Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) is quickly learning the ropes in her role as the new partner to some of the Obama administration’s harshest foreign policy critics, jumping more fully into the fray on the now heavily-politicized response to the Sept. 11 attack in Libya.

On Fox News this morning, Ayotte gave what was akin to a greatest hits version of the fact/logic-free Republican narrative on Libya, before focusing in on the administration’s not specifically referring to al Qaeda in their public remarks on the attack.

This newest source of outrage of Ayotte and other Republicans stems from the fact that the CIA’s original unclassified talking points, used by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice in explaining the administration’s then-understanding of the attack on Sept. 16, were edited before delivery by Rice. In particular, a direct reference to terrorist groups was changed to read “extremists” during an interagency review to both broaden the scope of the points and not warn suspects of the extent of U.S. knowledge. However, this explanation did not satisfy Ayotte:

AYOTTE: Fourteen days later he did not call it a terrorist attack, nor did he reference it as connected to al Qaeda or an al Qaeda affiliated group. In fact the only reference he made to al Qaeda in that U.N. speech to the world was that al Qaeda had been weakened and Osama bin Laden was dead. This raises additional questions, it goes beyond Ambassador Rice. First of all, why were the talking points changed? It doesn’t make any sense to me that we were trying to dupe al Qaeda, that doesn’t pass the laugh test. But also, why was the President out fourteen days later and still failing to call it a terrorist attack to the world?

Watch Ayotte here:

The certainty that Ayotte shows is in no way shared by the administration or the intelligence community. Investigations into the assault’s perpetrators and their motives are still ongoing, with no official determination given yet by Congress, the State Department, or the FBI. While potential links between the Libyan militia Ansar Al-Sharia and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) have surfaced, there have been no “smoking guns” that the latter helped plan the attack, counter to conservative claims.

While Ayotte and others attempt to learn where the change came from, former CIA Direct David Petraeus has already informed Congress that the talking points used by Rice were approved by the CIA, despite GOP concerns about the original content being changed at the Deputies Committee-level of the National Security Council. The White House has also denied that the edit came from it specifically, having only swapped the word “consulate” for “mission.”

Read more

As Israel’s “Pillar of Cloud” offensive enters its sixth day, the Health Ministry in Gaza this morning reported a death toll of 91, with 700 wounded, including 200 children. On the Israeli side, three people have died.

Part of the credit for far lower Israeli casualties (in addition to fact that Hamas and other militant factions in Gaza are simply massively outgunned by Israel) has been given to the Iron Dome rocket defense system, the funding for which was provided by the United States under the Obama administration. Iron Dome has knocked down over 300 incoming rockets from Gaza since Israel launched its campaign — at a cost of around $60,000 a pop.

As I note today in a piece in Canada’s Globe and Mail, while it’s obviously a great thing to prevent rockets from raining down on Israeli towns and homes, technological marvels such as Iron Dome should not obscure the fact that real, long-term security for Israelis means obtaining real security for Palestinians, too, through a two-state accord in which both peoples’ national rights are recognized.

Moreover, the success of Iron Dome shouldn’t obscure the fact that, even if this latest war does manage to suppress rocket fire into Israel for a period of time, Israel does not seem to have any strategy beyond managing its conflict with the Palestinians through continued occupation, assassinations, and periodic offensives like the one taking place now.

Appearing yesterday on MSNBC, Israeli journalist Noam Sheizaf made this point:

SHEIZAF: I think that Israeli leadership with the great talent of Netanyahu is recognizing the fact that the equilibrium point from Israeli perspective is the status quo. Now, obviously, Israelis are concerned about the rockets, and it’s right now things are unbearable there. But ultimately, the status quo is the solution from the perspective of this government. And for the Palestinian, it’s a perpetual war.

HAYES: Right.

SHEIZAF: The Palestinian have their war every day of the week. So in the long term, this is a process that plays against Israeli interest. But there’s no incentive for the current political leadership to move from it, especially with the free hand it gets from the world and from the United States.

Watch it:

It’s axiomatic that sticking with the status quo is politically safer, especially when the stakes are so high. But as Sheizef says, no one is offering the Israeli people a better option, and this is where the United States and President Obama can play a constructive role by actively re-engaging in a peace process. No one’s suggesting this will be easy, and no, the current moment doesn’t seem to be particularly propitious for peace-making, but the alternative — simply continuing to try and manage a deteriorating status quo — will be disastrous for Israelis, Palestinians, and the United States.

A full-scale U.S. invasion of Iran could cost the global economy $1.7 trillion, according to the Federation of American Scientists, a nonpartisan think tank which released a report on Friday detailing the estimated costs of different approaches, including military strikes, to solving the Iranian nuclear issue. A “bombing campaign” could cost $1.2 trillion. If the U.S. decided to go about striking Iran’s nuclear sites “surgically,” it’d still cost the global economy more than $700 billion.

Not surprisingly, the group found that a diplomatic approach would be one of the least expensive ways to solve the issue. A continued, strengthened sanctions push could cost the global economy about $64 billion. If the U.S. decided to “isolate” and “blockade” the Iranian oil industry it could bring the cost $325 billion. The most frugal option, at an estimated $60 billion, would be to “de-escalate” with the U.S. uniltaterally taking “steps to show that the United States is willing to make concessions.”

The report bases its estimates on factors including: “(1) financial market losses, (2) oil price increases, (3) military costs and other expenditures to provide security, (4) damage to infrastructure resulting from conflict, and (5) other global economic costs.” The FAS created the report to “to provide a starting point for discussion about one category of potential outcomes” because it believes there has been “less discussion about the outcomes and consequences of any international actions that might be set in motion if and when Iran crosses that line.”

In the past, other organizations have attempted to estimate the potential financial costs of a military attack on Iran. The Truman National Security Project released an online game simulating an attack in October; while the game focused mostly on the potential diplomatic and military issues associated with an attack, it did include data on worldwide oil costs if Iran were attacked. Whether the military approach was surgical strikes or full-out invasion, the game resulted in near-disaster for the player.

Thus far, the Obama administration has advocated for a diplomatic approach toward the Iran nuclear issue: sanctions enforced by the administration and its European allies have resulted in enormous pressure on the Iranian economy. In recent weeks, Iranian officials have seemed more open to direct negotiations with the U.S. On Friday, Mark Fitzpatrick, an expert on the Iranian nuclear program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that the latest IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program “shows Iran continues to make incremental advances, but almost as if calibrating progress so as not to spark a crisis.” Fitzpatrick added that Iran “has 10% more enriched uranium and 10% more centrifuges than 3 months ago. The rial dropped 40%, so this time sanctions are winning.”