After a few stumbles in the social media world, Google launched Google Plus at the end of last month. But when some users in Iran attempted to access the new site, they were met by a Google error screen informing them that they were blocked from accessing the site because their IP address came from a “forbidden country.”

At the blog of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which first reported the blockage, Ali Tayebi published screen captures from Iranian users who’d attempted to access Google Plus:

It appears Google is taking a cautious approach with Iran because of a U.S. sanctions regime against the Islamic Republic. (At press time, Google had not responded to an inquiry.) If that is the case, such a step almost definitely did not come at the behest of the U.S. government: in March 2010 the Treasury Department issued “general licenses authorizing the exportation of certain personal Internet-based communications services – such as instant messaging, chat and email, and social networking – to Iran.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made Internet freedom a major plank in her foreign policy approach, having delivered two lengthy addresses on the topic, first in January 2010 and again in February 2011 as social media helped to fuel the Arab Spirng protest movements that deposed two North African dictators and put several other Middle East autocracies on the brink of collapse.

In the past, before the Treasury general license, Google and other internet companies faced dilemmas about allowing access to Iranians and permitting software downloads — and most chose to deny services instead of even changing the prospect of censure by the U.S. It even took Google nearly nine months after the issuance of the general license for the California company to make downloads of Google Earth, Chrome, and Picasa available to users in Iran.

No doubt that, if the blockage came because of a fear of sanctions penalties, the breadth and severity of unilateral U.S. sanctions played a role in the decision. Iranians were at the forefront of using social media in protests when many of them tweeted their way through massive demonstration after the disputed June 2009 elections. Activists and others in Iran often prefer Google mail and other services because they are more secure. If Google is blocking access, it is, as NIAC says, “shameful.”

Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Fouad Ajami

Those were Arabs, not Afghans, who struck America on that day, and it had been the proper thing to strike at an Arab “return address,” because the American strike against the Taliban did not suffice. Panetta, in an unguarded moment, gave voice to a fundamental truth about the U.S. expedition into Iraq. [...]

Our country made its way to Iraq some 18 months after 9/11 because the menace against America in that time of peril had come from Arab lands. It was Arab financiers who made it possible for the plotters and the death pilots to do their grim work. It was Arab religious preachers, with the prestige of the Arabic language, the language of the Islamic revelation, who were sowing the winds of anti-Americanism and “weaponizing” the faith itself. And it was sly Arab governments winking at the forces of terror and enabling it while posing as America’s clients and allies. We had to get the attention of the Arabs, strike against Arab targets, take on the pathologies of that world.

So, because the people who attacked us on 9/11 were Arabs, the U.S. needed to kill some Arabs in response. No matter how many times Ajami writes this, it never gets less racist. (It’s worth noting the similarity here to Osama bin Laden’s support for killing Americans, any old Americans, for the alleged sins of the American government. In both cases, what’s important is to send a message.)

Ajami goes on to once again scold critics of the war for failing to recognize its benefits, such as they are. I’ve noted repeatedly the importance of Iraq being the first Arab state where Islamists have been given an opportunity to govern and the possible lessons that might be drawn from this in regard to Islamists’ political participation in other countries in the region.

On the other hand, like so many of the war’s most vigorous cheerleaders, Ajami himself has never shown any real interest in grappling with the war’s costs, which far, far outweigh its benefits. Should he ever decide to do so, he can start with our May 2010 report.

This post was cross-posted from Middle East Progress.

Keep America Safe, a Bill Kristol and Elizabeth Cheney-led organization, added its voice to the list of critics of the Obama administration’s troop drawdown timeline in Afghanistan. Their new ad, which only appeared on YouTube — the Weekly Standard says it will air in Washington, DC later today — repeats the factually baseless claim that “President Obama ignor[ed] his generals’ advice.” The ad quotes Iraq surge architect ret. Gen. Jack Keane saying Obama is “asking our troops to do more with less. [...] And what does that mean? That actually means more casualties.” Watch the ad:

If casualty numbers are of any significance to Kristol and Cheney then they should examine the dramatic increase in American deaths occurring during the Obama administration’s 30,000 troop surge announced in December 2009. At the time, Kristol and his fellow hawks embraced the president’s announcement and heralded him as a “war president.” Recent casualty figures show 1,002 U.S. troop died in Afghanistan under Obama and two-thirds of all American casualties in Afghanistan occurred during this presidency.

The contradictions in the ad go even deeper when examining the role played by neoconservatives, such as Kristol, in diverting U.S. troops and resources from Afghanistan by advocating for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Middle East Progress director Matt Duss wrote in 2009 that neocons like Kristol were asking the U.S. military to, as Keane put it, “do more with less”:

The broad consensus among national security analysts and aid officials is that the diversion of troops and resources toward Iraq beginning in 2002 was one of the main reasons the Taliban and Al Qaeda were able to to re-establish themselves in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas, facilitating the collapse of the country back into insurgent warfare.

The conclusions worth drawing from the latest Keep America Safe ad is that individuals like Kristol and his allies care very little about American casualties, oppose any withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan and will attack Obama for exercising his constitutional authority instead of handing all decision making powers to his generals. Unfortunately, their arguments rely on the ad’s viewers having a very short memory about the history of U.S. involvment in Afghanistan and the unhelpful role played by Kristol.

ThinkProgress filed this report from Urbandale, Iowa.

Even as Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain rises in the polls, his critics have characterized him as a policy lightweight, especially on foreign affairs. The former Godfather’s Pizza CEO did little to shed that impression Monday.

ThinkProgress spoke with Cain at the opening of his Iowa campaign headquarters outside of Des Moines. Given the national focus on China, we asked Cain about relations with Taiwan and how they would look under a Cain presidency.

