National Security Experts

Latest Articles in this Channel:

05/10/10--05:30: Times Square Bomber: A New Type Of Threat To The U.S. Homeland? (chan 1357340)

Links between the Pakistani Taliban and Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad raise the possibility that Islamic terrorists may be finding new ways to target the U.S. homeland. Compared to Al Qaeda's attack on 9/11, this was an unsophisticated operation -- although U.S. law enforcement still did not find the bomb until it went off (misfiring, luckily) and did not capture Shahzad until he had boarded a plane for Dubai. And unlike Al Qaeda, homegrown Pakistani groups historically have gone after targets in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India, not in the U.S. So what accounts for this apparent change in tack?

"This is retaliation" by the Pakistan Taliban for an intense wave of CIA drone attacks against the group's fighters, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi told the U.S. media. "They're going to fight back." But other sources report that Shahzad was inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemen-based cleric also linked to accused Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan.

So was the Times Square attack a response to specific U.S. actions against a specific target? Or is it part of a broader form of blowback -- retaliation by radicalized Muslims worldwide for the "war on terror" since 9/11? Are current U.S. counter-terrorism policies sufficient to stop relatively crude attacks like this one? And is the lesson of this plot, despite its failure, that almost any terrorist group -- or individual -- can gather the capability to hit America, which will inspire more and more dangerous strikes in the future?




05/17/10--04:38: Time To Talk To The Taliban? (chan 1357340)

After his meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai at the White House on May 12, President Obama offered a cautious endorsement of Karzai's bid to reach out to so-called moderates within the Afghan Taliban camp by convening a "peace jirga," a national assembly of tribal elders, to try to achieve reconciliation between the Kabul government and rebel factions.

"The Taliban is a loose term for a wide range of different networks, groups, fighters, with different motivations," Obama said. "What we've said is that so long as there's a respect for the Afghan constitution, rule of law, human rights; so long as they are willing to renounce violence and ties to al Qaeda and other extremist networks; that President Karzai should be able to work to reintegrate those individuals into Afghan society."

"This has to be an Afghan-led effort, though," he stressed.

Should any hope be held out for the success of a jirga? Is it in the interest of Washington to give Karzai wide berth to pursue this step -- so much so that the U.S. should itself be prepared to play an active role in advancing this reconciliation process? Should Washington even be considering direct talks of its own with Taliban "moderates" -- given the Pentagon's bleak report in April to Congress finding that little progress has been made in the military campaign so far? Or is all this talk of reconciliation a chimera -- with the real task at hand a more determined U.S. military plan to crush all armed Taliban insurgents? As you consider this question, bear in mind that Obama has promised the American people that he will start to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan by July 2011, a little over a year from today.




05/24/10--04:26: Is It Time To Kill Off The DNI? (chan 1357340)

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair announced his resignation, effective May 28, amid reports that he had clashed with the White House and, particularly, the politically ultra-connected CIA director, Leon Panetta. Prominent members of Congress, including Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I/D-Conn., and two contributors to this blog, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, immediately expressed their skepticism about Blair's ouster. Some observers suggest that Blair is being held accountable -- or scapegoated -- for the intelligence community's failures in the Christmas Day and Times Square bombing attempts. Others argue he overreached his authority as DNI -- if anyone could agree what the DNI's scope is in the first place.

Like the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created as a highly visible solution to the problems of 9/11 and has struggled ever since. Whatever Blair's personal problems as DNI, the role is inherently awkward, the product of a quest to improve security by redrawing organizational charts. Blair is the third person to hold the office in the five years since it was created.

So was Blair just the wrong guy to be DNI? Whoever holds it next, does the office need new powers and another reorganization of the intelligence community? Or should there even be a DNI at all?




06/01/10--04:09: Superpower Or Spendthrift? (chan 1357340)

The Obama administration's just-released National Security Strategy emphasizes that to be strong abroad, the United States must be strong at home. Specifically, it argues that in order to continue to lead globally and project power and influence overseas, the nation must stand on a firm economic foundation, and that requires getting a ballooning deficit and debt under control.

