they'll announce their decision in the New York Times. The smart money's still betting against an Israeli strike, but the odds do seem to be getting shorter.

Put your phones and personal electronics away in North Korea, or risk a messy ending.  The Telegraph reported this morning that cell phone users in North Korea will be deemed "war criminals," as part of the new rules being implemented for the 100 days of mourning following former North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's death.

Of course, it's easy to see why the regime is becoming so antsy about cell phone usage. The Arab Spring protests were energized by Twitter and Facebook via cell phones, and other mass movements including the Occupy protests were spread through this medium as well. But the more pertinent question is, how effective will this crackdown actually be?

As Peter Beck wrote in 2010, there were over 300,000 cell phone users in North Korea, all on a network developed by Egyptian telecommunications firm Orascom. Reuters reported last November that the number has since grown to nearly a million people on the 3G capable network. Analysts at the time said that the network posed little of a threat to the regime, mainly because officials had controlled outside information so tightly.  Additionally, severe limitations on the internet restrict access to any domain except a handful of historical sites that are accessible to a select few people.  However, as the Nautilus Institute's Alexandre Mansourov said in a report, "The DPRK mobile communications industry has crossed the Rubicon and the North Korean government can no longer roll it back without paying a severe political price."

Of course, its not to say that the North Koreans won't try their hardest to ban the technology. They did it in 2004 following the explosion of a passenger train, which officials suspected was due to a bomb controlled via a cell phone. To the regime's chagrin, cell phone usage continued to grow in the expanding North Korean black market, with relay stations set up on the Chinese border that connected North Koreans with their counterparts in the South.

Look at all of those $1 and $5 (and $2?) bills! It's a bold statement from the 14-year-old daughter of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. But Venezuelans aren't exactly finding Rosinés Chávez's antics cute.

This week, Rosinés posted the picture above on the photo-sharing app Instagram, drawing instant ire from Venezuelans who contrasted the message with her father's critiques of U.S. capitalism or have struggled for years to change local currency, bolívares, into dollars.

In 2003, Chávez imposed tight currency restrictions in an effort to limit capital flight. The unpopular government agency CADIVI now prevents individuals from purchasing more than $3,000 for travel and $400 for web purchases a year -- all at the fixed rate of 4.3 bolívares per dollar (of course, Rosinés could just be flaunting her annual allotment of greenbacks). According to Bloomberg, those who don't receive state approval and are essentially blacklisted from the system seek refuge in the black market, where they pay roughly 8.5 bolívares per dollar. Importers often turn to a currency market run by the central bank that offers a rate of 5.3 bolívares per dollar.

Rosinés has been in the public eye before -- posing on the arm of teen prince Justin Bieber and dutifully uploading it to her Bieber-crazed Twitter account -- but this time her father, whose approval rating is hovering around 55 percent, is running for reelection. And as Foreign Affairs explains today, the opposition, led by the 39-year-old lawyer-turned-governor Henrique Capriles Radonski, is gaining momentum.

Rosinés has her defenders -- in particular her mother Marisabel, who divorced Chávez in 2003 and recently tweeted, "I told her that her mistake wasn't to take [the picture] but rather to upload it to a medium where there are ignorant people who don't respect others." But the photo has also given birth to a Tumblr --  #Rosinesing -- featuring people mocking Rosinés with other items that are hard to find in Venezuela such as cooking oil, medicine, and, well, Rosinés:

Yes, if there's one thing that's not in short supply in Venezuela, it's satire.

Although Americans haven't cried over the passing of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, funeralized today with great showmanship in Pyongyang, it has been a sad time for groups like the Congolese Socialist Party, who "will continue their mourning until the day of the ceremony of bidding farewell to his bier." The Korean Central News Agency repoted that Syria's Baath Arab Socialist Party sent condolences that "the world movement for liberation and peace lost the most prominent fighter who had defended the people's right from highhanded practices and supremacy by the world imperialists;" and the former Deputy President of the Nigerian Senate, who also happens to be co-chairman of the (get ready for it) International Preparatory Committee for Commemorating the Centenary of Birth of the Great Leader President Kim Il Sung, sent a wreath.

