First Tareq Aziz, Saddam Hussein's former deputy, said that the planned U.S. troop withdrawal was "leaving the country to the wolves." Now, the chief of staff of the Iraqi military, Lt. Gen. Babaker Zebari, says that the U.S. pullout was "too soon" -- and that his forces might not be able to secure the country for another decade. Well, at least the representatives of Iraq's old guard and its new regime are able to agree about something.

Zebari, who I'm going to go out on a limb and assume is a Kurd, undermines his case by calling for U.S. forces to stay in Iraq for another 10 years. But it's hard not to sympathize with him: When I interviewed former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker in March, following Iraq's parliamentary elections, he gently opposed Obama's plan to draw down to 50,000 troops by Sept. 1, reasoning that, because of the time-consuming government formation process, the Iraqi government may well not have made much progress in resolving its pressing political issues. Crocker said that the negotiations over government formation could take "two or three months" -- a suggestion that struck me as pessimistic at the time, but now, over five months into the process, turned out to be wildly optimistic.

"[T]hings aren't going to be much further along come August than they are right now," Crocker also said. Boy, was that prescient. But the bigger conundrum is this: Iraqi politicians must realize that U.S. forces are pulling out, whether they like it or not, and that their only hope of holding on to power in the aftermath is to reach some sort of modus vivendi with their domestic rivals. Given that reality, it's a tremendous failure of Iraq's political elite that they haven't agreed to bury the hatchet and form a government - while some of them, like Zebari, are calling on the United States to pay the price for their intransigence.

Forget the clash of civilizations -- the next grand battle between East and West will be over Time itself. The world's largest clock is currently under construction in the Islamic holy city of Mecca, with the goal of moving Greenwich Mean Time to the Saudi Arabian city. The clock will tick off its first seconds tomorrow, one day after the beginning of Ramadan.

The clock itself bears a resemblance to Big Ben -- if Ben was on steroids. Its four faces, each 151 feet in diameter, will be lit with two million LED lights. It will sit on top of a tower that stretches 1,983 feet in the air. By comparison, Big Ben's faces are merely 23 feet in diameter, and its tower is only 316 feet tall. The tower also has some Islamic touches that are all its own: Arabic script reading "In the Name of Allah" runs below the clock faces, and white and green lights will flash during at the top of the clock will flash to signal the five daily times for prayer in Islam.

Greenwich has performed its job as international timekeeper admirably since 1884, so many people are going to be hard-pressed to think of a reason to change the Prime Meridian now. But at least one nation is starting to think that it's time for a change.

Following the UAE's recent admonition of BlackBerry smartphones, the country will prohibit three of BlackBerry's web operations starting on Oct. 11 -- e-mail, instant messaging between BlackBerry phones, and the web-browsing program -- citing security concerns. Later this month, Saudi Arabia will also ban instant messaging between BlackBerrys.

A Saudi official revealed that the move is intended to strong-arm Research-in-Motion, BlackBerry's Ontario-based company, into conceding information, which it has already done for Russia and China. In 2007, RIM provided its encryption keys to a Russian telecommunications agency, which then passed it to the Federal Security Service. A year later, RIM's handset came out in China, but was delayed because the company "needed to satisfy Beijing that its handsets posed no security threat to China's communication networks."

The ban won't be lifted "until these BlackBerry applications are in full compliance with UAE regulations;" and it comes at a time when countries all around the world, are attempting to restrict the many freedoms provided by the Internet.

BlackBerry phones may be unwelcome guests at dinner parties, in class, or at the movies, but in the UAE, the smartphones have recently been labeled a "security threat."

"As a result of how Blackberry data is managed and stored, in their current form, certain Blackberry applications allow people to misuse the service, causing serious social, judicial and national security repercussions," an authority from the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority declared.

Despite what may appear to be honest "social [and] judicial" concerns, Emrati officials are annoyed because they can't access BlackBerry users' personal data. Research in Motion, the company behind BlackBerrys, stores their customers' data overseas - outside of the UAE's jurisdiction.

But, this is just the latest attempt at censorship. A year ago, the country's biggest state-run mobile provider Etisalat, promoted an update to the phone that would have allowed the company to access users' personal data like emails and text messages; but it was met with fierce opposition. More recently, Bahrain banned  BlackBerry's "Urgent News" app which aggregated stories from the country's six main newspapers.

Reporters Without Borders listed the UAE as an "Enemy of the Internet" and recently stated that the UAE  "regards the services offered by BlackBerry, especially its instant messaging, as an obstacle to its goal of reinforcing censorship, filtering and surveillance."

The era of the BlackBerry (or CrackBerry, its affectionate nickname) may be over, according to recent figures: In America, R.I.M's share of the smartphone market fell to 41 percent in the first quarter, down from 55 percent last year. But its sales are still increasing overseas. If Dubai still wants to become the financial capital of the world, they're going to have to embrace the CrackBerry.