How serious a threat is the mounting debt to the nation's standing as the world's only superpower? Can the U.S. continue to spend more than all other countries combined on its military forces given burdensome debt levels? In what other ways does the mounting debt undermine the country's strategic position? If our unsustainable debt loads are such a drag on U.S. power, how do you judge the Obama administration's dealing with matters of the economy, debt and spending?




06/07/10--05:34: Gaza Flotilla: Strategic Blunder Or Unavoidable Confrontation? (chan 1357340)

Israel's nighttime operation to intercept the "Gaza Flotilla" last week, which left nine activists dead and a number of Israeli commandoes seriously wounded, has provoked an international furor, calling into question not only Israel's blockade of Gaza but also once again what some experts perceive as its penchant for disproportionate and overly aggressive tactics. This week, National Journal would like its national security experts to weigh in on the implications of the flotilla tragedy, both for Israel and in terms of U.S.-Israeli relations as both nations look to forestall Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

Giving its timing and high-risk nature, was the operation a strategic blunder on Israel's part, as some experts have charged? Conversely, given that the purpose of the flotilla was clearly to break a blockade aimed at keeping rockets from falling into the hands of Hamas terrorists, and ultimately raining down on Israeli cities, did Israel have any other viable choice?

What impact, if any, will the operation have on U.S. efforts to further isolate Iran with another round of U.N. sanctions? Will the incident likely have a lasting negative effect on U.S. and Israeli relations with Turkey, and if so, how significant is that setback? Finally, given that U.S. officials insist they warned Israel to use "caution and restraint" in dealing with the flotilla, what if anything does this say about how much influence the U.S. really has over Israel as it surely contemplates the military option against Iran's nuclear facilities?




06/14/10--04:39: Are America's Alliances Fraying? (chan 1357340)

Washington got the U.N. Security Council to approve a new round of sanctions against Iran on June 9. But the sanctions, watered down by China and Russia, are far from "crippling," as initially sought by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. And two usual U.S. allies, NATO member Turkey and Brazil, voted against even this modest package.

The episode begs a larger question: Is the ability of Washington to assemble coalitions on behalf of its global objectives starting to ebb, even with the White House now in the hands of a president, Barack Obama, who touts himself as a committed multilateralist, opposed to the "go-it-alone" mindset of his predecessor, George W. Bush?

Another point in favor of this proposition is Obama's failure to get the Europeans to commit a large number of troops to the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then again, in East Asia, with a rising China and an ever-dangerous North Korea both stark geopolitical facts, both Japan and South Korea are still looking to align themselves under the U.S. security umbrella.

What do you think? Are our alliances fraying -- and if so, why? Does this trend have to do with our flailing economy, with inept diplomacy, or with some other set of factors?




06/21/10--04:36: What's At Stake In South-Central Asia? (chan 1357340)

After 9/11, American military power erupted into South-Central Asia. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan required supporting efforts in Pakistan to the south and the former Soviet Central Asian republics to the north. Today, Pakistan has returned to democracy but remains a distinctly difficult ally. A provisional government in Kyrgyzstan wrestles with ethnic violence and threatens to shut down the U.S. air base at Manas (while notably not touching the Russian base at Kant). In Afghanistan itself, the focus of the U.S. effort, much-publicized "surge" offensives in the south and political reform efforts nationwide are not moving fast enough for skeptics either in Congress or the U.S. media. Russia, China and India all have interests and influence in this region, but what is the American stake in this new "Great Game"? South-Central Asia is a tough neighborhood for the U.S. to be in. Do the rewards of staying -- or the risks of leaving -- outweigh the costs of our presence?

After nearly nine years, there is no consensus on the strategic goal of the American commitment in Afghanistan and its neighbors. Does our presence in Pakistan and Central Asia exist only to support our war in Afghanistan? Or are we waging war in Afghanistan in the cause of stability and wider U.S. interests in the region? For many mindful of domestic U.S. politics, the goal is simply "never again 9/11," a counterterrorism campaign narrowly focused on al-Qaeda. For many who are mindful of history, the goal is "never again 1989," not repeating the collapse of U.S. interest after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan that let the country slide into instability. For those mindful of economics, the stakes are not just Afghanistan's recently touted trillion-dollar mineral deposits -- originally mapped by the Russians and on Chinese investment lists -- but Afghanistan's location as a potential crossroads between India's growing economy, hungry for both markets and resources, and Central Asia's wealth of oil and natural gas. For the realpolitik traditionalists, Afghanistan's location makes it a strategic outpost outflanking both Russia and Iran. But do any of these reasons, alone or in combination, justify a nine-year war?




