AFP/Getty Images

Most of the press on Vladimir Putin's historic trip to Tehran has focused on his warning to the U.S. not to attack Iran and the possibility of some sort of strategic partnership between the Kremlin and the ayatollahs. One could almost be forgiven for thinking that the meeting that Putin attended was some sort of trans-Caspian "death to America" summit. In fact, the real substance of the meeting was about the distribution of the Caspian Sea region's energy resources. On this front, almost no progress was made and more was revealed about Russia and Iran's differences than their agreements.

The Kremlin still views the Caspian as Russia's "near-abroad," and Iran's growth as a regional power is troubling to the Russians as well. The two countries didn't really see eye to eye at the summit, as the AP explained:

Iran, which shared the Caspian's resources equally with the Soviet Union, insists that each coastal nation receive an equal portion of the seabed. Russia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan want the division based on the length of each nation's shore, which would give Iran a smaller share.

Another back story behind the summit is CIA Director Michael Hayden's unexplained recent visit to Baku, Azerbaijan where he met with President Ilham Aliyev. Azerbaijani analysts have speculated that the U.S. is preparing to use the country as a staging ground for a war on Iran, though the Azeris and the Iranians continue to enjoy strong cultural and economic ties. But Hayden's visit might also have had something to do with the construction of a trans-Caspian natural gas pipeline to bypass Russia, a deal the Russians have wanted to scuttle from the beginning. Witness Putin channeling Al Gore here:

Projects that may inflict serious environmental damage to the region cannot be implemented without prior discussion by all five Caspian nations," Putin said, apparently suggesting each capital should have a virtual veto on energy transport.

The governments of Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan are somewhat wary about that proposal as they seek to navigate a middle ground between Russia and the West. In the end, the five countries failed to come up with a formula for sharing the Caspian's resources—which was supposed to be the point of the whole summit—and could agree only on a resolution banning foreign military action from the region. That doesn't look like success to me.

ANDREW WONG/Getty Images News

It used to appear that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice enjoyed trading verbal barbs with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Chávez would call President George W. Bush "a donkey." Condi would fire back that Chávez was "really, really destroying his own country." It was good fun. But sometime around March, the Bush administration's tactics began to change. These days, when Hugo acts like an impetuous toddler, the Bush administration treats him accordingly: by ignoring him.

The 180-degree turn in tactics was on full display yesterday when Condoleezza Rice spoke about Latin America with members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Chávez had just boycotted the U.N. General Assembly and had given an interview to the AP in which he said the U.S. was "hunting" him and wanted him dead. But in her appearance yesterday, Rice didn't bite. She didn't mention Chávez by name once, instead referring only to "exceptions" to democracy in Latin America who "may be noisy ... but are heading in the opposite direction of the hemisphere as a whole." This was hardly the Power Condi of 2005 who showed up at Wiesbaden Army Airfield wearing knee-high leather. In fact, Rice went out of her way yesterday to check the tough talk at the door. Though her remarks were typically laden with language about the transformative powers of democracy, she also made it clear that, when it comes to picking allies in the hemisphere, "the U.S. charges no ideological price for our partnership."

At least by Rice's account, the change in tactics is working. After Bush refused to mention Chávez's name on a tour of Latin America in March, Condi says, "Chávez was going around saying, 'Why will not President Bush mention my name?'" "There is actually, frankly, nothing that he likes better than to have the United States responding to him," Rice added. That may be so, but I'm still going to miss the fireworks.

As Blake noted yesterday, the U.S. State Department's disappointing new blog Dipnote does not mean that the new genre of diplomatic blogging has no potential. To see how it's done right, check out the site of Sherard Cowper-Coles, the UK's ambassador to Afghanistan.

Cowper-Coles has been blogging regularly from Kabul since Sept. 26, including four self-made YouTube videos. He has conducted interviews with a British military commander and the staff of an Afghan TV station, and shared some of his observations on Afghanistan's culture and current events. Cowper-Coles is an engaging writer and comes off as genuinely excited by the potential of the medium.

Is it just PR? Of course. But Cowper-Coles proves that public diplomacy doesn't have to be limited to boring photo-ops and go-nowhere initiatives. The UK Foreign Office currently has six officials blogging, including Foreign Minister David Miliband, though none of the others seems to update as regularly. One hopes they'll take a page out of Cowper-Coles's book.

