Some Iranian officials are saying that they intend to follow the Non-Proliferation Treaty, even while their President says otherwise. William R. Hawkins, writing in the Washington Times, says we are walking into a trap set by the Russians and Chinese by following the diplomatic route from the IAEA to the U.N. Security Council. I have voiced skepticism on the pages of this blog about how this process will play itself out, so I won't rule out his theory. Time will tell. If, on the eve of the Security Council debate on the issue, the Iranians suddenly agree to a Russian enrichment proposal, then the possibility of collusion cannot be ruled out. Certainly, if the Iranians do agree to the Russian proposal (which would allow the Iranians to enrich Uranium on Russian soil, then transport the product back to Iran) at a minimum the Russians and Chinese would refuse to approve sanctions against Iran. The Europeans would probably also jump off the sanctions bandwagon. Would George W. Bush recognize this as a face-saving why out of the crisis? Probably. Will the Israelis refrain from taking action, once their intelligence services come to the conclusion that the Iranians will have a weapon within short order? Probably not. I think the crisis will come upon us no matter what happens during these negotiations, and whether or not the Russians, Chinese, Iranians or anybody else is negotiating in good faith. I think the Mullahs that rule Iran, and their radical President and his followers, all share the goal of attaining a nuclear weapons capability. If they continue on that path an Israeli military response is, I think, inevitable.

James Carroll, writing in the Boston Globe, thinks we in the West are misunderstanding the Muslims. He believes the answer is to end the war on terror. In his previous writings he has consistently said that the military response to 9/11 was the wrong one. He believes it should have been treated as a criminal justice problem.

The Iraqi Shiite parties have agreed on their choice for Prime Minister. He is the same guy who has held the post in the interim government.

Professor Niall Ferguson of Harvard, writing in the Telegraph (UK), says while the administration is focusing on events in the Middle East, they are dropping the ball when it comes to safeguarding American interests in Latin America.

"Who lost Latin America?" is the question the next Democratic contender for the presidency may legitimately be able to ask. For since the election of Hugo Chávez as President of Venezuela in December 1998, there has been an inexorable erosion of US influence south of the Rio Grande. The most recent manifestations are the election victories last month of the coca-chewing populist Evo Morales in Bolivia and the socialist Michelle Bachelet in Chile. Some opinion polls suggest victories for the militant Ollanta Humala in Peru this April and the staunchly anti-gringo Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico in July. And it's anyone's guess what will happen in Brazil and Ecuador.

Since most of those winning elections in Latin America are leftists, I doubt that a Democratic presidential nominee will consider those election results as a bad thing.