06/28/10--05:30: After McChrystal, How Should The Military And The Media Work Together? (chan 1357340)

The Rolling Stone article that led to the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent shudders along the always sensitive fault line of military-media relations. When a reporter with a pad and a tape recorder helps to take down a four-star general in charge of winning a war, it gets the attention of both warriors and scribes, or what longtime war correspondent Joseph Galloway called the "control freaks" and the "anarchists." The questions we would like security bloggers to consider this week concern what, if anything, the incident says about media coverage of America's ongoing wars; what impact it will have going forward on military-media relations; and what lessons should be taken from the incident by both soldiers and journalists.

Ever since former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld allowed for the "embedding" of hundreds of journalists during the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a counter to Saddam Hussein's propaganda machine, the idea has taken hold that both the media and military can benefit from a close working relationship where journalists are given extended and unprecedented access to military units and commands. Do you believe that concept has served the military, the press and the American public well, in terms of accurate and in-depth coverage of U.S. conflicts? Is the Rolling Stone article the exception that proves the rule that reporters tend to get too chummy with their subjects under such conditions? Will the McChrystal firing set back military-media relations and cause the Pentagon to view extended exposure to journalists as a possible threat to careers and missions? How should the press cover a war fairly and accurately?




07/06/10--05:24: What Is Netanyahu's Strategy? (chan 1357340)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is back in Washington this week, meeting with President Obama a few weeks after a similar White House visit by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and after an earlier visit by Netanyahu was postponed amid the Gaza flotilla fiasco. Bibi is publicly pushing for face-to-face talks with the Palestinians instead of the "indirect" talks now under way with U.S. assistance. He is using Palestinian rejection of direct talks to his public relations advantage, but Netanyahu clearly doesn't want to talk about final status issues such as borders and security that will inevitably come up in direct talks. Not talking about final-status issues of a two-state solution will quickly put him at odds with the Obama administration and yet talking about them will anger his right-wing coalition at home. He knows that Jerusalem is squarely on the table in such talks, yet he has said repeatedly throughout his career that he has no intention of agreeing to divide the city as the capital of both nations. His government rejects the "Clinton parameters" for peace established at Camp David in 2000 as leaving Israel with indefensible borders, yet his preference for essentially a demilitarized Palestinian rump state is also likely to put him at odds with Obama.

So why is he pushing for direct talks? Does he see it as an easy way to deflect pressure, knowing that as long as he continues to build settlements in East Jerusalem, Abbas cannot afford to enter into direct talks? Does he think such talks will go nowhere as long as Hamas continues to rule Gaza? Or perhaps he is seeking a trade: a softening of his position on Palestine in return for an ironclad US promise to confront Iran, militarily if necessary, if Tehran does not halt its nuclear program? What game is Netanyahu playing? And what should Obama's response be?




07/12/10--04:43: Does 007 Have A Future? (chan 1357340)

Since the Cold War ended (sigh), the James Bond movies aren't what they used to be and neither are the John le Carré novels. Real-life spying, too, seems in decline. The apparent Russian spy ring recently broken up by the FBI seems notable for how little serious intelligence work actually got done. The story has gone tabloid with Web video footage of the comely redhead who supposedly was one of the spooks. And if Israel's vaunted Mossad truly was behind the hit job on a Hamas official at a Dubai hotel in January -- as Dubai authorities allege -- then perhaps "vaunted" should be permanently consigned to the dustbin of spent plaudits. The assassins left hotel and airport video and cell phone fingerprints all over the place. And that raises a quite serious question: In the age of 24/7 global surveillance, does old-fashioned "trenchcoat" spying have a future anymore? Are covert operations still possible? Is the infamous Russian "illegals" program -- in which spies operate abroad, without diplomatic or other official cover -- a Cold War relic? What about U.S. covert ops? And how do you rate the quality of China's espionage efforts targeting Western countries?