North Korea is obsessed with showing the outside world the level of respect its leaders command. Kim Il Sung's memorial palace features an honorary degree from the fraudulent Kensington University, and Kim Jong Il's "International Friendship Exhibition" proudly showcases hundreds of thousands of gifts he received as tribute, including a basketball Madeleine Albright brought, signed by Michael Jordan, and a coffee table from Robert Mugabe, made from the leg of an elephant.

Other than the Chinese leadership, those offering condolences have been mostly D-list political celebrities, from the chairman of the National Democratic Party of Mongolia to the president of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). But at least it means that the KCNA, the only source with a full report of these tributes and one of the world's least dependable news agencies, is probably telling the truth.

Chinese cultural authorities may have thought they pulled off a coup by getting Christian Bale, the Dark Knight himself, to star in Zhang Yimou's epic retelling of the rape of Nanking, the Flowers of War, China's Oscar entry for best foreign-language film. But they got more then they bargained for when the notoriously short-tempered British actor,* in the country for the film premiere, attempted to pay a visit -- along with a CNN crew -- to human rights activist Chen Guangcheng, who has been under house at his home in Shandong province. In case you missed the story, here's what happened: 

A foreign ministry spokesman fired back at Bale today: 

"If anyone should be embarrassed it's the relevant actor, not the Chinese side," Liu told a daily news briefing, in the country's first reaction to Bale's actions.

"What I understand is that the actor was invited by the director Zhang Yimou to attend the movie premiere. He was not invited to any village in Shandong to create news or make a film," he added.

"If he wants to create news, I don't think that would be welcomed by China."

Chen, a blind self-taught lawyer, has been under house arrest since his release from prison last year, having accused authorities of carrying out forced abortions on villagers in rural China. 

It's all well and good for Bale -- who got his first big break playing an orphan in wartime China in Steven Spielberg's Empire of the Sun -- to bring publicity to this issue. If nothing else, it will make China's international promotion of the new film, in which Bale plays a priest who protects a group of Chinese women from the invading Japanese, a little more awkward. (U.S. critics are mostly panning the film as a "gauzy tearjerker.") Though, given his political beliefs, one wonders why be got involved in this project in the first place. 

The person I'm actually interested in hearing from is Zhang Yimou, China's most famous film director. Zhang is known globally for martial arts epics like Hero and House of Flying Daggers, the arthouse hit Raise the Red Lantern, and for directing the 2008 Beijing Olympics opening ceremonies. (Unfortunately, he doesn't address the controversy in an interview posted today with the New York Times' Larry Rohter. 

Though he attended film school with Ai Weiwei, Zhang has never been a political artist, which is perfectly legitimate. But given his affiliation with state-sponsored prestige projects like the Olympics and Flowers of War, on which he acknowledges he received substantial official support, he's running the risk of being dismissed internationally as a propagandist. Here's a description from the L.A. Times of the film's Beijing premier:

Director Zhang Yimou’s epic new film "The Flowers of War" doesn't open in the United States until Dec. 23, but the movie, starring Christian Bale and set amid the 1930s Japanese occupation of the Chinese city of Nanjing, premiered Sunday in the People’s Political Consultative Conference, an imposing government building in central Beijing.

After the screening came an hourlong event in which the film’s cast appeared onstage in costume and made short speeches celebrating the film’s achievements. The band of actors that played the Chinese soldiers held their prop rifles high in the air and shouted “Chinese soldiers!” eliciting a smattering of applause from the mostly native crowd.  

