The decision today by the Iraqi Islamic Party to take part in the gestating Iraqi government is important news, but not good news. There’s at least an outside chance that the IIP’s decision was partly the result of a U.S. covert operation by the Pentagon.

First of all, the news. The Iraqi Islamic Party is a branch of the international Muslim Brotherhood, the same fraternity that runs Hamas and the organization in Egypt that just won a big bloc of seats in the new Egyptian national assembly. It’s a Wahhabi-inspired, back-to-basics fundamentalist party that does, indeed, want to create the worldwide Muslim caliphate that President Bush is constantly warning us about. It is Sunni, and in the recent elections, the IIP was the mainstay for the Iraqi Accordance Front, one of the main Sunni parties in the Dec. 15 elections. the IIP-led Accordance Front represented the religious Sunnis, while another bloc represented the secular (and neo-Baathist) Sunnis. It is at least the third time that the IIP broke ranks with the opposition: when it joined the earlier Iraqi interim government, when it decided in October to support the constitution draft, and now its decision to join the Shiite-led coalition.

The IIP decision angered its erstwhile allies, as expected. Reported the AP:

"We were shocked today when we heard that our brothers, who signed agreements with us yesterday to discuss just the fraudulent elections with the Kurdish leaders, instead were discussing forming a national unity government," Saleh al-Mutlaq, head of the Sunni Arab National Dialogue Front, told The Associated Press.

What’s interesting here is an apparently covert relationship that has been developing between the IIP and the Pentagon, in part through the secretive Lincoln Group, the PR firm that planted paid propaganda in Iraqi media for the DOD. The New York Times revealed yesterday that the Lincoln Group also had Sunni Iraqi clerics on its covert payroll:

Lincoln Group, a Washington-based public relations firm, was told early in 2005 by the Pentagon to identify religious leaders who could help craft messages that would persuade Sunnis in violence-ridden Anbar province to participate in national elections and reject the insurgency, according to a former employee.

Since then, the company has retained three or four Sunni religious scholars to offer advice and write reports for military commanders on the content of propaganda campaigns, the former employee said. But documents and Lincoln executives say the firm's ties to religious leaders and dozens of other prominent Iraqis are aimed also at enabling it to exercise influence in Iraqi communities on behalf of clients, including the military.

"We do reach out to clerics. We meet with local government officials and with local businessmen," Paige Craig, a Lincoln executive vice president, said in an interview. "We need to have relationships that are broad enough and deep enough that we can touch all the various aspects of society."

It isn’t clear if the Lincoln Group was dealing exclusively, or even primarily, with Muslim Brotherhood-linked clerics. But it ought be noted that one of Lincoln’s paid consultants, according to the Times, was Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute. And Rubin is a co-thinker of AEI’s Reuel Marc Gerecht, who is on record (in his book, The Islamic Paradox) saying that the Muslim Brotherhood ought to be a main partner of the United States in the region.

I’m waiting to see whether or not the supposedly peaceful Ayatollah Sistani says anything about Abdel Aziz Hakim’s increasingly threatening comments. Hakim, of course, is the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Here is Hakim yesterday, threatening to unleash the dogs of war under the control of the Ministry of the Interior and the army, including (obviously) units made up largely of Badr Brigade, Iranian-trained fanatics.

We’re laying the responsibility for the blood of innocents on the multinational forces and the political powers that declared publicly their support fo terrorism. Our people will not be patient for much longer with these dirty sectarian crimes.

Once again, Hakim blamed the United States for “pressure” to hold back. In that case, he is talking about holding back from sectarian crimes and ethnic cleansing of his own. But soon.

Former secretaries of state and defense aren’t supposed to be poodles and patsies, but I’ve gotta wonder. What were they thinking? They all linked up like kindergartners for the photo op with the prez in the Oval Office, a baker’s dozen of ‘em by my count: Albright, Baker, Carlucci, Cohen – line up according to height please, and no pushing – and for their pains got a grand total of five to ten minutes of actual dialogue time with Bush. During that time, they were mostly polite and held their tongues. And they came out to say basically this: Well, some of us think that invading Iraq was the cat’s pajamas, and some of us think it was way dumb, but now that we are there it pretty much looks like the president is doing the right thing.

For their pains they were treated to a 40-minute dog and pony show by Ambassador Zal Khalilzad and Gen. Peter Pace, who (I am sure) had on their full-tint rosy eyeshades.

Here’s my favorite quote from the gathering of the Next Best and Brightest. From Mel Laird, the Vietnam-era defense chief: “He listened to us.” Yes, but did you say anything? In five minutes, with 13 people? My calculator says that it divides up to precisely 23 second per person. Oh—wait. Colin Powell didn’t say a word. That gave each of the other twelve 25 seconds a piece. And that’s not counting Bush’s reportedly “feisty” replies.

