Eli Lake reports:

The matter [of endorsing Barack Obama's withdrawal timeline] was taken up at a meeting of Iraq's National Security Council on Thursday on the recommendation of Mr. Maliki, who had been advised by the Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi to express public support for the Obama withdrawal plan. Asked for a comment yesterday, Mr. Chalabi, an old hand at working the American political process to the advantage of Iraq, conveyed a statement via his Washington representative, Francis Brooke: "This is an honor I will not claim and a rumor I will not deny."

There's heavy speculation that today's agreement between Zimbabwe's government and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) could be setting the stage for a power-sharing arrangement between two sides. South African President Thabo Mbeki as well as mediators from the African Union (AU) and Southern African Development Community (SADC) are all pushing the idea of a "government of national unity" along the lines of the one that was formed during Kenya's election crisis earlier this year.

It's understandable that the African community likes this solution. It's a quick way to stop the bloodshed while giving some concessions to the opposition who, after all, won the original election. But it's a rather feeble solution nonetheless. Although the deal in Kenya may have put an end to the violence, the divided government in Nairobi remains highly dysfunctional.

In Zimbabwe, there's even less reason to believe that Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai, who openly hate each other's guts, could ever form a workable partnership. Any sort of power-sharing deal is little more than a fantasy while MDC leaders still fear for their lives.

But what's most worrying is the precedent this sets for elections in Africa. From now on, if a strongman leader loses an election, all he needs to do is ignore the result and provoke violent unrest. Before long, AU or SADC mediators will swoop in to propose a "government of national unity" in order to defuse tensions. In most places, when you lose an election, you have to step down. In Africa, it's just a starting point for negotiations.

The MDC may have no other choice but to accept such a deal, but African leaders are heading down a very dangerous path by pushing for it.

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi got Italy's lower house of Parliament to agree today on a controversial crime bill, which critics say would allow him to wiggle out of various corruption charges.

Here's what the oft-prosecuted Berlusconi had to say:

I'm the universal record-holder for the number of trials in the entire history of man -- and also of other creatures who live on other planets."

I'd fact-check this, but I'm not sure there's an intergalactic version of the Guiness Book of World Records. Guess we'll have to take his word for it.

Remember that little feud between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? Well, the spat between the two men isn't quite over.

Ahmadinejad shot back today at comments made by Velayati in an Iranian daily newspaper criticizing Ahmadinejad's hardline nuclear rhetoric, saying that the former foreign minister and Khamenei advisor had no role in the country's nuclear program:

Velayati is a respected man. Like everyone else in Iran, he is free to have personal views... But he is not involved in nuclear decision making."

Ahmadinejad may be more delirious than I thought if he actually thinks that "everyone in Iran is free to have personal views." Did he get the memo about Ahmad Batebi, Iran's estimated 250 executions last year, the systematic suppression of journalists and bloggers, or that the country was ranked 181st out of 195 countries in Freedom House's annual Freedom of the Press survey last year? Apparently not.

And with tensions brewing between Iran and the West, it would help to know who is actually in charge of the Islamic Republic. I never thought I'd say this, but let's hope it's Khamenei.

John F. Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate after declaring "ich bin ein Berliner" in 1963. Ronald Reagan stood at the gate in 1987 and challenged Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall."

Following in the footsteps of two U.S. presidents whose images he often evokes, Barack Obama is planning a speech of his own there, too. But the address, planned for July 24, has apparently caused a stir between local authorities and the German government.

The decision is formally up to Berlin's mayor, who reportedly has given Obama his stamp of approval to speak at the gate. Advisers to German Chancellor Angela Merkel worry, however, that allowing the speech there would be seen as a formal endorsement of Obama by the German government:

The Brandenburg Gate is the best known and most historically significant site in Germany," said a Chancellery official, explaining why until now only elected presidents have been allowed to perform there.

A spokesman for Merkel this morning said the speech would be
"inappropriate" and referred to it as "electioneering." More German politicians are also weighing in on the address, with the head of the German Liberal Democratic Party stating his support of the speech, while the head of the German Greens has voiced his skepticism.

Obama is tremendously popular in Germany, enjoying the support of 72 percent of the population. The Berlin address is expected to be Obama's only public speech during a trip that includes visits to England, France, Israel, and Jordan and is designed to shore up the candidate's foreign-policy credentials.