In the Times interview Zhang says he'd like to make a film about the Cultural Revolution, during which he was sent to the countryside to work on a collective farm as a child. " Of course this is a very sensitive topic, but I am hoping that before I pass on I can actually make these movies," he says. This seems to be an acknowledgement that there are some subjects he'd like to tackle, but can't in today's political climate. That's unfortunate for a director of Zhang's talent, but as long as he continues to prosper by making state-sponsored kitsch, it's a little hard to take him seriously.

*Correction: This post originally stated that Christian Bale is Australian. He is British.

It may be hard to imagine a silver lining in S&P's decision to downgrade Belgium's credit rating from AA+ to AA, but the move may have had the unintended consequence of pressuring Belgian leaders to finally get around to forming a government. The country hasn't had a permanent government since April 2010 -- and hasn't really had a stable one in more than four years -- but an agreement on a budget deal this week may have paved the way for a more permanent arangement, with the king calling on chief negotiator Elio di Rupo to form a coalition. It seems like the downgrade may have finally lit a fire under the country's divided linquistic factions:

Elections were won by Flemish nationalists who demanded wide-ranging reform of the federal government, including more autonomy for its regions. Wallonia, whose economy has lagged behind that of Flanders, has resisted devolution amid fears that will result in lower redistributive payments.

Failure to resolve the conflict has thus far prevented the emergence of a new government, leaving Mr Leterme and his team as a limited-powers “caretaker” administration.

The 580-day political squabble was one of the reasons given by Standard & Poor’s on Friday when it downgraded Belgium’s long-term debt outlook, from double A plus to double A.

The downgrade, after several weeks of Belgium bond yields rising steadily as investors fretted about its creditworthiness, revived stalled negotiations between leaders of the main political parties looking to form the next coalition.

It would certainly be good for Belgium to have a government at a time like this. But like the removal from power of Silvio Berlusconi and George Papandreou, this could also be seen as an example of an international financial entity -- in this case S&P rather than the European Central Bank -- forcing the hand of a sovereign government when the democratic process failed to do so. We'll see how long this newest arrangement can last.

The Confucius Prize -- the award established last year by a Chinese Think Tank to compete with the Nobel Prize -- has been awarded to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin this year:

It praised his decision to go to war in Chechnya in 1999.

“His iron hand and toughness revealed in this war impressed the Russians a lot, and he was regarded to be capable of bringing safety and stability to Russia,” read an English version of the committee’s statement. “He became the anti-terrorist No. 1 and the national hero.”

So went the announcement by a group of 16 patriotic scholars awarding what they call their second annual “grass-roots” peace prize.

The sponsors also cited Putin's opposition to the NATO intervention in Libya and "for being selected to join the K.G.B. while in college, “which made true his teenage dream of joining the K.G.B.,” and for “acting as the propagandist of current political events” while in high school.""

The first awarding of the prize was a bit of a catastrophe last year, when the winner, former Taiwanese Vice President Lien Chan, was never informed that he had won, and the statue and prize money were instead handed to a little girl with no relation to him. No word yet on whether Putin will be on hand to pick up his award.

Putin was also due to receive a prize for democracy promotion from a German foundation this year, but it was eventually canceled after a media uproar.  He beat out Bill Gates, Angela Merkel, Jacob Zuma, Kofi Annan, and the (Beijing-approved) Panchen Lama for the Confucius Award. 

Sometimes it takes a phenomenally dumb statement to bring much-needed attention to an important issue. When talk radio blowhard Rush Limbaugh took to the airwaves last week to describe the mass-murdering Lord's Resistance Army as "Christians...fighting the Muslims in Sudan" that the Obama administration was intent of wiping out, it brought widespread condemnation, including from Limbaugh's political allies, and created an opportunity to discuss the crimes of the LRA.

In particular, a video appeal to Limbaugh made by 22-year-old Evelyn Apoko, who was abducted by the LRA when she was 12 and escaped after years in captivity, was widely circulated online. You can read more about her frankly incredible story here. Apoko now lives in the United States, where she has had several rounds of reconstructive surgery to repair the damage done to her face by shrapnel and is a fellow at the Strongheart Group, an international rehabilitation and education program for young people affected by war.