07/19/10--07:35: Can The 'Anbar Miracle' Be Repeated? (chan 1357340)

There are signs that the "Petraeus effect" is already being felt in Afghanistan. On July 14, Afghan President Hamid Karzai approved Gen. David Petraeus' plan to create as many as 10,000 "community police" and local defense forces -- read "militias" -- to act as a grassroots opposition to the Taliban. Meanwhile, at an international conference in Kabul this week, Karzai will announce a "reintegration" program designed to entice "reconcilable" members of the Taliban to switch sides, backed by $300 million in international funds. Of course, reconciling former insurgents and organizing them into local militias opposed to Al Qaeda was the strategy behind the "Anbar miracle" that Petraeus used to help turn the tide of the Iraq war in 2007.

This week we would like National Journal's expert bloggers to consider whether the "Anbar Miracle" is repeatable. Are local tribal elders and leaders in Afghanistan sufficiently fed up with the Taliban that they are ready to fight back, especially in venerable Taliban strongholds in the south and east? Is the tribal dynamic in Afghanistan too fractured and divisive to coalesce around such an initiative in any meaningful way? Can significant elements of the Taliban be co-opted if the insurgents believe they are winning the war and the United States and its allies are losing? Is the "Afghan surge" sufficient to convince mid-level Taliban otherwise? How likely is it that the United States is setting the stage for Afghanistan to return to a state of warlordism and civil war?




07/26/10--05:30: Is Korean Peninsula In Danger Of Erupting? (chan 1357340)

The saber-rattling on the Korean Peninsula continues. Both Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week visited the DMZ dividing the two Koreas in an unprecedented joint show of support for South Korea. They also announced new economic sanctions against Pyongyang. Naval exercises with the aircraft carrier USS George Washington and South Korean forces ensue in coming days in the East Sea, otherwise known as the Sea of Japan.

North Korea, meanwhile, still refuses to take responsibility for the March sinking of the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan, or apologize, and China is backing them up. Beijing is even telling the U.S. Navy to stay out of the Yellow Sea off the west coast of the Korean peninsula, waters the U.S. has exercised in many times before. Pyongyang says the exercises could trigger a "physical" response -- perhaps another nuclear weapons test, or firing of long-range rockets over the Sea of Japan.

Do the United States and South Korea risk going too far in the current standoff? How much of this is about the Cheonan and how much is about the succession process in North Korea, from Kim Jong-Il to his third son, and the economic crisis in the North? Will a new Pyongyang regime be more aggressive externally to consolidate its power internally? And are we boxing in China, which doesn't love Pyongyang, but doesn't want it to fall either? How is this going to play out?




08/02/10--04:57: U.S. Military Power: Preeminence At What Price? (chan 1357340)

The U.S. military is already unaffordable -- and yet it needs to be larger to sustain America's global leadership, especially in the face of a rising China. That's the bottom line from a congressionally chartered bipartisan panel, co-chaired by Stephen Hadley, George W. Bush's national security adviser, and William Perry, Bill Clinton's Defense secretary. The report, released July 29, is the independent panel's assessment of and commentary on the Pentagon's own Quadrennial Defense Review, released earlier this year.

The Hadley-Perry "alternative QDR" deliberately looks 20 years out and particularly emphasizes building a larger Navy to counter the rising power of China. (Panel members include longtime expert blog contributor Maj. Gen. Robert Scales. The full document can be found here.)

On one hand, the panel writes, the military needs both more manpower and more modern equipment: "There is a significant and growing gap between the 'force structure' of the military -- its size and its inventory of equipment -- and the missions it will be called on to perform in the future.... [So] we propose an alternative force structure with emphasis on increasing the size of the Navy." On the other hand, the panel acknowledges, we cannot pay for what we already have: "The [currently planned] force structure, not including the additional increments the panel believes necessary, will be unsustainable unless growth in defense entitlements, increases in overhead costs, and cost overruns of major acquisition programs are all brought under control."