What will Obama say during the speech? Some expect he will spell out a new vision for U.S-European relations. But I like blogger Lynn Sweet's prediction best: "Ich bin ein Obama."

On a ridiculously early flight this morning, I finally got around to finishing the Sunday New York Times and noticed this little gem in the lead story in the Business section, a sweeping look back at how the United States failed to prepare for today's oil crisis:

Mr. Helms, of course, would be Sen. Jesse Helms, the long-serving senator from North Carolina, who died early Friday, some two days before the paper hit newsstands. The NYT's excuse? The section went to press on Thursday. Egg, meet face.

Some very interesting diplomacy is definitely afoot in Tehran and Paris. Ali Akbar Velayati (right), the right-hand man of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and a former foreign minister, published a letter in France's Libération newspaper Wednesday that leaves no doubt about who's ultimately in charge of the nucelar file. Here's a translation by FP's resident Frenchman, Randolph Manderstam:

A European recently asked me who was leading Iran. The answer is clear. When it comes to essential questions of strategy, the constitution, approved by universal suffrage, confers final decisions upon the supreme leader. It is according to this principle, under which the main decisions taken by Ayatollah Khamenei in the last 20 years were applied, that we can judge the past and forsee the path of our diplomacy.

Despite the vastness of his powers, the supreme leader… only intervenes in extremely important cases, leaving those responsible for the state to solve the other problems themselves. Under Imam Khomeini just as under Ayatollah Khamenei, Iranian diplomacy has worked on developing contacts with other countries.... By receiving the dignitaries and leaders of numerous states and by communicating with them, the leader has given undeniable examples of his crucial presence in Iranian diplomacy.

I spoke this morning with Carnegie's Karim Sadjadpour about the letter, and he told me it was a "very important" signal coming from Velayati.

The main message? Don't listen to the rantings of that Ahmadinejad fellow -- the supreme leader is called "supreme" for a reason. "Khamenei's not necessarily the micromanager, but he's the macromanager, so all important issues go by him," Sadjadpour said.

Why proclaim this in a French newspaper? The backstory here is fascinating. Last year, French President Nicolas Sarkozy reached out to Khamenei in the hopes of reaching a breakthrough in the stalled nuclear negotiations. Velayati was to be dispatched to Paris to lay the groundwork for a possible meeting between Sarkozy and Khamenei, and in November he went to brief Ahmadinjad as a courtesy before heading off on his mission. Not only did the Iranian president humiliate Velayati by scheduling him for a midnight meeting and then making him wait for several hours, but he then sent a letter to Sarkozy that was so rude and condescending, it killed any hope of a France-Iran summit. According to Le Monde, Ahmadinejad said Sarkozy was "young and inexperienced," and French diplomats said the letter contained "veiled threats."

More recently, a civil servant and Ahmadinejad ally named Abbas Palizdar publicly accused a number of top clerics of corruption. Several of them are close associates the supreme leader. Too close, in fact, and Palizdar was arrested for "propagating lies." Rumor has it Khamenei saw this incident as Ahmadinejad crossing the line. So, not only is Khamenei, through Velayati, trying to make clear that Ahmadinejad is not the guy to talk to, he's indicating his disgust with the Iranian president and putting him in his place. "I think Khamenei is frustrated with Ahmadinejad's antics. This may have been the last straw," said Sadjadpour.

As for a détente with France or a breakthrough on the nuclear program? Don't bet on it. Iran's recent diplomatic offensive is most likely a "delaying tactic" intended to "cool the temperature" in light of all the recent news, according to Sadjadpour. But it sure makes great political theater. Pass the popcorn.

Bolivian President Evo Morales and Peru's Alan Garcia have never been close amigos, but now the mudslinging has gotten worse.

Yesterday, Garcia told Morales to stick to his own country and "stop meddling in mine" after Morales criticized Peru's trade pact with the United States and allegedly started false rumors about U.S. military bases coming to Peru. Morales responded by calling Garcia an "antidemocratic president" whose "arrogance" shouldn't be tolerated.

At least Morales laid off the personal attacks this time. Last month, he called the centrist Garcia "fat and not very anti-imperialist." Ouch.