Yesterday she testified before Congress at a hearing on the Obama administration's decision to send 100 troops to assist local efforts to capture LRA leader Joseph Kony. After her testimony, she was kind enough to answer a few of my questions.

Foreign Policy: The video you made recently got a lot of attention. Can you tell me why you thought it was so important to respond to what Rush Limbaugh said?

Evelyn Apoko: When I read about what he said -- I don't know where he got the information, I don't know where he got it from -- and it really hit me hard. How can you say the LRA are Christians? I'm not trying to judge, but it's which I experienced and I witnessed it and it's totally different.

I heard that a lot of people here like to listen to him, you know, and I said well I am going to do something about it. I cannot keep quiet about it because I know that, there's many children still in Congo, still being abducting right now by Joseph Kony. A Christian would no want to do such things to people: try to kill people try, to take children away from their families to become something horrible, you know, brainwash those kids. So that's why I made that video to let you know that the LRA was not Christians and aren't what he thinks they are.

FP: So now the United States is becoming at least somewhat more committed to this fight against the LRA. Do you think that if Joseph Kony is either killed or captured, that's the end of the LRA or are there people who will continue fighting even if he's taken out?

EA: I think it will make a huge difference if they take Joseph Kony away from the field because all the foundation is built on him. He is like the root of it, and all the other commanders, they follow whatever he says, whatever he offer to the commander they have to do it.

FP: What do you think is the most important first thing that a former child soldier needs in those early days and weeks after they're taken out of the battlefield?

EA: You know, those kids are, they are real, they are all like us, you know? I never knew that I was the person that I always wanted to be, you know? It wasn't until I escaped and came back home, I found people who were willing to be my mentor to show me what the right thing to do.

Those kids will need a lot of therapy and a mentor guiding them. I think, in few months they completely can change. Most of them say, "I never knew I was going to turn into this person. I never knew I was going to be the wonderful person who I always want to be. Because all that I've been doing in the bush they forced me to do. I didn't mean to do it." So I think in most cases, they are very young, they can still change.

There was a lot more bickering at last night's debate than in previous rounds, and the short section on foreign policy was no exception. To the highlights!

MICHELE BACHMANN decscribed 100 non-combat U.S. miltiary advisors in Uganda as a historic "fourth conflict in a foriegn land." She might want to have a look at this list. We're at war with Diego Garcia!:

And don’t forget, this was a historic week when it came to American foreign policy. We saw potentially an international assassination attempt from Iran on American soil. That says something about Iran, that they disrespect the United States so much that they would attempt some sort of a heinous act like that.

Then we saw the president of the United States engage American troops in a fourth conflict in a foreign land. This is historic.

Then on Sunday we heard the reports that now that in Iraq that the 5,000 troops that were going to be left there won’t even be granted immunity by Iraq. This is how disrespected the United States is in the world today, and it’s because of President Obama’s failed policies. He’s taken his eyes off the number-one issue in the world. That’s an Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. That makes all of us much danger — (applause) — and the president of Iran is a genocidal maniac. We need to stand up against Iran.

NEWT GINGRICH made some sense on defense cuts and had a good line: 

Now the idea that you'll - the idea that you'll have a bunch historically illiterate politicians who have no sophistication about national security trying to make a numerical decision about the size of the defense budget tells you everything you need to know about the bankruptcy of the current elite in this country - in both parties.

The fact is, we ought to first figure out what threatens us. We ought to figure out what strategies will respond to that. We should figure out what structures we need for those strategies. We should then cost them.

I found - helped found the Military Reform Caucus. I'm a hawk, but I'm a cheap hawk. But the fact is - (laughter) - the fact is, to say I'm going to put the security of the United States up against some arbitrary budget number is suicidally stupid.