There's conflict brewing between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs in Iran -- and this time, the battleground is fashion.

It's hardly the first time the leaders of the Islamic Republic have embarked on a fatwa tirade against the perceived glitz and glamour of Western styles; but now a visible division of opinion regarding the legitimacy of the fatwas has appeared among Iran's leadership -- one that may leave a lasting fissure in its wake.

In this classic debate, the typically ultraconservative Ahmadinejad plays the part of the hip, chest hair-bearing nonconformist campaigning for more leniency and modernity in Iran's outlook on permissible appearance; opposite him, we have the old school, uptight enforcers played by Team Ayatollahs -- who relentlessly demand that every button be button and every hemline be lengthened. The two have disputed the propriety of rowdy hairstyles, unshaven countenances, and "badly veiled women" in the past. The former -- our surprisingly panache president Ahmadinejad -- has repeatedly declined to endorse the ayatollahs' prohibitions, and even went so far as to altogether denounce the police crackdowns used to enforce them.

So what's the latest incendiary style to drive the fashion-conscious chasm? Neckties.

In the latest such controversy, Mr Ahmadinejad, who never wears a tie in public, has gone on record as saying that no religious leader has banned the tie, which since the 1979 Islamic revolution has been regarded as a symbol of Western culture.

He was criticized by Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, normally close ally of the Iranian president, who said: "I say to him that many religious dignitaries believe ties should not be worn.

"The supreme guide (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) himself has said in a fatwa (religious edict) that the wearing of ties or bow ties is not permitted."

The tie has in past years been making a comeback in Iran, especially at events such as weddings and funerals.

The age-old adage stipulates that if you pull the string, the whole thing will unravel. If Mahmoud continues to pull the necktie, will the whole head of the Iranian government come toppling off, too? Or will the ayatollahs simply come to appreciate the magic that ensues when a world leader meets with the right piece of neckwear?

Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, is hoping to join the ranks of Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin in his quest to win a Nobel Peace Prize. 

Taking the unusual step of actively campaigning for the award, Abbas has reportedly sent mediators to persuade the committee to award him the honor and seems to be circumventing the most direct (and much harder) route toward the prize -- creating peace. Most Nobel Peace Prize winners have distinguished themselves by negotiating cease-fires, ending wars or apartheid -- or, in the case of President Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

Presumably, the best chance for Abbas to win the Nobel Peace Prize is to create peace with Israel. But there's one question left -- will Bibi Netanyahu want one, too?

Is it that time of year for a haircut? If you're in Iran, take a walk to your nearest barbershop, plop in a swively chair, and peruse through the catalogue of hairstyles on the counter. But make sure to survey the clean-shaven coifs and gel-infused buzzcuts in the catalogue carefully -- you now must select one of them for yourself, at your government's behest.

These sartorial sanctions are the latest crackdown on what the government percieves to be a more modern, Western aesthetic proliferating in Iran's popular culture. State-imposed restrictions have been growing steadily more stringent to combat "bad hijab" -- the improper veiling of men and women alike -- and clothes and makeup that, the government claims, contradict Islamic principles. But the multicolored mohawks, rockstar-inspired ponytails, and unkempt mullets popping up around Tehran recently seem to have been the final straw: the Culture Ministry has now banned a number of "decadent Western cuts" and issued a catalogue of permissible hairdos from which male salon-goers must choose.

Take a look at the pictures of the epic style summit where the catalogue was created: barbers, clerics, and government officials came together, visualizing proportions of beard to hair on mannequin faces and taking painstaking care to engineer the proper haircuts. While shaggy bangs have fallen victim to the blacklist, styles resembling the 1950's flattop -- a widespread fashion faux pas from the era of Elvis -- are deemed perfectly fine.

Though these constraints may seem superficial, be on the lookout for some serious backlash from the country's constituents. In the thirty-one years since the Iranian Republic was established, the power struggle between young Iranians -- fighting to maintain their freedom of expression -- and the government -- fighting to crush it -- has only escalated. The suppressed one-year anniversary of Iran's 2009 elections has already begun to amass a repository of unleashed defiance; not to mention some Iranians just won't be happy flipping through their barber's catalogue and asking, "Can I have the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?"

Enter the cells of the Badam Bagh prison in Kabul, Afghanistan, and what culprits will you find locked up inside? A 16-year old recipient of an unplanned marriage proposal, a pregnant wife irrationally accused of adultery, and a veiled old woman who just displayed a "bad attitude."

