Quickly about the net

Australia... pics of one hell of an incoming cyclone.

Parenting with puppies.

White House says no Death Star.

All Arab dictators will fall.

Fox News refuses to accept warmer 2012.

Gun groups predict failure of ban.

If anyone is actually listening

Juan Cole cuts through the fog and tells us what Biden really said instead of imitating the pundits and blowing smoke:

The top myths in the press this weekend about Vice President Joe Biden are that he was rebuffed in Iraq when he offered his good offices with regard to effecting Arab-Kurdish reconciliation, and that he gave Israel a green light to attack Iran. Neither thing appears to be true.

[snip]

So what Biden was really saying is that the Obama administration intends to engage Iran diplomatically, and that if anyone wants Iran attacked they will have to do it themselves. This is not a green light to the Israelis, who hardly need one. It is a tough message to the right wing of the Israel lobbies that the Obama administration is not going to launch any hostilities with Iran, even after the hard line power grab of three weeks ago.

Oh, and the statement may serve as a reminder to a recalcitrant Iran of what might happen to Tehran if it refuses to negotiate in good faith over its nuclear enrichment program. (By the way, that there is no good evidence that Iran is working on a nuclear warhead, and that its current technological capacity is too limited for it to dream of such a thing any time soon, was again underlined by incoming International Atomic Energy Agency head Yukiya Amano.

Meanwhile, the real administration position on hostilities with Iran was clearly stated by Adm. Mike Mullen, which is that they would produce enormous instability (implied is that such instability would be bad for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan).

In my view, Biden watchers still for the most part haven't gotten him right.

In an article for the San Francisco Chronicle, Cole is quoted:

Biden's comment "has a dual function of sending the message to Netanyahu that if he wants to cowboy it he is riding alone, and of warning the Iranians that Netanyahu might just be wild man enough to risk such a unilateral if Iran continues to be so intransigent with regard to seeking enrichment capabilities," Cole told me in an e-mail. "It is actually quite elegant."

Nice to see that Biden is adroit and clever rather than being what the medias' view of him is: an uncontrollable mouth. ... Which might just be intentional...

Massacre at Najaf

More on the massacre at Najaf:

The massacre that occurred in Najaf, Iraq, last Sunday by now has been wildly deconstructed over the Arab press. What emerges has virtually nothing to do with the official Baghdad and Washington spin of Iraqi troops killing 250-odd heavily armed apocalyptic cultists dubbed "Soldiers of Heaven". They were said to be about to attack not only Shi'ite pilgrims but also the "Big Four" ayatollahs of Iraq - Ali al-Sistani, Bashir Najafi, Muhammad shaq Fayyad and Muhammad Said al-Hakim - who all sit in holy Najaf.

When the embattled Nuri al-Maliki government in Baghdad gloats in unison with the Pentagon and US President George W Bush about such a masterful display by the Iraqi army, supported by the lethal firepower of US tanks and F-16s, something is terribly off the mark.

[snip]

The modus operandi was clear: Shi'ites supported by Iran (the current Iraqi government) screaming "al-Qaeda!" and used the Pentagon to kill Arab nationalist Shi'ites. In this scenario, everything in Iraq that is not SCIRI or Da'wa is bundled into the "terrorist" bag. This pattern is bound to be replicated before, during and after the US surge.

The strategy of the Maliki government perfectly fits Bush's directive to kill Iranian "agents" in Iraq. Further massacres of Iranian pilgrims going to Najaf will be a logical consequence. If Maliki is taking Bush for a ride, Bush is taking US and global public opinion for a ride.

Politically, the complex, explosive Iraqi Shi'ite situation is now polarized beyond redemption. On one side there is a de facto alliance of the "Iranians" - Maliki, the SCIRI's Abdul Haziz al-Hakim and Sistani. On the other side there are the powerful Arab Shi'ite tribes scattered around central and southern Iraq. The key question: Where does Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr stand in all this?

Muqtada wanted to be the "middle way". But the Sadrists are now back in government after a brief boycott. His main rally call - US occupation over and out, now - has been overshadowed by multiple attacks by his Mehdi Army against Sunni Arabs. This could be fatal for Muqtada. In central and southern Iraq, Iraqi nationalism - and Muqtada is a fierce nationalist - is much more powerful than any Sunni/Shi'ite divide.

What is certain is that the Maliki-Hakim alliance will continue to deploy its US-trained Iraqi army and police in further massacres, advised by the dreaded Scorpion commando squad, which is funded by US dollars, and responding to the head of Iraqi intelligence. In this sense, the Najaf massacre is also a classic case of the "Salvador option" in its Iraqified version: or how the lessons of Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s are useful for the "New Middle East".

Furthermore, the massacre also signals that the Pentagon is now linked to killing Arab Shi'ite tribes. If this is true, it is a big mistake. Sistani does not control them anymore. This means more and more revengeful, nationalist Arab Shi'ites will be amplifying another anti-US/Baghdad guerrilla front.

Ties back into this post.