RON PAUL did his Ron Paul thing. The crowd liked it:

There’s a lot of money spent in the military budget that doesn’t do any good for our defense. What — how does — how does it help us to keep troops in Korea all these years? We’re broke. We have to borrow this money. Why are we in Japan? Why do we subsidize Germany, and they subsidize their socialized system over there because we pay for it. We’re broke.

And this whole thing that this can’t be on the table, I’ll tell you what. This debt bubble is the thing you’d better really worry about, because it’s imploding on us right now; it’s worldwide. We are no more removed from this than the man in the moon. It’s going to get much worse.

And to cut military spending is a wise thing to do. We would be safer if we weren’t in so many places. We have an empire; we can’t afford it. The empires always bring great nations down. We’ve spread ourselves too thinly around the world. This is what’s happened throughout history.

And we’re doing it to ourselves. The most recent empire to fail was a(n) empire that went into, of all places, Afghanistan.

HERMAN CAIN: Yes, I stand by what I said and what I believe is the opposite of that thing I said (By the way, good question from the Twitter guy): 

ANDERSON COOPER: We do have a Twitter question. Given that Israel has just negotiated with Palestine for a soldier, would any of you negotiate for a hostage? Herman Cain, let me ask this to you. A few hours ago you were asked by Wolf Blitzer, if al-Qaida had an American soldier in captivity and they demanded the release of everyone at Guantanamo Bay, would you release them? And you said, quote, "I could see myself authorizing that kind of a transfer." Can you explain?

MR. CAIN: The rest of the statement was quite simply you would have to consider the entire situation. But let me say this first: I would have a policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists. We have to lay that principle down first. (Applause.)

Now, then you have to look at each individual situation and consider all the facts. The point that I made about this particular situation is that I'm sure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had to consider a lot of things before he made that. So on the surface, I don't think we can say he did the right thing or not. A responsible decision-maker would have considered everything.

MR. COOPER: But you're saying you could - I mean, in your words, you said that, "I could see myself authorizing that kind of a transfer." Isn't that negotiating with, in this case, al-Qaida?

MR. CAIN: I don't recall him ever saying that it was al-Qaida- related.

MR. COOPER: Yeah, he did. He said -

MR. CAIN: Well, I don't - I - my policy would be we cannot negotiate with terrorists. That's where we have to start as a fundamental principle.

I'd seriously like to hear RICK SANTORUM provide an example of a war that didn't have political objectives:

It is the first duty of the president of the United States, is to protect us. (Applause.) And we should - we should have the resources and we should have all the resources in place to make sure that we can defend our borders, that we can make sure that we - we - when we engage in foreign countries, we do so to succeed. That's been the problem in this administration. We've had political objectives instead of objectives for success, and that's why we haven't succeeded.

And as Michele said and correctly said, the central threat right now is Iran - the disrespect, yes, but it's more than that. They sent a message. The two countries that they went after was the leader of the Islamic world, Saudi Arabia, and the leader of the, quote, "secular world," the United States. This was a call by Iran to say: We are the ones who are going to be the supreme leader of the Islamic world.

We are going to be the supreme leader of the secular world. And that's why they attacked here. And by the way, they did it in coordination with Central and South Americans, which I had been talking about and writing about for 10 years.

RICK PERRY: We should de-fund the United Nations because of the Palestinian membership bid. (Despite the fact that U.S. membership is what's preventing Palestine from being recognized.):

I think it's time for this country to have a very real debate about foreign aid. Clearly, there are places - as a matter of fact, I think it's time for us to have a very serious discussion about defunding the United Nations.  When you think about - when you think about the Palestinian Authority circumventing those Oslo accords and going to New York to try to create the conflict and to have themselves approved as a state without going through the proper channels, it is a travesty. And I think it's time not only to have that entire debate about all of our foreign aid, but in particular, the U.N. Why are we funding that organization? 