Frequent expert blog contributor Gordon Adams, among others, has already blasted the Hadley-Perry report for making the underlying assumption that the U.S. can and should continue to invest heavily in being a "global policeman." Is Adams right that the Hadley-Perry report calls for an unaffordable answer to the wrong question? Or are the report's authors correct when they argue that the U.S. must be the leading guarantor of global security? And if the U.S. must lead, has the Hadley-Perry panel laid out the right path to doing so?





08/11/10--05:00: Gates Drops A Bomb On Norfolk (chan 1357340)

[From time to time, we depart from our regular schedule to launch a new question in mid-week to respond to breaking news. This is one of those weeks.]

On Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates dropped one of his habitual bombshells when he announced significant cuts to his department's bureaucracy, most dramatically the dissolution of Norfolk, Va.-based Joint Forces Command. Any money saved on overhead would be reallocated to more pressing military needs, and most commentators consider Gates' move an effort to preempt actual cuts to the overall defense budget, which he has warned against. What is the ratio of programmatic substance to political symbolism in Gates' latest round of efficiencies? And are any babies being tossed out with the bathwater?





08/16/10--05:30: What Are You Reading -- And Watching? (chan 1357340)

This question was originally published on Aug. 9.

It's time for our annual summertime reading go-round -- only this time, we're including movie viewing recommendations as well. We'd like to know what you're reading and watching: history, politics, biography and all other forms of nonfiction, sure, but also fiction if there's some tie-in to the themes we regularly discuss on this blog. The fate of the American empire? Whither China, Russia and Europe? War? Peace? An insightful bio of some neglected figure from U.S. history? Whatever is snagging your interest, whether you are situated on a beach chair or still stuck in the office, we'd like to know about it. In a few short sentences, please tell us why your choice might be of interest to others. Links are welcome.




09/07/10--05:11: Iraq And Afghanistan: Out In '11, Or Forever War? (chan 1357340)

On Aug. 31, U.S. combat forces officially withdrew from Iraq -- except for the 50,000 "advisers" and support personnel who remain. According to the U.S.-Iraqi status of forces agreement, all U.S. troops will be gone by the end of 2011 -- unless whoever ends up forming the next government in Baghdad asks the Americans to stay. As for Afghanistan, President Obama has promised to begin drawing down U.S. forces in July '11 -- although Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. David Petraeus have both emphasized that drawdown will be cautious, gradual and based on improvements in Afghan security.

So while the total number of troops deployed really has come down, all these caveats make it hard to predict when the last U.S. troops will finally come home, if they ever do. Anti-war activists argue for a swift and complete withdrawal from both theaters; hegemonists prefer a small but permanent advisory presence. What will the U.S. troop levels actually be in Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of 2011? What levels can the American public and politicians sustain? What levels would best serve our national security interests, whatever they are, in these two countries? And is there any overlap between what we probably will do and what we really should?




09/13/10--05:30: Is New START A Nonstarter? (chan 1357340)

On Sept. 16, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry says he will move the "New START" treaty with Russia through his committee. After canceling an earlier vote scheduled for August, Kerry is betting he can muster enough Republican votes this time to avoid a divisive party line vote. But however the committee votes, does Majority Leader Harry Reid dare bring the treaty to the Senate floor in the hyper-partisan atmosphere before the midterm elections? If he doesn't, will the prospects be any better in a lame-duck session after what political handicappers increasingly predict will be a Republican romp? What will the Obama administration have to offer -- say, more money for nuclear weapons infrastructure and missile defense -- to get Republicans on board?

The Russians have already unilaterally declared their right to pull out of the treaty if U.S. missile defenses build up to a level they find threatening. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently wrote Congress a not entirely reassuring promise that even if the Russians do play fast and loose with their New START commitments, it will not amount to "militarily significant cheating." And Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who may be having flashbacks to the defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty during her husband's administration, lamented publicly that New START has become "a political issue."

In this unpromising atmosphere, what would be the impact on U.S.-Russian relations and President Obama's broader nuclear non-proliferation agenda if the Senate hands New START a stinging defeat on par with its rejection of the CTBT back in 1999? Does progress on Obama's arms control agenda stop with START?