Officially, the United States stopped recognizing Taiwan in 1979. Seven years prior, during President Nixon’s infamous visit to China, the United States acknowledged the “One China policy” which recognizes the People’s Republic of China as the sole government of China, including Taiwan. Since that time, the United States has maintained a position of “strategic ambiguity” regarding Taiwan, in which we refrain from making our intentions clear in order to prevent either side from taking actions that would lead to war. Though this remains mostly under the radar, American relations with China and Taiwan carry enormous implications both for the United States and the billions of people living in southeast Asia.

When asked his thoughts on the situation and whether the U.S. ought to shift course and officially recognize the government of Taiwan, Cain incorrectly stated, “I think we already recognize their democratically-elected government.” A visibly confused Cain refused to say whether President Obama ought to send an ambassador to Taiwan — something the United States hasn’t done since 1979 — and demurred on whether his administration would do so, saying, “President Cain will get back to you!”:

KEYES: You’ve been out front obviously on criticizing the Obama administration, not being tough enough or promoting democracy around the world. What about a place like Taiwan? Do you think we ought to recognize their democratically-elected government?

CAIN: I think we already recognize their democratically-elected government. So I plan to take each nation’s case by case by case. I don’t believe that we have a real clear foreign policy position on both friends and foes around the world. So I’ve got to go through that process.

KEYES: Do you think Obama ought to send an ambassador to Taiwan?

CAIN: I can’t comment on that because I don’t know what’s going on in his head, and I don’t know all the information that he has.

KEYES: How about President Cain? He going to send one?

CAIN: President Cain [pause] will get back to you!

Watch it:

This isn’t the first time Cain has flubbed a question on foreign policy. Last month, when asked by Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace about the right of return in the Middle East peace process, Cain was baffled on the subject until Wallace provided a helpful definition on the “right of return.”

During his campaign appearances, Cain often touts his lack of political experience — he has never held elected office — as an asset in his White House bid. However, his lack of even a basic understanding of standard foreign policy matters like the Palestinian right of return or the political situation in Taiwan calls into question the former pizza executive’s suitability to act as the nation’s head of state and commander-in-chief.

As part of his whirlwind tour of Israel — including a speech yesterday to Israel’s parliament — former Fox News personality Glenn Beck sat down for a television interview junket. An Israeli interviewer asked Beck, presumably promoting his August rally there (to be attended by, among others, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)), about criticisms that he engaged in spreading wild conspiracy theories. Beck replied that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believed the same things Beck did, and that the right-wing prime minister had “evidence.” As soon as the TV anchor asked what Beck meant, an off screen voice declared the interview was over. Here’s how it went down:

ANCHOR: The people who criticize you back home are saying that your show was inflammatory. You accused President Obama and his administration with what they label as conspiracy theories about socialists and Stalinists…

BECK: Lemme stop you…

ANCHOR: …communists in America…

BECK: Lemme stop you. Your own prime minister gave that speech. When you wanna call Benjamin Netanyahu a conspiracy theorist, have at it. That there are socialists, there are communists, there are Islamists, there are radicals from the 1960s from America, that all believe in one thing: the destruction of the western way of life. [...]

If you still don’t believe it, go talk to your Prime Minsiter, because he has evidence. Yes, it’s happening!

ANCHOR: What do you mean?

VOICE OFF CAMERA: Thank you. We have to conclude. Sorry.

Watch the video:

The muffled off-mic voice, speaking with an Israeli accent, seems to be a savvy Beck handler who knows exactly when to rein things in — just when Beck is about to launch into the “evidence” to support conspiracy theories that have even been denounced by the likes of neoconservative don Bill Kristol.

But perhaps Beck has gleaned something from Netanyahu on the sidelines of one of their many interviews or meetings over the years.

Beck’s visit to Israel also included his speech to the Israeli Knesset, a visit to the Temple Mount, a meeting with the former head of an Israeli terrorist organization, and a tour of the Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial. (HT: Didi Remez)

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta yesterday in Baghdad expressed his frustration with Iraqi officials who have yet to say whether they will ask American troops to stay in Iraq past the end of the year. “I’d like them to make a decision, you know: Do they want us to stay? Don’t they want us to stay? … But damn it, make a decision,” he said.

Top U.S. officials have suggested that the Iraqis need U.S. troops in Iraq past 2011 because they are not yet able to defend themselves. According to the AP, the top U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. Lloyd Austin said Iraq “is lacking in important security capabilities” and “gave the strong impression that he thinks Iraq needs a U.S. military presence beyond December.”

However, Panetta suggested just the opposite yesterday in an interview with NBC News:

PANETTA: Well, I think the time has come to make a decision. You know, obviously, there’s been a lot of sacrifices made by U.S. men and women here and there have been a lot of casualties, but I think we’ve also put this country on the right path towards the future.

They are, in fact, able to secure and defend themselves and they are governed, at this time. But if this is going to continue — continue on the right path — then I think that partnership has to continue. And one of the keys to that is making the tough decisions that you have to make when you govern a country. If they want our support in the future, then they’ve got to ask for it.

Watch the entire interview:

Referring to the recent increase in attacks against Americans in Iraq, NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski told Panetta during the interview that some U.S. troops said that “they feel like their hands are somewhat tied” in retaliating when unilateral actions are restricted, and “they don’t feel the Iraqis have actually done enough, and in fact, are not willing to do enough” against insurgents attacking Americans.

If the Iraqis are capable of securing and defending themselves, as Panetta says they are, one wonders then why they aren’t doing more to rein in the attacks on U.S. troops or, indeed, why U.S. troops need to stay in Iraq past 2011.