(Hat tip: David Steven of Global Dashboard)

That was fast: The good folks at Dipnote, the new blog of the U.S. State Department, have heard our complaint and updated their blogroll to include FP Passport. Who says the State Department bureaucracy is cumbersome? Obviously, there are some folks with fine taste over there in Foggy Bottom.

I should note that it's a great sign that State is doing this, and especially that the blog allows comments. One other interesting project that State has embarked upon is having a few of its Arabic speakers go into mainstream Arabic-language online fora such as al-Jazeera, BBC Arabic, and Elaph.com and try to combat misperceptions of U.S. policy. What I like about this effort is that State's commenters are not trying to hide their State department affiliations, but are openly posting in their own names and as State Department employees. That's a good thing, Saudi political analyst Adel al-Toraifi told the New York Times:

Toraifi said the bloggers had generated some debate in the Arab World and had been the subject of a column in an Algerian newspaper lauding the State Department for discussing policy with ordinary people, something the writer said the Algerian government would never do. Indeed, several analysts said having State Department employees on the Web helps to counter one source of radicalization - the sense that Washington is too arrogant to listen to the grievances of ordinary Arabs, so violence is the sole means to attract attention.

At the end of the day, public diplomacy of this sort can only do so much; it's the policies that have to change before Arabs will embrace the United States. (Just as the State Department has a lot of work to do before most pundits will pronounce it a healthy institution.) But there's nothing wrong with open dialogue. In that spirit, I hope that Dipnote embraces its comment section as an asset and, as Mark Leon Goldberg stresses, gets engaged with other bloggers instead of just regurgitating press releases and standard talking points. We all understand the need to stay on message, but nobody wants to read a blog full of the usual boilerplate.

(Thanks to Passport reader JR for the tip.) 

LOUAI BESHARA/AFP/Getty

Israel and Syria are now confirming what has been the biggest open secret in international affairs—that Israel attacked a target within Syrian borders earlier this month. Israeli Army Radio today reported a military target "deep inside Syria" had been attacked on September 6. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told the BBC in an interview published yesterday that a strike on an unused military site did occur. 

Whether the site is unused is not clear. Anonymous U.S. officials continue to insist the attack was on a nuclear facility of some kind, claiming North Korea was helping Syria establish a nuclear program. Other reports indicate the Israelis might have been targeting a weapons shipment from Iran to Hezbollah, or North Korean missiles.

What is clear is that the attack did little to advance peace. A few weeks back, Passport speculated that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's unconditional offer to hold peace talks stemmed from renewed confidence in Israel's military superiority. The Syrians, recognizing themselves to be in a weaker position, would limp to the negotiating table. 

If this was Olmert's intention, it's backfired. Assad said Syria would not attend a U.S.-sponsored peace conference in November unless the Golan Heights and the attack are discussed. The conference is supposed to focus on Israeli-Palestinian issues. He then made this cryptic threat to retaliate:

Retaliate doesn't mean missile for missile and bomb for bomb. We have our means to retaliate, maybe politically, maybe in other ways. But we have the right to retaliate.

In this case, retaliation could be blocking any hope of a more peaceful Middle East.

Pool/Getty Images

Shimon Peres, Israel's president and former ... everything, denounced Columbia University this morning for hosting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday:

I think that Columbia University made a mistake ... With Hitler there was a dialogue. (British Prime Minister Neville) Chamberlain went to talk to him. What did it help? It helped cover the fact that Hitler prepared concentration camps and death camps."

Sure, Ahmadinejad may be strengthening his domestic position. But notice what happened today at the U.N.: French President Sarkozy called for "combining firmness with dialogue," reiterating his position, "if we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to stability in the region ad the world." And Germany's Angela Merkel came out in support of a new round of sanctions "if [Iran's] behavior doesn't change." She added, "Israel's security isn't negotiable," and referred to Ahmadinejad's history of comments on Israel as "inhumane".