MITT ROMNEY: Get the Chinese to pay for foreign aid:

Foreign aid has several elements. One of those elements is defense, is to make sure that we are able to have the defense resources we want in certain places of the world. That probably ought to fall under the Department of Defense budget rather than a foreign aid budget.

Part of it is humanitarian aid around the world. I happen to think it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to borrow money from the Chinese to go give it to another country for humanitarian aid. We ought to get the Chinese to take care of the people that are - that are - and think of that borrowed money (today ?).

And finally, there's a portion of our foreign aid that allows us to carry out our - our activities in the world, such as what's happening in Pakistan, where we're taking - we're supplying our troops in Afghanistan through Pakistan.

But let me tell you, we're spending more on foreign aid than we ought to be spending.

BACHMANN: Make the Iraqis pay us back:

No, we should not be cutting foreign aid to Israel. Israel is our greatest ally. The biggest problem is the fact that the president - (applause) - the biggest problem with this administration and foreign policy is that President Obama is the first president since Israel declared her sovereignty put daylight between the United States and Israel. That's heavily contributed to the current hostilities that we see in the Middle East region.

Cutting back on foreign aid is one thing. Being reimbursed by nations that we have liberated is another. We should look to Iraq and Libya to reimburse us for part of what we have done to liberate these nations.

PAUL, SANTORUM, and GINGRICH get into a snappy argument about Ronald Reagan that the candidates who have a shot at the nomination wisely stay away from: 

REP. PAUL: As a matter of fact, I don't want to make a statement, I want to ask a question. Are you all willing to condemn Ronald Reagan for exchanging weapons for hostages out of Iran? We all know that was done.

MR. SANTORUM: Well, that's not - Iran was a sovereign country, it was not a terrorist organization, number one. That's -

REP. PAUL (?): Well, they were our good friends -

(Cross talk.)

MR. : They're a sovereign country - just like the Palestinian Authority is not good friends of Israel.

REP. PAUL: He negotiated for hostages.

MR. SANTORUM: There's a role - we negotiated with hostages - (inaudible) - the Soviet Union. We've negotiated with hostages, depending on the scale. But there's a difference between releasing terrorists from Guantanamo Bay in response to terrorist demands than -

REP. PAUL: But they're all suspects, they're not terrorists. You haven't convicted them of anything.

MR. SANTORUM:  - than negotiating with other countries where we may have an interest.

And that is certainly a proper role for the United States - (inaudible).

MR. COOPER: We've got to take a quick break. I do want to give Speaker Gingrich thirty seconds and then -

MR. GINGRICH: Just very straightforward. (Inaudible) - did a film on Ronald Reagan, there's a very painful moment in the film when he looks in the camera and says: I didn't think we did this; I'm against doing it. I went back and looked. The truth is, we did. It was an enormous mistake. And he thought the Iranian deal was a terrible mistake.

The first foreign-policy-centered debate will be held on Nov. 15. The other Josh has some great suggestions for questions over at The Cable.

Update: Almost forgot this low blow from BACHMANN: 

 Well, I think the person who really has a problem with illegal immigration in the country is President Obama. It's his uncle and his aunt who are illegal aliens who've been allowed to stay in this country despite the fact that they're illegal.

A.G. Sulzberger reports from Topeka:

Three arms of government, all ostensibly representing the same people, have been at an impasse over who should be responsible for — and pay for — prosecuting people accused of misdemeanor cases of domestic violence.

City leaders had blamed the Shawnee County district attorney for handing off such cases to the city without warning. The district attorney, in turn, said he was forced to not prosecute any misdemeanors and to focus on felonies because the County Commission cut his budget. And county leaders accused the district attorney of using abused women as pawns to negotiate more money for his office.

After both sides dug in, the dispute came to a head Tuesday night.

By a vote of 7 to 3, the City Council repealed the local law that makes domestic violence a crime.

