A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

However, you do bring up an interesting point about helping the U.S. to feel “closure.” It would appear that that’s what the Iranians have been trying to do for a while now. Why would SIIC be cooperating with Maliki’s administration except to facilitate the narrative that Iraq is now peaceful? Why would they have aided in the attack against the Sadrists in Basra except to do the same thing? The Iranians threw the Sadrists under the bus in an expedient decision to help the appearance of stability in the South.

Dark view? yes. Realistic? I think so.

Closure matters when it can be used broadly to represent goal achievement. It can influence national public opinion.

What might be the likelihood that Iran realizing the importance of a symbolic moment to US mind set, at the perfect moment (a presidential political campaign) secretly decides to create closure for Americans’ sense of just war by giving up Osama Bin Laden? And, would we take him?

But as for the article?

Dr. iRack is most definitely NOT Michael O’Hanlon. Dr. O’Hanlon is not known for scathing self criticism: http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2008/04/ohanlon-goes-to-tehran-in-search-of.html

For friends of Dr. iRack, the notion that you would think he’s O’Hanlon is quite hilarious.

Doc