09/20/10--05:30: A Tea Party Foreign Policy (chan 1357340)

With the last of the Republican primaries just completed, including some odds-defying victories by Tea Party candidates, an electoral tsunami is taking shape that many experts believe will sweep Democrats from the majority in the House and possibly even the Senate come November. Thus this week's question for National Journal's security experts: What impact would a Republican majority in the House, Senate or both have on President Obama's national security and foreign affairs agenda?

On the critical issue of the war in Afghanistan, for instance, might a new Republican majority team with U.S. military leaders in attempting to thwart what they see as a precipitous withdrawal of troops beginning in July 2011? If so, will they bolster Obama by protecting him from the anti-war wing of his own party, or undermine the commander-in-chief by driving a wedge between him and military leadership? On the issue of the New START treaty and Obama's broader nonproliferation agenda, which includes proposed ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, what role would a Republican majority in Congress likely play? Will a Republican majority make it harder or easier for Obama to broker a two-state settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If the deficit reduction commission's report in December calls for significant cuts in defense spending as part of a debt reduction package, would a Republican majority go along? Would a Republican majority spell the end of meaningful climate change legislation and comprehensive immigration reform, two issues with profound foreign policy and security implications? Finally, how would a Republican majority with a strong Tea Party flavor likely view free trade agreements?





09/27/10--07:13: Will Jihad Adopt An American Face? (chan 1357340)

In recent weeks, a drumbeat of warnings has sounded about the increased risk to the U.S. homeland from "homegrown terrorism." A recent Congressional Research Service report found that since May 2009, arrests were made in 19 plots by U.S. residents, compared to just 21 plots from September 2001 to May 2009. Sixty-three U.S. citizens have either been charged with or convicted of terrorism-related crimes in the United States just since 2009. Last Wednesday, during the latest in a series of hearings he's held on homegrown terrorism, Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joe Lieberman, I/D-Conn., observed that "there has been a dramatic increase in the pace of homegrown and foreign-based incidents" and that "more and more Americans are being recruited and are joining the leadership ranks of al-Qaida and its affiliated groups."

This week we would like National Journal's expert bloggers to consider why the terrorist threat from within has grown so dramatically, and what can realistically be done to counter the threat. Has the conventional wisdom that U.S. Muslims were better assimilated and thus less prone to radicalization proven false? Has President Obama's outreach to the Muslim world failed, and if so, why? Does the evolution make an attack on the homeland, perhaps smaller than 9/11 and using conventional weapons such as car bombs and improvised explosive devices, more likely?

What role do al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen and Somalia play in this evolving threat? Are radical, English-speaking imams and propagandists such as Anwar al-Aulaqi and Adam Gadahn largely to blame, and if so, what can and should be done to blunt their impact? Has the controversy over the proposed Park51 Islamic center near Ground Zero, and the anti-Muslim backlash that has ensued, made further radicalization of Muslims in America more likely? Finally, what steps can the United States take to become more resilient in the event of a terrorist attack, especially given the criticism Obama drew from the right for suggesting that the country would come through another attack even stronger?





10/04/10--05:30: Will Saber Rattling And Sanctions Work Against Iran? (chan 1357340)

Senior U.S. officials and lawmakers have sent Iran a series of tough messages in recent days. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I/D-Conn., rattled a saber last week by telling the Council on Foreign Relations that a unilateral U.S. military strike against Iran should be considered if Tehran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons. "It is time for our message... to become clearer: namely, that we will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability -- by peaceful means if we possibly can, but with military force if we absolutely must," Lieberman said. He echoed a recent warning by House Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman, D-Calif., who said the Obama administration has "months, not years," to make sanctions work.

Meanwhile, President Obama signed an executive order imposing sanctions against eight Iranians -- including government officials and members of the Revolutionary Guard -- accused of human rights abuses stemming from last year's disputed presidential election. The State Department also took action against Naftiran Intertrade Co., a Swiss-based subsidiary of Iran's national oil company, and announced commitments by four oil companies to end all business dealings with Iran to escape further sanctions.

How significant are these developments, given the long U.S. campaign to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Will the latest U.S. sanctions, coupled with those approved recently by the U.N. Security Council, have a major impact on Iran's behavior? Will Iran take seriously any American saber rattling while the U.S. military is stretched thin fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or will a belligerent tone from Washington embolden Israel to strike, thinking it has tacit U.S. approval?