Decline-o-meter: Thankfully, this doesn't actually mean domestic violence has been decriminalized in Topeka. The move was a ploy to force the District Attorney to prosecute the offenses, which remain illegal under Kansas State law. But it's a scary sign of the times and highlights the fact that the prosecutor's office has recently been cut by 10 percent at a time that the city has seen a “recent uptick in violent crime.”

Also worth a read is Michael Lewis' new Vanity Fair dispatch from California, which makes the case that state and municipal governments are the real ticking time bomb of the crisis: 

The market for municipal bonds, unlike the market for U.S. government bonds, spooked easily. American cities and states were susceptible to the same cycle of doom that had forced Greece to seek help from the International Monetary Fund. 

Lewis' piece sketches out what this will mean for public-safety services like police and firefighting in debt-wracked cities like Vallejo. 

Correction: The website mentioned in the below post is owned by James L'Angelle, a supporter of the Syrian National Council but not an official spokesman for the organization. As such, the images posted on the site -- which L'Angelle said that he took from another blog -- cannot provide insights into the workings of the SNC. The official website of the SNC is www.syriannc.org. We regret the error.

The Syrian National Council (SNC), which was formed on Sunday as an umbrella coalition of groups opposed to President Bashar al-Assad's regime, hinted strongly that it was in favor of a no-fly zone over the country by publishing maps of Syrian air defenses on its website.

The SNC's web page on the implementation of a no-fly zone to protect Syrian civilians, similar to the one that exists over Libya, does not explicitly endorse such an option. It argues that while "the situation itself might warrant an air defense blanket," practical considerations make the creation of a no-fly zone more difficult.

But the pictures on the website tell a different story. Four detailed maps (1,2,3,4) show the placement of Syrian air defenses -- specifically the Soviet-designed S-25, S-75, S-125, and S-200 surface-to-air missiles, and the 2K12 "Kub" air defense system -- that an international force would presumably need to destroy to implement a no-fly zone. Another chart compares Syria's total number of anti-aircraft weapons, which it lists at 3,310, those of other nations.

SNC Chairman Burhan Ghalioun affirmed yesterday that the council "rejects any outside interference that undermines the sovereignty of the Syrian people." SNC members, however, have interpreted that statement to rule out the presence of foreign boots on the ground in Syria -- but not necessarily a no-fly zone.

The Iranian president just wrapped up his speech.  In contrast to other years, he kept the esoteric Twelver theology to a minimum, but it was still a classic Ahmadinejad speech -- sweeping and conspiracy minded, with few references to current events. He made one interesting reference to the increase in illicit drug trafficking from Afghanistan under NATO's watch. There was a long section on the responsibility of Western nations for the global financial crisis, including a somewhat unexpected endorsement of the gold standard.

Interestingly, despite some perfunctory shots at the "Zionists" and their western supporters, he didn't have much to say on the topic dominated discussion this week -- Palestinian statehood. 

This passage is likely to get the most headlines: 

By  using  their  imperialistic media  network  which  is  under  the  influence  of colonialism  they  threaten  anyone  who  questions  the  Holocaust  and  the September 11  event with sanctions and military action.

Last year, when  the need  to  form  a fact-finding team  to  undertake a  thorough investigation  concerning  the  hidden  elements  involved  in  September  11 incident  was  brought  up;  an  idea  also  endorsed  by  all  independent governments  and  nations  as well  as  by  the majority  in  the United  States, my country  and myself came  under pressure  and  threat by  the  government of  the United States.

Instead of assigning a  fact-finding team,  they killed  the main perpetrator and threw his body into the sea. 

Would  it not have been reasonable to bring to justice and openly bring to  trial the main perpetrator of  the incident in order to identify  the elements behind the safe  space  provided  for  the  invading  aircraft  to  attack  the  twin  world  trade
towers?

Why should  it not  have  been  allowed  to  bring  him  to  trial  to  help  recognize
those who  launched  terrorist groups and brought wars and other miseries  into the region?

Is there any classified information that must be kept secret? 