With 17 Americans killed in Iraq over the weekend, in addition to the 11 who died on Thursday, it’s clear that the Iraqi resistance isn’t going away. So it’s good news that there are signs, if small ones, that the United States is thinking about opening a dialogue with the insurgents—and, it appears, so is the Iraqi government.

Of course, it isn’t the Shiite religious parties that want a dialogue with the resistance, but the Kurds—specifically, President Jalal Talabani. Still, it’s important news.

First, a report from the New York Times on Saturday:

American officials are talking with local Iraqi insurgent leaders to exploit a rift that has opened between homegrown insurgents and radical groups like Al Qaeda, and to draw the local leaders into the political process, according to a Western diplomat, an Iraqi political leader and an Iraqi insurgent leader.

Clashes between Iraqi groups and Al Qaeda have broken out in several cities across the Sunni Triangle, including Taji, Yusefiya, Qaim and Ramadi, and they appear to have intensified in recent months, according to interviews with insurgents and with American and Iraqi officials.

In an interview on Friday, a Western diplomat who supports the talks said that the Americans had opened face-to-face discussions with insurgents in the field, and that they were communicating with senior insurgent leaders through intermediaries.

The Times notes that the talks are taking place "inside and outside Iraq," which makes it more likely that those involved in the talks from the resistance side are the mainstream Baathists and former Iraqi military officers who are the core of the insurgency.

Meanwhile, Beirut’s Daily Star reports that Talabani is engaging the insurgency as well, although his security adviser says that the contacts include former Baathists but not current supporters of Saddam (though I find that to be a distinction without a difference):

The Iraqi government is talking directly to all militant groups who are willing to communicate but no commitments have been made to any of them, a senior Iraqi official said Sunday. President Jalal Talabani has instructed aides to "listen and talk to anyone who wants to approach us," said Wafiq al-Samarei, Talabani's adviser for security affairs.

"Yes, many groups are communicating with us. We are listening to them and providing them with advice with open arms and transparency," he said.

In a bid to dampen the persistence violence and help to draw Sunni Arabs, who make up the core of the insurgency, into the political process, U.S. and Iraqi officials for months have been communicating directly or through channels with members of the disaffected minority connected to the insurgency.

On Saturday, a Western diplomat reported a recent "uptick" in those contacts.

In yesterday's White House press briefing, spokesman Ron Ziegler--umm, I mean, Scott McClellan--made a special point of saying that the United States isn't talking to the bad guys in Iraq. Like Bush in December, he made a curious distinction among the insurgents, separating them into terrorists, Saddamists, and rejectionists. Only the latter, said McClellan, are worth talking to. But he fails ot make the case for not talking to the Baathists, whether they are "Saddamists" or not. As I have argued repeatedly, talking to the resistance without including the Baath means endless war--since, getting a few "rejectionist" Sunnis or Sunni religious leaders to join the government will not end the insurgency.

Here's McClellan:

Q What can you tell us about contacts that have been made with Iraqi insurgency groups?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I would point out that we have talked about this before. We're not talking with Zarqawi or other terrorists; we're not talking with Saddam loyalists, those who worked for him and want to return back to the previous regime.

But part of our strategy, a critical element of our strategy, is to broaden participation in the political process. We have been reaching out to the rejectionists. As the President outlined last month, there are really three categories for defining the enemy. And pointing out to the rejectionists that the way forward is the political process. That's the way to advance political interest -- not through violence. And you can't have it both ways. You have to make a choice.

And we see more and more that the Iraqi people are choosing freedom and democracy. We have more Sunnis participating in the political process in much larger numbers than they did.

I think it's important to take stock of where we are. Look at where Iraq was a year ago and look at where it is today. There has been tremendous progress, but there are difficulties and challenges

Among the "difficulties and challenges" must be the fact that Ambassador Khalilzad almost got blown up yesterday when two suicide bombers actually got inside the Iraqi interior ministry and exploded themselves, killing 29 people, while Khalilzad was there. The Interior Ministry building must be one of the hardest of hard targets in Iraq--so, to get inside is quite a feat. Some "last throes."

It’s impossible not to see the belligerent attitude of Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, as unconnected from the growing U.S.-Iran conflict. SCIRI, which was created by Iran and has strong backing from Teheran, is the most powerful force in the new Iraq. And yesterday its leader, Hakim, proclaimed that the ruling Shiite religious coalition would not allow any modifications to the divisive Iraqi constitution.

It was, of course, the decision to allow such modifications by the new Iraqi “permanent” government that convinced some Sunnis to participate in the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum and then the Dec. 15 election. Now SCIRI has slammed that door shut.

This should not be a surprise. The United States would be better off abandoning its angry Shiite religious allies and throwing it support into trying to build a coalition between the secular Sunnis and the secular Kurds. At present, our 160,000 troops are propping up a pro-Iranian, fanatical power center in Baghdad. This is one of the major scandals of the Iraq war.

