Our guest blogger is CAP Visiting Fellow Pratap Chatterjee.

Budgets are being slashed to ribbons across Washington this year. So what federal agency would dare ask for ten times as much money as it did last time around? The State Department — they want $3 billion to pay for security for the five U.S. diplomatic missions in Iraq, up from the $300 million they spent in 2008.

And as the Wall Street Journal reported today, State is looking to spend that money on private security contractors. Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary of State for management, told the Commission on Wartime Contracting yesterday that the agency

plans to hire a 5,100-strong force to protect diplomatic personnel, guard embassy buildings and operate a fleet of aircraft and armored vehicles.

How good of an idea is that? For Kennedy it’s just a matter of protecting diplomatic lives. The reality is that the 46,000 U.S. troops currently helping to protect State personnel in Iraq are unlikely to get an invitation to stay past the December 31 deadline and the Pentagon is busy shoveling out $100,000 a month to local sheiks to make sure that they don’t get shot at when they leave.

But there are bigger questions that need to be asked. The State Deparment doesn’t exactly have a clean record when it comes to managing private security contractors. Keep in mind this is the same agency that paid Blackwater to guard its diplomats in 2007 when the company’s security shot and killed 17 Iraqis. And State employees allegedly helped “the Blackwater guards avoid punishment.”

State was also widely criticized for its failure to manage police training contractors in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And the security it hired to guard the Kabul embassy was under fire for “drunken brawls, prostitutes, hazing and humiliation, taking vodka shots out of buttcracks.”

But most importantly, State could use the $3 billion to beef up it’s own Bureau of Diplomatic Security (BDS). The Governemnt Accountability Office (GAO) recommended last year that State do a full review of how it handled diplomatic security:

“Diplomatic Security’s ability to fully carry out its mission of providing security worldwide is hindered by staffing shortages in domestic offices — even in light of its workforce growth — and other operational challenges such as inadequate facilities, pervasive language proficiency shortfalls, and host-country constraints, among others.”

It noted that some offices were down to 60 percent of capacity and that “many posts go for years without updating their security training.” In fact, the State Department’s BDS boasts just one professional responsibility investigator for every 2,000 employees, compared to the Drug Enforcement Agency which maintains a 1:288 ratio, and the Department of Justice which maintains a 1:170 ratio.

However, State politely declined the GAO recommendations, saying simply that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s needs are being “adequately considered.” Instead of paying Blackwater-like firms top-dollar to run security, perhaps the Obama administration would be better off spending the $3 billion figuring out how to fix the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to staff it properly.

Today live on France 24 TV, Syrian Ambassador to France Lamia Chakkour announced that she had informed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that she has resigned because of Assad’s brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protesters there:

CHAKKOUR: I can no longer continue to support this cycle of extreme violence against unarmed civilians. I can no longer ignore all the strong men, women and children who have died. I have informed the president’s private secretary that it is my intention to tender my resignation to President Bashar Assad. I recognize the legitimacy of the people’s demands for more democacy and freedom. My resignation as Syrian ambassador in France will take effect immediately.

The France 24 anchor reported that Chakkour’s resignation was “confirmed by the authorities in Syria.” Watch it:

Chakkour’s resignation comes on the heels of recent reports of videos showing Syrian soldiers planting ammunition on the bodies of dead men presumed to have been anti-government demonstrators. Other videos have surfaced that, as the New York Times reported, “seem to have been filmed as souvenirs by men taking part in military operations against protesters.” The AP reported late last month that at least 900 have died during the uprising, “making it one of the deadliest of the Arab Spring.” The Syrian regime’s brutality has reportedly included the torture and murder of children.

The French announced that they would push for a UN resolution condemning the Syrian governement for the violent crackdown. Russia has pledged to veto that resolution. (HT: @AmoonaE)

While various news outlets and neocon blogs are fixated on a RAND Corporation researcher’s estimate [PDF] that Iran could produce a nuclear bomb “within eight weeks,” a report RAND released today offers a sober analysis of the security threats posed by a potential Iranian nuclear weapons program and how the U.S. and its partners can dissuade Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Most importantly, the report emphasizes that while Iran “is pursuing a capability that could lead to the production of operation nuclear weapons,” Iran’s weaponization of its nuclear program is not a foregone conclusion and “it is not clear that Iran has made the decision to create actual nuclear weapons.” (This observation matches closely with both the IAEA and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s analyses.)

Applying military pressure to dissuade Iran from constructing a nuclear weapon could have definite costs for the U.S. and its allies, writes the report. The authors warn that military pressure “is highly uncertain but reinforces Iran’s vulnerability and could lead to acceleration of nuclear program.”

If the possibility of empowering hardliners in Tehran and creating new incentives for the construction of a nuclear weapon aren’t enough, the report warns that an Israeli air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities might be a self-defeating strategy for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. The report reads:

Israeli leaders are aware that a military strike on Iran would be far more difficult and complicated than either the Iraqi or Syrian cases, even if some suggest that the negative consequences of an Israeli attack may be exaggerated or that the risks of an attack may outweigh the costs of doing nothing. [...]

As a retired Israeli general put it, “If there’s no choice, Israel can set back the Iranian nuclear process,” but it would be unable to launch a sustained campaign to stop it and would likely face Iranian retaliation through ballistic missile attacks directed against Israel.

While not totally disregarding the possibility of an Israeli air strike, the RAND research group raised some interesting questions about Israel’s own nuclear status in the region and proposes that if Iran decides to produce nuclear weapons, “Israel will face growing pressure to bring its bomb out of the basement” if it is to strengthen the credibility of its nuclear deterrent and build reliable ear-warning systems between Israel and Iran.

Finally, and no doubt much to the annoyance of many neoconservatives and Israeli hardliners, the RAND report dismantles the popular meme that Iran’s leaders are irrational or incapable of responding to conventional incentives. They write:

That Iran’s behavior in the past three decades has been characterized by relatively careful characterization of costs and benefits does not mean that its understanding conforms to Western assessments. [...]

However Iran’s foreign policies may appear to those outside Iran, calculations of cost and benefits drive key Iranian foreign policy decisions.

And as for that neocon talking point that Iran is a suicidal country, the authors conclude:

The government’s foreign policies are meant to pursue the interest of regime survival above all else.

While the report doesn’t make much headway in providing a pathway for de-escalation of tensions between the U.S. and Iran, it does take steps to discredit and undermine those who advocate that Iran is a suicidal nuclear state that can only be contained through preemptive military strikes or the threat of military force.