New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) during an Iftar dinner two weeks ago called Islamophobic conservatives “bigots.” In the wake of Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN) anti-Muslim witch hunt, Christie said he is “disturbed” by the intolerance against Muslims:

I’ll tell you that there is a gaze of intolerance that is going around our country that is disturbing to me. This is something that as a political leader you can think you understand as an objective observer, but you don’t really understand until you become part of the story.

Right wingers attacked Christie last year for appointing a Muslim judge to the New Jersey Superior Court, claiming it shows that he is “in bed with the enemy” and helping bring about Sharia law. Christie said at the time that he was “disgusted” by the attacks and again defended the appointment at last month’s Iftar dinner. He even asked the predominantly Muslim audience for future tips. “Please continue to recommend highly qualified and interested folks for positions in our administration,” he said. Watch the clip:

The right-wing group Family Security Matters picked up on Christie’s comments, and doesn’t seem pleased. But as Matt Katz notes, “beware that the comments section contains offensive words against Christie and Muslims.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has an op-ed in today’s Washington Post in which he declares the Iranian regime on the side of freedom and reform in the Middle East, and ready to help . “During the past three decades, Iran has consistently underlined that it is the duty of all governments to respect their people’s demands,” writes the representative of a government that crushed pro-reform demonstrations in 2009, and is now aiding the Syrian regime in doing the same. “We have been in favor of change to meet people’s demands, whether in Syria or Egypt or anywhere else.”

Announcing “Iran’s readiness to host a meeting of countries committed to immediately implementing” steps to end the violence in Syria, Salehi declares “Iran’s support for political reform in Syria that will allow the Syrian people to decide their destiny. This includes ensuring that they have the right to participate in the upcoming free and fair presidential election under international supervision.”

Leaving aside Salehi’s efforts to kill satire dead, it’s important to understand Iran’s efforts to make itself useful in Syria in context of its larger effort to use participation in various international organizations and venues to ease its growing isolation over its nuclear program.

There’s the upcoming meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) in Mecca on August 14, which will bring Muslim leaders from around the world. Then there’s the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit in Tehran on August 29-30, which Iranian lawmaker Abed Fattahi optimistically insisted “will symbolize the Islamic Republic’s strength and successful diplomacy in the international arena.” Iran has been promoting the NAM Summit heavily, making a special show of inviting new Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, who has not announced whether he’ll attend.

Iran has also boosted its outreach considerably in Latin America, though with limited success, and attempted to ally with international efforts to control narcotics smuggling, even as evidence mounts that its own Revolutionary Guards Corps is deeply involved in the international narcotics trade.

None of this is to say that Iran can’t ever play a positive role in these issues, just that it’s important to see Iran’s increased diplomatic activism as a reaction to the tightening sanctions and increased isolation resulting from their failure to adequately address concerns over its nuclear work. The key question, of course, remains whether this pressure will change Iran’s cost-benefit calculus with regard to its nuclear program. But, at the very least, Iran’s own behavior here is an important rejoinder to those who claim that the Obama administration’s diplomatic engagement strategy has been a failure.

Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Roscoe Bartlett (MD), in an interview with Politico, called the hyperventilating about the alleged dangers of the looming military spending sequester “a hysteria parade”:

“The average American out there, by big percentages, wants to cut defense by twice the sequester amount,” he said, citing recent polls.

“We need to stop with all the superlatives about the thing and be rational about it and involve the American people on it,” Bartlett said. “It’s their country. It’s their kids that will have to fight the next war. They have a right to be involved, don’t they?”

Indeed, polls have found that a large majority of Americans want to cut military spending. The baseline U.S. defense budget has doubled in the last decade and U.S. military spending represents 40 percent of the world’s total and 70 percent when combined with U.S. allies. But Bartlett’s reasoned position puts him at odds with HASC chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), who regularly tries to scare the public about reducing the Pentagon’s budget.

Defense industry contributions may explain, at least in part, the difference in opinion. According to OpenSecrets.org, defense contractors have given McKeon nearly a half a million dollars, while Bartlett has received just over $100,000.

While Bartlett notes that the sequester is probably not the best way to cut military spending (CAP’s Lawrence Korb has some ideas on some alternative methods), he’s right that it won’t be a “devastating” blow to the military or the nation’s defense. The Congressional Budget Office said recently that it would merely bring Pentagon spending back to 2006 levels.