Top official among at least 8 killed in explosion in Beirut

Top official among at least 8 killed in explosion in Beirut

The numerous political parties and factions in Lebanon are to a large extent delineated by their relationship with the Syrian government, and the support from within Lebanon to the Syrian rebels or government has been both implicit and explicit, as has the opposition. Since the start of the uprising in Syria, there have been fears that the conflict would spill over into neighboring Lebanon. The explosion in East Beirut today has fueled those fears dramatically.
Although the attack was initially thought (or simply said) to be 'non-political', it is now known that a top intelligence official, Wissam al-Hassan, was among those killed in the blast. al-Hassan was well-known as the leader of an investigation into a Lebanese politician accused of planning attacks within Lebanon with the support of two Syrian officials. It is estimated that at least 7 others were killed in the attack, along with dozens injured.
There will doubtless be speculation in the next few hours and days into who is responsible for the attack, but all of this is guesswork and assumptions before an investigation takes place. Even then, however, there's no guarantee that we'll know for certain who the perpetrators are, or on whose orders they're acting. 

Is there any daylight between Romney and Obama?

Mitt Romney spoke at the Virginia Military Institute today in a speech his campaigned billed a "major foreign policy" address. The purpose of the speech was to showcase Romney's foreign policy ideas while simultaneously criticizing President Obama's performance.

Romney gave this speech while his campaign was still on a high after his performance in the first debate last Wednesday. The timing makes sense - foreign policy won't be a major deciding factor in this election, so Romney can afford to score political points on Obama by taking advantage of the recent developments in the Middle East, while not offering specifics or significant foreign policy strategies. And that's exactly what we saw in yesterday's speech While Romney had much criticism for the President's actions (or inactions) in places like Libya and Egypt after the embassy attacks and riots, Syria, and Iran, most of it was only rhetoric. The little substance that he offered did not especially differ from the President's policies. Whether this is an effect of his relative inexperience in foreign policy or a concerted effort to ride the wave of support after the debate without having to hold himself to specific policies if he were elected, the result is that all anyone has talked about today is whether Romney would actually do anything differently than Obama has done. Someone needs to tell Mitt that speaking about Iran's nuclear program and the importance of sanctions in a sterner voice will not yield different results.

Perhaps the biggest take away from his speech is the continued arrogance on the part of much of his party (although the Democrats are not guiltless in this either) that the opinions, values, suggestions, advice, pressuring, cajoling, controlling, bribery and war that the US inflicts on the people and governments of the Middle East will always have their desired impact. An entire piece could be written on the hypocrisy of speaking about the need to influence and shape the outcomes of the democratic elections in Arab countries that are supposedly there to help the people decide their own fate (Romney took the chance to criticize Obama for 'allowing' the Muslim Brotherhood to take power in Egypt). This notion that the American president, whether through his policies or simply public statements (meet with Netanyahu publicly and Iran will suddenly realize they shouldn't build a bomb, some say), has control over the increasingly complex and unpredictable events unraveling in the Middle East is not new, but it continues to endure.

So, is there actually any daylight between Romney and Obama? Would a President Romney lead us in a significantly different direction than one Obama has charted for the country?

I don't think the answer is clear, and even if it is, leading the country in a different direction doesn't necessarily mean that it will alter events in other parts of the world (barring any military or direct involvement in some areas - see Syria, as example). The Romney we saw in yesterday's speech was a moderate one, taking essentially the same stance on Iran that Obama has, and even his strategy for Syria  artfully steered clear of promising direct military and/or material support to the opposition from the United States. His speech was not absent the lies that are traditionally used in the campaign - the cuts in defense spending he touted Obama as advocating are in reality part of the sequester that will occur (well...might occur) as part of the Budget Control Act. Romney's inexplicable promises of increased military funding and construction of new ships was undoubtedly at the suggestion of his hawkish advisors.

The net impact of this speech for Romney's campaign is minimal. It's still the economy, stupid, but Romney blew his chance to speak at a relatively quiet event in a military academy and lay out his plans for foreign policy. If that even matters, anyway. My bet is that he'll keep wagging his finger in Iran's direction and just hope for the best.