The New York Times, in one of those shocked-shocked editorials, calls Hakim’s comments an “incendiary threat,” and it adds:

An irreconcilable split between Iraq's Shiites and Sunnis would leave the Shiites even more dependent than they are now on Iran and American troops.

Get that? “Dependent … on Iran and American troops.” A real worry here is that as the U.S.-Iran crisis evolves, and particularly if the United States or Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities, the United States will find itself fighting not only Iran, but an alliance between Iran and southern Iraq. Heck of a job, Bushie.

So Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate, is trying to outflank W. to the right. In her speech yesterday, Ms. Clinton lambasted the Bush administration – not for its threats against Iran, but for weakness. In particular, she hit the administration for going along with the European-led negotiations over Iran’s nuclear research, accusing Bush of “outsourcing” U.S. Iran policy.

Here’s Hillary on Iran yesterday, speaking at Princeton:

I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran — that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.

Cynics might say it’s the latest in a long line of Hillaryspeak that positions her for her 2008 bid, protecting her right flank against charges of weakness on national defense. But I don’t think so. I think she really believes this stuff, and that her continual alliance with warmongering Sen. John McCain on issues like this (McCain also called for sanctions yesterday) is a sign that Hillary is indeed a right-leaning true believer.

Her Iraq position is virtually indistinguishable from that of Bush, and yesterday she once again railed against the idea of a Murtha-style withdrawal. “There are no quick, no easy solutions to the situation we find ourselves in today.” she said. “I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end, nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately.”

Here is a tragically funny exchange, courtesy of Editor & Publisher, between Michael Hayden, the hapless, good-soldier head of the NSA ("I was just following orders," ought to be his motto) and Jon Landay from K-R. If only the NSA had been able to eavesdrop on the constitutional convention in the 1780s and George Washington's first administration, they might know what the Bill of Rights is. Read it and weep:

NEW YORK The former national director of the National Security Agency, in an appearance today before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., today, appeared to be unfamiliar with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when pressed by a reporter with Knight Ridder's Washington office -- despite his claims that he was actually something of an expert on it.

General Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of National Intelligence with the Office of National Intelligence, talked with reporters about the current controversy surrounding the National Security Agency's warrantless monitoring of communications of suspected al Qaeda terrorists. Hayden has been in this position since last April, but was NSA director when the NSA monitoring program began in 2001.

As the last journalist to get in a question, Jonathan Landay, a well-regarded investigative reporter for Knight Ridder, noted that Gen. Hayden repeatedly referred to the Fourth Amendment's search standard of "reasonableness" without mentioning that it also demands "probable cause." Hayden seemed to deny that the amendment included any such thing, or was simply ignoring it.

Here is the exchange, along with the entire Fourth Amendment at the end.

***

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause."

And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place of probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.

Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

***

Here's the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

Not long ago, I took part in an informal discussion with a group of Saudi Arabian businessmen and academics visiting Washington. Their unhappiness with U.S. policies in Iraq, and with regard to the Arab-Israeli dispute, was obvious. I mentioned to the Saudis that it wasn’t clear to me why Saudi Arabia insisted on maintaining the primacy of its relations with the United States in its foreign policy. Why not seek political and military guarantees from other countries? I asked. Certainly Saudi Arabia’s oil would carry a lot of weight with any other nation, and by reaching out to Russia, Europe, and China, Saudi Arabia could throw a scare into the Bush administration, which has so far pretty much taken Saudi Arabia for granted.

So, I suggested, if I were king of Saudi Arabia the first thing I would go would be to get on a plane and fly to Beijing. And make nicey-nice with the Chinese.

Well (certainly not because of me) that’s exactly what King Abdullah did this week. And it got the attention of the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, in the form of an intelligent, well-written op ed by Richard L. Russell of National Defense University:

It was no coincidence that Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah this week chose China for his first official trip outside the Middle East since acceding to the throne in August. … The two countries are laying the foundations for a strategic relationship that challenges U.S. interests.

That’s exactly right. That’s the fruit of the Bush administration reckless invasion of Iraq and its feckless promotion of Shiite fundamentalist parties in Iraq. The instability in Iraq, the threat of civil war, and the gains by Iran there have all scared Saudi Arabia. And the Saudis don’t want to wait around to find out if the neoconservative plan for targeting Saudi Arabia, too, after Iraq turns out to be White House policy. So they are covering their bets.

Since China, with its insatiable appetite for oil, is already America’s biggest rival for Persian Gulf oil, the Saudi-Chinese flirtation is a big deal. China already has good ties with Iran, and will be the main roadblock against the Bush administration’s scheme to impose sanctions on Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program.

Thus – and this is a big, big irony – America’s military effort to secure hegemony over the world’s oil deposits in the Gulf looks like this: Iraq, a mess, governed by Iran-linked Shiites; Iran, angry once again at the Great Satan and looking toward Russia and China; and Saudi Arabia, the big enchilada, starting to learn to speak Chinese. Some hegemony.