All participants agreed that the Obama administration should seize the initiative to engage Iran, but differed on how best to accomplish the task. Disagreement centered on using threats of military action to coerce Iran, and the utility of “carrot-and-stick” language in any future dialogue with Tehran.

For POMED’s notes on this event, click here.

At Informed Comment, Juan Cole wades deep into the Iraqi domestic political thicket and lays out the current stance of each faction, and the conditions under which the pact may succeed or fail.

“Does a liberal foreign policy have to make democracy and human rights central to America’s relationship with, say, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, China or North Korea? Or can liberals comfortably say that questions of domestic, regional and international security take precedence given America’s lack of influence, and perhaps lack of wisdom, when it comes to the internal affairs of other states?”

Michael Allen also has a good run-down of the responses so far, from the likes of Will Marshall, Matt Yglesias, and Anne-Marie Slaughter.

The writer laments U.S. inaction and hypocrisy: “[U]nder the Bush administration, the State Department continues to engage Arab dictators at the expense of dissidents who support transitions to peaceful, modern societies.”

This sounds like a fantastic thesis topic if anyone’s looking.

The witnesses discussed the constitutionality and content of the recently-signed Status of Forces Agreement, Congress’s right to consult on and approve the accord, and the feasibility of renewing the UN mandate.

Prepared statements of Oona Hathaway, Raed Jarrar, Thomas Donnelly, Michael Matheson, and subcommittee Chairman William Delahunt (D-MA) can be found at the committee’s website.

For POMED’s hearing notes, click here.

The New York Times reports some troubling news. Prime Minister al-Maliki’s government is “systematically dismissing Iraqi oversight officials, who were installed to fight corruption in Iraqi ministries.” One of the results? Over $13 billion U.S. dollars authorized for reconstruction in Iraq has been lost to fraud, embezzlement, theft, and waste.

Another result, according to Ilan Goldenberg at Democracy Arsenal, is that the purge of anti-corruption officials is just another significant step in consolidating power against the Sadrists and the Awakening Councils.

In Time Magazine, Robert Baer argues that whether Osama Bin Laden is alive or not is largely irrelevant. “But what if bin Laden really is dead, buried under a hundred tons of rock at Tora Bora or so weakened that he might as well be dead?…One day Obama will need to give up the hunt — declare bin Laden either dead or irrelevant. He has more important enemies to deal with, from Iran to Russia.”

Hanna Lundqvist at Democracy Arsenal disagrees. “Regardless of whether or not Osama bin Laden is dead or alive and if he is ever captured or killed, al Qaeda and like-minded groups remain a threat to the United States… Iran, Russia, and other enemies do not threaten the United States in such a direct manner, and would likely be emboldened by a U.S. withdrawal from the Af-Pak region and the fight against al Qaeda. Going after those who attacked us on 9/11 and those who continue to wish us harm can only be in our interest.”

Schwartzstein noted that the worldwide economic downturn will affect every county’s ability to project power abroad. He said there is a strong need to reduce U.S. military costs and emphasize other instruments of U.S. foreign policy. He also discussed policy differences between the Bush and Obama administrations on Israel/Palestine, Iran, and Iraq.

For POMED’s notes on the event, click here.