These unlikely suspects were accused of "moral crimes," a new category of infractions for which half the incarcerated females in Afghanistan are held. The "immoral" misdemeanors also include refusing to marry, resisting rape or being raped, and -- especially devastating in light of prevalent and severe domestic violence that compels many women to flee belligerent spouses -- running away from home. Numerous "moral crimes" do not actually violate or even pertain to penal code; but this grouping of offenses requires no codification. Rather, they are loosely described as violations of Sharia law, however the accuser may choose to interpret it. In other words, "moral crimes" altogether lack definition, merely subscribing to a "You'll know it when you see it" kind of classification that allows discrimination to infiltrate the legal system.

In some respects, conditions for impounded women have actually improved. Hundreds of female inmates were previously held with male inmates at the notoriously inhumane Pul-e-Charki prison; but after parliamentary reports revealed the frequency of rape within its walls, the reportedly cozy Badam Bagh -- in which women can move freely, take computer classes, and sew and sell handcrafts -- was built. Clearly once detained, the women aren't subject to any kind of "Black Jail," where beatings, sleep deprivation, and isolation in cold cells are daily protocol.

But the reasons behind their detentions remain discriminatory and cruel. These ill-fated women, jailed with their children for what can be indefinite periods of time, are surely suffering from the crackdown on "moral crimes" -- the enforcement of which propagates the notion that immorality is inherent to the female sex.

Think of Cairo's al-Azhar University as the Harvard of Sunni Islam: Founded in the 10th century, it has played a foundational role in the religious and cultural development of modern Egypt and the entire Muslim world. In the first half of the 20th century, some of the era's most important political and intellectual figures -- including secularist Taha Hussein, Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, and Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin -- passed through its gates. In recent years, however, al-Azhar has lost some of its prestige to upstart Wahhabi preachers in Saudi Arabia and unaffiliated firebrands throughout the Arab world, including radicals sympathetic to al Qaeda. Now, a new television station is trying to help al-Azhar reclaim the initiative in the 21st century.

Azhari TV was founded on the heels of President Obama's June 2009 Cairo speech, with a mandate to promote a "moderate" interpretation of Islam. This week, the station expanded to offer programming in English, French, Urdu, and Pashto. In its first year of existence, Azhari TV's owners have funneled around $18 million into the station, and expect to spend between $8 and $10 million a year to keep it operational. They claim that they currently attract an audience of approximately 7 to 8 million viewers.

I spoke with Hassan Tatanaki, a Libyan businessman who is one of the financiers of the station, to get a better understanding of the version of Islam he's trying to promote. "Our main principle is living together -- Copts, Muslims, Jews, it does not make a difference," he said. When asked for an example of the extremism that Azhari TV sets out to combat, he criticized Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian preacher who hosts a popular religious program on al-Jazeera, for issuing a fatwa against Iraqi immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship while the United States continues to occupy Iraq. "All Qaradawi has done is made those people believe that they are excommunicated, and therefore could be killed," he said.

Tatanaki hopes that Azhari TV's expansion will now reach Muslims living in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Europe's immigrant communities. Because non-Arabic speakers aren't versed in the original language of the Koran, he argued, it is easier for them to be misled by a preacher that distorts its meaning. "They're living in their own domain, forgetting their own language, and feeling lost -- you know, neither here nor there. That's the danger that's coming to the West."

Still, it's a tall order to expect Azhari TV to restore al-Azhar's lost luster. The primary cause for the university's decline isn't its dated communications technology, but its inability to respond effectively to its audience's political concerns. On whether Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is one of the extremist organizations Azhari TV was designed to oppose, for example, Tatanaki said that it was "sensitive to reply," but criticized the organization for extending its religious agenda into the political realm. He also had little to say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, beyond the religiously-charged issue of Jerusalem. Other issues affecting Palestinian politics, he said, are "of no interest to us." By neglecting to tackle these issues head-on, Azhari TV runs the risk of surrendering vital political turf to those who it is attempting to supplant.

Forget Iran slapping Israel with "political sanctions" -- Egypt may launch a marital embargo against the Jewish state.

On the heels of a restrictive 2005 fatwa, Egypt's supreme administrative court has upheld a decision to revoke the citizenship of Egyptian men married to Israeli women. The children of those cross-national unions could be officially stripped of their Egyptian nationality, as well, in order to legally omit a generation of citizens that Nabil al-Wahsh, a lawyer in the case, describes as inherently "disloyal to Egypt and the Arab world." The ruling, if uniformly enforced, would reduce the country's citizenry by as many as 30,000 people.

The court stipulated that judgments be delivered on a case-by-case basis. "The court asks the ministry of interior to present all the marriages to the cabinet to examine," said supreme administrative court judge Mohammed al-Husseini. "Each case should be investigated separately and with consideration to personal freedoms and the nation's security." In more concrete terms, this means Egyptian men married to Arab Israeli women would probably be more likely to be allowed to maintain their residencies than those married to ethnically Israeli women.