Ahmadinejad didn't mention to the recent upheavals in the Middle East by name, but there were a few subtle references. Likely referring to Libya, Ahmadinejad asked, "Can the flower of democracy blossom from NATO’s missiles, rockets or guns?"

Here's how he closed: 

Today  nations  have  been  awakened.  With  the  increase  in public  awareness they no  longer succumb to oppressions and discriminations.

The world  is  now witnessing more  than  ever,  the widespread  awakening  in Islamic  lands,  in  Asia,  Europe,  and  America.  These  movements  are  ever expanding their spirit everyday and  influence  the pursuit of  the  realization of justice, freedom  and the creation of  a better tomorrow.

Our great nation stands ready to join hands with other nations to march on this beautiful path in harmony and in line with the shared aspirations of mankind.  

It turns out Mexican President Felipe Calderon's statements on U.S. television hinting at drug legalization this week were a preview of his UNGA speech, in which he suggested "market alternatives" to drug interdiction and singled out the United States specifically. A full text isn't posted yet so these quotes are all from my rushed transcription.

After discussing the Arab Spring, Calderon pivoted, saying, "We have to be aware that organized crime today is killing more people and more young people than all the dictatorial regimes in the world."  

He continued: 

"More than ever, consumer countries, where drugs are consumed, must take effective action to radically cut demand. I will be told that this is not possible. That the demand for drugs continues to rise, as indeed is the case here in the United States, where nearly 30 percent of young people consume drugs. What is the solution?[...]

Consumer countries are morally obliged to reduce the vast economic demand. If you can’t cut it, cut the economic profist. You have to find how to staunch this this demand. Seek out all possible options, including market alternatives, so that drugs trafficking ceases to be a source of violence in Latin America and the Carribean and several African countries.

As if noted before, Latin American heads of state including Calderon's predecessor Vicente Fox tend to become born-again legalizers after they leave office, perhaps since they're no longer feeling the pressure from up north. 

A sitting, center-right Mexican president making a speech in New York calling for "market alternatives" to combating drug trafficking would seem to be a pretty major development.

Given his normal man-of-the-people schtick and weekly telethons, Hugo Chavez's international appearances are notable for his habit of recommending books. He sent sales of Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival skyrocketing with his 2006 UNGA speech and did the same for author Eduardo Galeano when he gave a copy of Open Veins of Latin America to Barack Obama. This year, with Palestinian issues on the agenda, Chavez is plugging the work of French philosopher Gilles Deleuze and Spanish poet Juan Goytisolo in a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon:

In his memorable essay The Grandeur of Arafat, the great French philosopher Gilles Deleuze wrote with the full weight of the truth: The Palestinian cause is first and foremost the set of injustices that these people have suffered and continue to suffer. And I dare add that the Palestinian cause also represents a constant and unwavering will to resist, already written in the historic memory of the human condition. A will to resist that is born of the most profound love for the earth. Mahmoud Darwish, the infinite voice of the longed-for Palestine, with heartfelt conscience speaks about this love: We don’t need memories/ because we carry within us Mount Carmelo/ and in our eyelids is the herb of Galilee./ Don’t say: If only we could flow to my country like a river!/ Don’t say that!/ Because we are in the flesh of our country/ and our country is in our flesh.

Against those who falsely assert that what has happened to the Palestinian people is not genocide, Deleuze himself states with unfaltering lucidity: From beginning to end, it involved acting as if the Palestinian people not only must not exist, but had never existed. It represents the very essence of genocide: to decree that a people do not exist; to deny them the right to existence.

In this regard, the great Spanish writer Juan Goytisolo is quite right when he forcefully states: The biblical promise of the land of Judea and Samaria to the tribes of Israel is not a notarized property contract that authorizes the eviction of those who were born and live on that land. This is precisely why conflict resolution in the Middle East must, necessarily, bring justice to the Palestinian people; this is the only path to peace.