Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal — the filmmakers who won an Oscar for The Hurt Locker — have been working on a film about the hunt for Osama bin Laden since 2008. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote last weekend that Bigelow and Boal “are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history” from the Obama administration, “perfectly timed” Dowd says, “to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher.”

Taking cue from Dowd’s column, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has extrapolated a nefarious collusion between Hollywood and the White House on the film. Today he sent a letter to the Defense Department and the CIA demanding an investigation into whether the administration leaked classified information. The National Journal reports that “King wrote that participation by military and CIA officials in making a film about the raid is bound to increase such leaks and undermine the organizations’ hard-won reputations as ‘quiet professionals.’” The letter continues:

“The Administration’s first duty in declassifying material is to provide full reporting to Congress and the American people, in an effort to build public trust through transparency of government,” King said. “In contrast, this alleged collaboration belies a desire of transparency in favor of a cinematographic view of history.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney — noting that all media, including journalists, reporters, writers, and yes, filmmakers, have access to administration officials — called King’s claims “ridiculous“:

“When people — including you — in this room are working on articles, books, documentaries, or movies that involve the president and ask to speak to an administration official, we do our best to accommodate them to make sure the facts are correct,” Carney said. “That is hardly a novel approach to the media. We do not discuss classified information.”

Checkpoint Washington reports that Bigelow and Boal also issued a statement on King’s antics:

Bigelow and Boal said their film “has been in the works for many years and integrates the collective efforts of three administrations, including those of Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, as well as the cooperative strategies and implementation by the Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency.”

“This was an American triumph, both heroic, and non-partisan,” the filmmakers said, “and there is no basis to suggest that our film will represent this enormous victory otherwise.”

The decision of more than 90 U.S. senators to press President Obama for Iraq-style sanctions on Iran flew in the face of what some observers warned could be the beginning of a stress test of the international support for pressuring Iran and another step closer to a potential war with the Islamic Republic.

But a Tuesday press release [PDF] from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brings to mind eery parallels between the escalation of sanctions against Iran and the slow lead up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The press release read:

AIPAC applauds today’s bipartisan letter—signed by 92 U.S. Senators—to the administration urging it to sanction the Central Bank of Iran (CBI), or Bank Markazi. The letter, spearheaded by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), notes that the CBI lies at the center of Iran’s strategy to circumvent international sanctions against its illicit nuclear program.

Sanctioning Bank Markazi might, as mentioned by the Wall Street Journal’s Jay Solomon, be interpreted as an act of war. But that doesn’t seem to bother AIPAC. Indeed, they’ve been down this sanctions road once before before the invasion of Iraq.

In June, Robert Dreyfuss interviewed former AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman who offered details of how its allies in the Bush administration pushed the allegation that Saddam Hussein was in league with al Qaeda. More importantly, Weissman discusses AIPAC’s plans for ultimately bringing regime change in Iran. Dreyfuss writes:

Weissman says that Iran was alarmed at the possibility that the United States might engage in overt and covert efforts to instigate opposition inside Iran. He says that many in AIPAC, especially among its lay leadership and biggest donors, strongly backed regime change in Iran. “That was what Larry [Franklin] and his friends wanted,” he says. “It included lots of different parts, like broadcasts, giving money to groups that would conduct sabotage, it included bringing the Mojahedin[-e Khalgh], bringing them out of Iraq and letting them go back to Iran to carry out missions for the United States. Harold Rhode backed this…. There were all these guys, Michael Ledeen, ‘Next stop Tehran, next stop Damascus.’“

Indeed, as shown in the AIPAC press release, Iran is now the target of similar sanctions and bellicose rhetoric similar to those that targeted Iraq in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Sanctioning Iran’s central bank and imposing a de facto oil embargo on Iranian oil exports would appear to be pages torn from the playbook before the invasion of Iraq.

If the current evidence that AIPAC is supporting an oil embargo isn’t convincing, consider Weissman’s comments on the oil industry’s support of AIPAC, and a boycott of Iranian oil, in the late 1990s:

Even Prince Bandar ibn Sultan, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, and Adel al-Jubeir — then the Saudi embassy spokesman and currently the ambassador — welcomed AIPAC’s work in helping to support the BTC pipeline and isolating Iran, its Persian Gulf rival, economically. Remembers Weissman:

“Prince Bandar used to send us messages. I used to meet with Adel al-Jubeir a couple times a year. Adel used to joke that if we could force an American embargo on Iranian oil, he’d buy us all Mercedes! Because Saudi [Arabia] would have had the excess capacity to make up for Iran at that time.”

It would appear that AIPAC is now using the same escalating measures against Iran that were used before the invasion of Iraq.