These statements may well have been worked out on Friday, when the permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany met in Washington to discuss the sanctions issue. But it sure was easier for Germany to toughen its stance after yesterday's farce at Columbia. Ahmadinejad had a chance to come across as a moderate, undercutting the unity of the EU3. Instead, he came across as a buffoon not ready for prime time. We'll see if he acquits himself better here at the U.N. in a few minutes, but suffice it to say that Iran is back on its heels today.

Pool/Getty Images News

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he was interested in holding peace talks with Syria, without precondition. According to reports, he said:

We want to make peace… we are willing to make peace with Syria unconditionally and without demands. I have a lot of respect for the Syrian leader and the Syrian policy.

Taken by itself, the offer is a strange one, as it requires the Syrians to do absolutely nothing. However, when viewed in light of recent events, it makes sense. Allegedly, the Israelis conducted an air strike against a Syrian nuclear facility earlier this month. Now, a few weeks later, Olmert offers to talk to the Syrians "unconditionally".

He doesn't have to name conditions. The raid—and the Syrians' muted reaction to it—was enough to reassert Israel's military supremacy in the region. The Syrians know going into the talks that they are in a weaker position, as Israel has show itself willing to take action as a means of deterrence. Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin said as much on Sunday. According to reports, he told a Knesset panel:

[Israeli deterrence] is having an impact on the whole region, including on Iran and Syria.

That was his only mention of Syria during the meeting. But it was enough to make his point. 

The attack also appeases Israeli hawks, who have repeatedly criticized Olmert for failing to forcefully protect Israeli interests. It's similar to Anwar Sadat's attack on Israel in 1973; Use military strength to appease hard-liners in your own government before sitting down with your enemy to make peace. The end result of Sadat's action was the Camp David Accords. Will Olmert's gamble yield a similar result? It's doubtful, but only time will tell.

UPDATE: It didn't take long to determine if Olmert's strategy would work - a report in the official Syrian newspaper Tishri dismissed the Israeli offer as "trickery." It continued:

If Olmert were a man of peace, he would not have launched the war, last year, against the people of Lebanon, nor ordered his government to violate Syrian airspace, and would have brought a halt to Israeli human rights violations in the Palestinian territories.

So, if Olmert wanted to coax Syria into peace talks, his strategy backfired. If, on the other hand, all he wanted to do was attack a suspected nuclear facility, then Syria's rejection is no real loss for Israel.

For at least a year and a half, a dangerous conventional wisdom has been percolating within the foreign-policy community and it is this: America ain't gonna attack Iran. Whether ignoring familiar warning signs or waving them away, most mainstream analysts are towing this line, too. If you don't believe me, just check out some examples of what I'm talking about here, here, and here (us, too). Too bogged down in Iraq. Just talking tough to Tehran. The generals won't let it happen. These are all convenient forms of denial, and the foreign-policy establishment and media appear to have bought into them big time.

SAMUEL KUBANI/AFP/Getty

And why shouldn't they? Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said flatly: "We are not planning for a war with Iran." But the situation appears to be changing—and fast. Germany reportedly informed the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council last week that it would not back further sanctions against the Islamic Republic. That decision could deadlock next week's meeting of the six powers in Washington, where Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns hopes to secure a new set of sanctions. The European Union is also failing to fully back International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed ElBaradei's plan for new inspections in Iran.

All of this has official Washington's patience wearing thin, and should be cause enough for concern. If not, this startling report out today by Fox News ought to do the trick:

Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by [Under Secretary of State Nicholas] Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind. Among those advising Rice along these lines are John Rood, the assistant secretary for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; and a number of Mideast experts, including Ambassador James Jeffrey, deputy White House national security adviser under Stephen Hadley and formerly the principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs.... [T]he likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.

Next thing you know, you'll start hearing folks at AEI saying that Iran was responsible for 9/11. Wait a minute, that's already happening, as Peter Beinart pointed out in Sunday's New York Times. "It's the 2007 equivalent of the claims made in 2002 and 2003 about Iraq," Beinart noted. "The years between 9/11 and the Iraq war gave rise to a cottage industry ... charging that Saddam Hussein was the hidden mastermind behind a decade of jihadist terror. While refuted by the 9/11 Commission and mainstream terror experts, these claims had a political effect."

Looks like it's time to stop the epidemic of denial that has the foreign-policy community convinced that an attack on Iran is out of the question. Before it's too late.