Though the decision compels the Interior Ministry to request that the cabinet consider enforcing the ruling, the Egyptian government will not necessarily annul any citizenships. Still, the extremity of the judgment illuminates a growing discrepancy between Egypt's official stance towards its northeastern neighbor (Egypt being one of few Arab states that practices full diplomacy with Israel) and what seem to be -- in the midst of the incendiary situation in the Gaza Strip -- increasingly hostile sentiments towards Israel on the streets of the Arab world's most populous country.

When I flipped open Evan Kohlmann's 2006 report on Insani Yardim Vakhi (IHH), the Turkish organization that helped organize the Gaza-bound flotilla raided by Israel on Monday, I was half-expecting a series of thinly-sourced allegations that attempted to tie the group to Islamic extremist movements. After all, Kohlmann's credentials have been raked over the coals in recent days, in an attempt to discredit the report. Surely, the source document would be equally thin on facts?

It isn't. Kohlmann's report is a relic from a time when one could express concern over an obscure Turkish NGO's connection to terrorists without the issue becoming hopelessly entangled with one's loyalties in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. And Kohlmann convincingly describes the group's extensive ties to jihadist groups in Europe, Turkey, and North Africa.

Drawing on a French intelligence report, Kohlmann describes how the group fell under the scrutiny of Turkish security forces in the late 1990s, who "uncovered an array of disturbing items, including firearms, explosives, [and] bomb-making instructions" in the organization's Istanbul offices. The Turks determined that the IHH's members were planning to join the mujahideen in Bosnia and Chechnya, and that the president of the organization had worked to send men to Muslim countries for "jihad," and trasferred weapons to those countries. An analysis of the group's telephone records also revealed phone calls to an al Qaeda guesthouse in Milan, and Algerian terrorist networks in Europe.

Overall, Kohlmann paints a picture of an organization that maintains close working relationships with extremist organizations, and which has often run afoul of Turkish authorities. In 1999, following the disastrous earthquakes that struck northwestern Turkey, the Turkish government eventually banned the IHH from distributing aid, naming it as one of several "fundamentalist organizations" that refused to provide information on its activities. It is not Israeli PR flacks that provide the damning facts about IHH, but French and Turkish authorities. In today's New York Times, Henri Barkey, no hard-line Kemalist himself, also refers to the IHH as a "quite fundamentalist" organization that has dabbled in inflammatory rhetoric against Jews.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that Israel's actions aboard the flotilla on Saturday constituted a tragedy, and a disaster for international peace. The Israel Defense Forces are tasked every day with confronting people who despise them, and Israel can only be truly protected by not killing them. Still, the IHH's history does shed light on the challenges that the IDF likely faced aboard the Mavi Marmara, and why it failed so spectacularly in its mission.

Sure, there are plenty of people who have it worse than billionaire Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri. But as someone whose government is marginalized in large parts of Lebanon, whose interests are ignored internationally, and who -- if the history of his country and his family is any guide -- faces good odds of meeting a violent death, there are also plenty of people who have it better than Sheikh Saad. The latest headache came today, with the news that the Lebanese army had opened fire on Israeli jets flying over the country.

This isn't a novel development: Israeli warplanes have continued to violate  Lebanese airspace since the 2006 war, and the Lebanese army continues to periodically fire at them, and miss. But for Hariri, who attended his first U.N. Security Council meeting today and spent Monday and Tuesday in Washington, where U.S. military assistance to Lebanon was on the docket, the timing couldn't be worse.

It's a no-win situation. If Hariri wants to keep military aid flowing to Lebanon, he needs to convince U.S. lawmakers that a strengthened Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) will contribute to regional peace. That just became harder. And Hariri can't simply order the army not to target Israeli planes -- he's still trying to build bridges to Syria and Hezbollah, and his own Sunni community wouldn't stand for it. As with Hassan Nasrallah's fire-and-brimstone speech yesterday, the prime minister keeps finding the spotlight wrested away from him during his big trip.

Tomorrow is the official launch for Foreign Policy's Middle East Channel, which we produce with the New America Foundation's Middle East Task Force and George Washington University's Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS). To mark the beginning of this new project, the Middle East Channel is delighted to host a panel discussion on Foreign Policy's recent cover story by Aaron David Miller, "The False Religion of Middle East Peace."

Please join us tomorrow for a panel discussion featuring Aaron David Miller, the International Crisis Group's Rob Malley, and NAF's Daniel Levy. The event will be held at the New America Foundation, from 4:30pm to 6:30pm. The event will be followed by a wine reception -- which, after hearing our panelists discuss the many trials and tribulations of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, we are confident you will enjoy.

Either some Egyptian civil servant is trying to make a point, or President Hosni Mubarak needs to hire a webmaster. Kidding aside, you have to wonder if Gamal Mubarak will be more on top of this sort of thing.

Hat tip: The Arabist.