When the Arab uprisings began to gather steam a few months ago, a number of conservatives were quick to issue proclamations that the change sweeping the Middle East would finally relegate the Palestinian issue to the margins (where they clearly had long wished it to be). The Hoover Institution’s Josef Joffe claimed that the tumult had revealed Palestine as simply a “distraction” employed by corrupt dictators. Likewise, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon declared that Arabs’ anger at their own leaders had shown the significance of the Palestinian question to be a mirage.

As I noted in responses at the time, this was not only wishful thinking, but poor analysis that misunderstood, or simply disregarded, the evidence in regard to the quality and depth of Arab public opinion on the Palestinian question.

A piece in today’s New York Times backs this up:

In all the tumult of the Arab revolts, one of the most striking manifestations of change is a rejuvenated embrace of the Palestinian cause. The burst in activism in Egypt, Lebanon and even Tunisia has offered a rebuttal to an old bromide of Arab politics, that authoritarian leaders cynically inflamed sentiments over Israel and Palestine to divert attention from their own shortcomings.

But the embrace of the issue also helped confirm its status as a barometer of justice and freedom for many Arabs and Muslims. And now, the demands of an empowered public raise the possibility of a significant change in the region’s foreign policies which, at least tacitly, capitulated to the dictates of the United States and Israel.

“We always said, ‘If you want to liberate Palestine, you need to liberate yourselves,’” said Gamal Eid, founder of the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, in Cairo. [...]

Many surveys routinely find that the Israeli occupation is considered the biggest obstacle to peace and stability in the region. American interference is often listed as a close second.

In a tent in Tahrir Square with a Palestinian banner and a sign that read “Jerusalem will soon be back,” Mustafa Hesham, a 22-year-old with a narrow patch of beard on his chin, said he was “arrested and humiliated just because I support the Palestinian cause.”

“After the revolution that won’t happen again,” he said.

In the Christian Science Monitor, Ibrahim Sharqieh of the Brookings Doha Center argues that the Arab uprisings have already changed the dynamic between the rulers and the people of the region, and that the U.S. relationship with both would be seriously undermined by U.S. efforts to penalize the Palestinians for trying to have their national rights recognized at the United Nations:

To use financial aid as a bargaining tool over a basic human need not only complicates US relations with the region, particularly in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, but also raises serious ethical concerns. The Arab Spring has emphasized values of freedom, justice, and dignity, and US foreign policy in the region should be consistent with supporting these ideals, regardless of the political cost associated with such action. The Palestinians should not be punished for demanding freedom and the recognition of their state.

The United States should view the proposal for a Palestinian state at the UN in September, then, as an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to universal human values of justice and freedom, rather than acquiescing to political pressure and lobbying. And it should also recognize Palestinian statehood as a foundational element not just in ongoing negotiations, but also in forging real peace in the region. The US vote over the Palestinian independence in the UN will therefore be critical not only for the Palestinians but also for the spirit of the Arab Spring.

Unfortunately, as of now it looks like political pressure and lobbying will win out, and the U.S. will end up voting (again) against its own stated interests at the UN in September.

Cross-posted from Middle East Progress.

Last year, President Obama used his recess appointment power to install Robert Ford as the U.S. ambassador to Syria after Republicans blocked Ford’s confirmation because they thought that by sending an envoy to Damascus, the president was rewarding Syrian support for terrorism.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) also opposed sending Ford to Syria. “I felt that dispatching an ambassador to Damascus would be a mistake given [Syrian President Bashar al-]Assad’s failure to alter any of his outrageous policies,” Lieberman writes in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today. But now, Lieberman has changed his mind and is calling on the Senate to finally confirm Ford. He explains why:

Rather than being an envoy to Assad, Mr. Ford is now first and foremost our ambassador to the Syrian people and a bridge to the democratic transition they demand. This is a role for which Mr. Ford—an innovative and tough diplomat with extensive experience in the Middle East—is uniquely well-suited.

The ambassador’s important and powerful visit last month to the city of Hama — where peaceful protesters had seized control, but where Syrian forces now are engaged in a gruesome campaign of violence — was an example of the kind of forward-leaning, gutsy diplomacy that our Syria policy now needs. It was also a powerful reminder that, while we cannot dictate the outcome of the struggle in Syria, U.S. leadership is pivotal –and Amb. Ford provided it.

Indeed, Ford told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that he needs to be in Syria for exactly the reason that Lieberman laid out. “It’s really important now to give Syrians an ear and to amplify their voices especially when the international media is barred from Syria,” he said, adding, “I think we owe it to them to remain supportive and it try to build that support wisely.” U.S. officials said Ford’s contacts there are “the most important sources of information in assessing the Syrian scene.”

Ford has drawn wide praise from analysts here in the U.S., and even from the Syrian pro-democracy activists themselves, for his dramatic visit to Hama last month. And like Lieberman, it has caused some to rethink their view that the United States should not have an ambassador in Syria. Yet the neocons remain unconvinced. Last month, the Foreign Policy Initiative called on Obama to recall Ford from Damascus.