As the general election heats up, John McCain is adamantly proclaiming himself a free trader while attempting to paint Barack Obama as a protectionist. But the attempted hostile takeover of Anheuser-Busch by Belgain brewery InBev may place McCain in a precarious political position.

McCain, who sided with the Bush administration during the Dubai Ports World controversy two years ago, has been mum on the issue so far. The spotlight instead has focused on his wife, Cindy, who owns beer distributor Hensley & Co. and some $1 million in Anheuser-Busch shares and would stand to benefit from a deal.

With tradition and patriotism on one side, and financial gain and free trade principles on the other, McCain faces a tough choice. Although his reputation as a straight-talking maverick precedes him, I wouldn't be suprised if politics won out, just as it did with McCain's support of offshore drilling and Obama's decision to forgo public campaign financing.

The reason? Missouri, which went Republican the past two presidential elections, could be in play this year. Missouri politicans from both sides are lining up against the deal, and saveAB.com, which has garnered over 59,000 signatures on its online petition offers the following message, dripping in election year rhetoric:

Like baseball, apple pie and ice cold beer (wrapped in a red, white and blue label), Anheuser-Busch is an American original. ... With your help we can fight the foreign invasion of A-B. We will fight to protect this American treasure. We will take to the Internet, to the streets, to the marble halls of our capitals, whatever it takes to stop the invasion.

Stay tuned to see what McCain and Obama have to say. Anheuser-Busch has rejected the takeover bid, but don't think InBev is going to give up without a fight.

Courtesy of Wired's Noah Schactman, here is National Intelligence Council Chairman Thomas Fingar's testimony about the first ever National Intelligence Assessment on the National Security Implications of Global Climate Change (pdf).

I attended Fingar's testimony on the Hill this morning and was struck less by the NIA's findings -- droughts and crop failures might lead to instability in the third world and coastal flooding may threaten the U.S. defense infrastructure -- than the unique nature of the report itself. Fingar acknowledged this in his testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming:

This study used a fundamentally different kind of analytical methodology from what is typical for an intelligence product such as a National Intelligence Estimate. We depended upon open sources and greatly leveraged outside expertise."

Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Rep. Anna Eshoo and her fellow Democrats at the hearing were excited about a greater future role for open-source intelligence gathering, and Fingar seemed receptive to the concept. But from his testimony, it didn't seem as if the research conducted contained any new information that couldn't be inferred by a layman reading the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was the starting point on the NIA's research. As such, the NIA doesn't really seem to accomplish much beyond stressing the urgency of climate change by describing it as a security issue.

This makes it all the more odd that the actual text of the NIA was classified by the National Intelligence Council. Fingar suggested that releasing specifics about how certain countries would be specifically affected would complicate U.S. diplomatic efforts, though my guess is that the countries in greatest danger from global warming are already well aware of it. Rep. Ed Markey saw a White House agenda in the classification:

If people know specifically what these problems will be and where they will be and who they will affect then perhaps we will finally have the political will to solve the problem... The president doesn't want America to know the real risks of global warming.

I'm mostly curious to know if the report actually contains information that isn't already public knowledge. If nothing else, it would be nice to think that this partisan tug-of-war is being fought over a document that actually matters.

As if South Africa President Thabo Mbeki weren't losing enough credibility thanks to the less-than-lackluster way he's handled the Zimbabwe affair, he's now being outshined by Jacob Zuma (left), his chief political rival. Zuma, who replaced Mbeki as the chair of South Africa's ruling African National Congress after an election in December, spoke out against Mugabe and Co. at a conference today:

We cannot agree with Zanu-PF. We cannot agree with them on values... We fought for the right of people to vote, we fought for democracy."

Zuma is an interesting character. He has been tried in court twice in the past two years -- once for allegedly raping an acquaintence he knew was HIV-positive (when he infamously recounted that he "took a shower" afterward to rid himself of potential HIV contraction), and again for an arms-deal scandal. Though he was acquitted on both occassions, Zuma's link to bribe-soliticing financial advisor Schabir Shaik forced Mbeki to sack him as deputy president in 2005. And new corruption charges linked to the arms-deal were brought against Zuma late last year (which he and the ANC resoundly deny).

For all his shortcomings, Zuma isn't afraid to say that Mugabe has gone off the deep end. That's more than we can say for Mbeki, who has yet to openly criticize Zimbabwe's aging tyrant.

