The head of the Arab League and the prime minister of Qatar called on the U.N. Security Council today to take action against the dramatic increase in violence around Damascus and endorse an Arab League peace plan to facilitate Syrian President Bashar Al Assad’s handover of power. But while the League sought Security council support for their peace plan, new documents gives insights into the disorganized and chaotic Arab League monitoring mission which was suspended two days ago.

Arab League monitors in Syria experienced shortages of equipment and severe restrictions in movement imposed by the Syrian government according to a confidential account [PDF] of the mission acquired by ForeignPolicy.com’s Colum Lynch today.

The document shows that “many of the 166 Arab observers parachuted into Syria on Dec. 24 to document the widening violence were utterly incapable of enduring the rigors of life in a country roiled by social upheaval and conflict…” writes Lynch.

Despite the grim picture painted in the document, Gen. Mohamed Ahmed Moustafa Al-Dabbi, the chief of the Arab League monitoring mission and the author of the document, warned that “Any termination of the work of the mission after this short term will undermine the positive results — even if incomplete — that have been achieved so far.”

The leaked report mainly focuses on the logistical problems faced by the mission, the Arab League’s first major attempt at a monitoring mission, but a recommendation within the report that Arab governments not give up their mediating role to U.N. Security Council sparked a strong reaction from European diplomats. They argue the Arab League mission had no business making such a self-interested assertion while Russian officials say the Security Council should review the League’s full account of the mission, reports Lynch.

Lynch reports that European diplomats have also taken issue with the report’s omission of key details in the death of a French television journalist. Al-Dabbi writes that “reports of the mission already indicate that the French journalist died, and a Belgian reporter injured, as a result of mortar attacks fired by the opposition,” but a European official told ForeignPolicy.com’s Turtle Bay blog that the report didn’t include testimony from other reporters who reported that the French journalist was “exposed to enemy fire deliberately” by pro-government supporters.

Last November, the U.N. nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has engaged in nuclear activity that is “specific to nuclear weapons.” While an Obama administration official noted that the report “does not assert that Iran has resumed a full scale nuclear weapons program,” the IAEA’s director general has repeatedly reiterated, in order to “alert the world,” that Iran’s nuclear program “suggests the development of nuclear weapons.”

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate Intelligence Committee today that Iran has not decided on whether it will go forward with building nuclear weapons, and CIA Director David Petraeus concurred with that assertion. When Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) said during the hearing that the IAEA “must make transparent and public what they find” in Iran, Petraeus pointed to nuclear watchdog’s November report, calling it “the authoritative document” on Iran’s nuclear program:

PETRAEUS: The IAEA inspectors are in Iran right now. I believe their past report was a very accurate reflection of reality, of the situation on the ground. I think that is the authoritative document when it comes to informing the public of all the countries of the world of the situation there. Iran is supposedly, reportedly trying to be more open this particular time perhaps trying to reassure countries as it feels the increased bite of the new sanctions, of the Central Bank of Iran sanctions and the reduction in the purchase of oil from some of its key customers and so I look forward, as do others, to seeing what that public report will provide this time believing again that it will be again the authoritative open source document on the program that Iran is pursuing in the nuclear field.

Watch the clip:

IAEA inspectors were just in Iran getting clarification about concerns it has regarding nuclear weapons related activities and will report their findings to the director general.

Last summer, anti-Muslim activists Pamela Geller and Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney launched a smear campaign against Muslim GOP candidate David Ramadan who was running for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. Ramadan won the race but he and his defenders faced an onslaught of accusations that Ramadan’s candidacy was a form of “stealth Jihad.” Gaffney held a press conference with the McCarthyesque topic of “explor[ing] what is known – and as yet unknown – about Mr. Ramadan’s character and caliber.”

The fear-mongering against Ramadan grew so vociferous that Edwin Meese, former Reagan administration Attorney General and Ronald Reagan Chair in Public Policy at the Heritage Foundation, became a target of Geller and Gaffney’s campaign after he endorsed Ramadan. Geller wrote:

James Lafferty, SIOA board member and VAST [Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force] chairman, just advised me that Ed Meese bought into stealth jihadist David Ramadan’s ruse. That’s just what this country needs, more Muslim Brotherhood plants in the legislature.

And Gaffney, Geller, and Islamophobic blogger Robert Spencer — all of whom are featured in the Center for American Progress’s report, “Fear Inc.: The Roots Of the Islamophobia Network” — issued a letter to Meese, demanding he withdraw his endorsement.

Yesterday, Meese explained to NewsMax TV why he chose to endorse Ramadan and how the hate campaign against Muslims goes against American values. Meese says he supported Ramadan because he’s a “fine man” who “thought very much in terms of political lines the same way I do.” Watch it:

Gaffney, Geller, Spencer and others’ attacks on Ramadan didn’t deter Meese because he saw them as a “fringe group” accusing Ramadan of “…not being totally an American or being an Islamist or somehow not being worthy of running for office.” The attacks strengthened Meese’s conviction in helping Ramadan’s candidacy. “I felt that this was an unfair attack and persisted in my support of him because of that,” said Meese.

Meese says his exposure to the “fringe group” that attacked Ramadan concerns him because “I think it’s always serious when any American is disparaged [...] solely because of their religion or their background when there’s no basis for it.”

It’s heartening to see conservatives begin to speak out against the forces of intolerance within their camp; hopefully, Meese will find more allies than opponents among fellow Republicans.

During today’s Capitol Hill hearing on global threats faced by the U.S., Iran’s nuclear program naturally came up several times. Taking questions from Members of Congress, the top U.S. intelligence official confirmed the reported U.S. intelligence estimate that Iran has not yet decided on building a nuclear weapon, and said pressure on the Islamic Republic could work to prevent such a decision from being made.

In response to a question from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said, “[I]f the decision has been made to press on with a nuclear weapon — and there are certain things they have not done yet to eventuate that — that this would be based on a cost-benefit analysis. We don’t believe [Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei]‘s made that decision yet.”

After introducing Iran’s cost-benefit analysis, Wyden then pressed Clapper on what factors might inform it:

WYDEN: What could convince them, in your view, that their hold on power is being undermined by their nuclear effort?

CLAPPER: Well, I think a restive population because of economic extremis that the country of Iran is incurring. If you look at the plunging value of the Rial [and] the extremely high unemployment rate in Iran. This, I think, could give rise to resentment and discontent among the populace. And this is not to say there haven’t been other examples of that elsewhere in the region.

Watch the video:

Later in the hearing, Clapper added, “I think they do pay attention to international opinion and what others think of them.”

In his prepared testimony (PDF), Clapper said Iran had shifted to a more aggressive posture against the U.S. — even on U.S. soil, as a foiled alleged plot against the Saudi ambassador in D.C. shows — “in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”