South Africa's current seat on the U.N. Security Council makes Mbeki's silence even more tragic, as he could use the position as a springboard for urging international action. Even Nelson Mandela, who has agreed not tread on Mbeki's presidency, has urged his successor to speak out.

The world ought to know by now that Mbeki isn't quick to react in a crisis. Witness his slow reaction in confronting AIDS, or his apparent reluctance to condemn ongoing xenophobic attacks against immigrants to South Africa. It's just a tragedy that so many South Africans -- and now Zimbabweans -- have to suffer as a result.

Good stuff today from Clive Crook:

The US does not know whether to tax energy or subsidise it, promote domestic oil production or forbid it, treat ExxonMobil and Chevron as champions or pariahs. So it does all of the above.

I should note that both Barack Obama and John McCain are incoherent on this point. As the New York Times dryly observes, Obama favors ethanol subsidies, "some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax." As for John McCain, he seems not to understand what cap and trade means.

It has now been more than a month since Dmitry Medvedev took office as Russia's president. While it was never in doubt that Vladimir Putin would retain a great deal of power in his new post as prime minister, it was less certain what role President Medvedev would play in this unprecedented tandem leadership structure. One month later, it's still hard to get a good read on him, but here are a few possible historical (and fictional) archetypes for Russia's president.

Medvedev is Mohammed Khatami

President of Iran, 1997 to 2005

Mild-mannered and liberal by Iranian standards, Khatami filled many with hope that his country's politics would turn in a more moderate direction. However, it quickly became apparent that the real political power in Iran rested with conservative Ayatollahs and Khatami's efforts at reform ended in frustrating failure.

Medvedev seems genuinely interested in further liberalizing Russia's economy. And his move last week to strike down a draconian libel law may indicate that he would like more freedom of the press as well. But given Putin's death grip on the legislature and the United Russia Party, it may be impossible for him to rock the boat too much.

Medvedev is Viktor Yushchenko

Current president of Ukraine; prime minister from 1999 to 2001

While Yushchenko is best known as the charismatic leader of the Orange Revolution, he was once a fairly loyal central banker and prime minister in the government of Ukraine's strongman president, Leonid Kuchma. But when cracks started to show in the Kuchma regime, the popular reformer seized the opportunity to become an unlikely revolutionary and swept his old boss out of power.

Putin's astronomical approval ratings and army of enablers in the Duma make it unlikely that Medvedev will attempt a power-play against his old boss any time soon. But if Medvedev can get a few initiatives under his belt and maintain his popularity and independence, he may be in a position to take control should Prime Minister Putin run into trouble down the road.

Medvedev is Tom Hagen

Lawyer and consigliere to the Corleone family

Robert Duvall's character in the Godfather movies was a quiet lawyer who spent his life serving a gang of ruthless criminals. Hagen's German-Irish ancestry made him an outsider in the Sicilian mafia, but when a deal needed to be struck with another family, or when the Coreleones needed a "legitimate" face for the family business, it was usually Hagen who got the job.

Like Hagen, Medvedev is an outsider: a liberal law professor in a government dominated by hawkish former intelligence operatives. His cordial meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel last week may indicate that Medvedev is useful as a public face for the Russian government. While he may sometimes advocate a more moderate course of action, his loyalties are with the charismatic leader who plucked him from obscurity.

Medvedev is Vladimir Putin

Prime minister and former president of Russia

It's still quite possible that Putin does actually want to step aside, but doesn't yet feel that Russia is ready to go on without him. The copresidency could also be a trial period for the man that Putin feels can best continue what he started. Medvedev's tough talk with Georgia and Ukraine and his criticism of the United States may indicate his intention to continue his predecessor's line on foreign policy.

On the other hand, Putin is hardly the leader that people expected him to be when he was named prime minister by Boris Yeltsin. Dmitry Anatolyevich may yet create an archetype all his own.

Former President Jimmy Carter only formally endorsed Barack Obama last night and he's already going off-message. He gave his opinion on the idea of a Clinton-Obama ticket in an interview with the Guardian today:

I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made. [...] If you take that 50% who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds."

Somehow, I don't think we're going to be seeing Carter at many rallies this election.