The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Plans to Cut Its Staff by Half at Iraq Embassy,” at least shows we are coming to our senses regarding the scope of our mission in Iraq, through a presence that is more suited to our national security interests for the country.

With the final troops having left just two months ago, the embassy staff had swelled to 16,000 people, with only 2,000 of them as actual diplomats. Meanwhile, Iraq has exerted its authority and made things as inconvenient as possible for the United States, especially the security contractors who are viewed as “cowboys.”

The political situation prohibits the Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, from being overly friendly to the United States, and the size of the embassy makes it seem like U.S. occupation under another name.

As a comparison, the staff for the U.S. embassy in Turkey is only 55, with less than 10 of them as actual diplomats. So Iraqi suspicion of the U.S. embassy’s purposes may actually be grounded in fact.

Perhaps, it is our unwillingness to acknowledge that the lives of all our young Americans may have been lost in vain, a reluctance to admit the size of our error in invading that nation.

At least, the cut in our embassy staff will ensure that we do not compound our mistakes in the future.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Egypt Defies U.S. by Setting Trial for 19 Americans,” describes an increasingly worse situation for non-profit groups trying to help Egypt on the road to democracy.

Using leftover restrictions from the Mubarak regime, the current military government has raided the offices of groups it welcomed last fall and now arrested some of the key members. A total of 19 Americans from the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute are affected, and the danger they face seems very real.

Meanwhile, 40 Congresspersons, the Secretary of State and the President have contacted the head military leader, Field Marshall Tantawi, to note that by recent law, the U.S. must certify that Egypt is making progress towards democracy before releasing more than $1 billion in military aid.

Their pleas seem to be falling on deaf ears. In the past, when Egyptian governments have experienced upheaval, they have tried to divert their public’s attention by redirecting anger towards the United States, an unpopular entity due to its support of Israel the the Iraq war.

Yet any kind of break in the alliance between Egypt and the U.S. carries potentially serious consequeneces for Israel, because the three-way relationship is the only bulwark upholding the Egypt-Israeli Camp David accord.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Drones Stir Outrage in Iraq; Fleet May Grow,” describes the increasing use of a new technology for the military, CIA and now, the State Department.

U.S. technology has always served as the trump card to keep us on top, and the new use of drones for protection of U.S. citizens, especially as monitoring devices for potential threats against State Department convoys, empowers our officials in their diplomatic undertakings.

It’s also important to understand the difference between State Department drones and military ones. The most important, that State Department drones are unarmed, gives their use added legitimacy. In fact, the wingspan for unarmed aerial vehicles (UAVs) is 18 inches compared to 55 feet for the armed Predator and Reaper drones more typically employed over Pakistan.

Of course, the Iraqi government is now making a big deal about these unarmed UAVs, claiming sovereignty over its own skies. However, much of the clamor is for domestic political purposes, and after the withdrawal of U.S. armed troops, it is hard to fathom that the current government would stop the use of these drones, employed partly for their own protection.

We’ll see what happens. However, after recent events in Somalia, our President is getting a reputation as someone not to mess around with.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “As Tensions Rise, Egypt Bars Exit of Six Americans,” describes a situation fraught with peril and a possible suspension of U.S. military aid.

Congress has conditioned foreign aid on the continuation of democratic progress in Egypt, and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, must certify that progress to release the appropriated funds. After President Obama specifically called Egypt’s military leader, Field Marshall Tantawi, to emphasize that process, the Egyptian government has refused to allow six Americans working at NGOs to leave the country.

The organizations involved, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, are pro-democracy groups working in Egypt to affect positive change. They have been repeatedly raided by police in recent months, and this week, one of the directors, Sam LaHood, was arrested at an Egyptian airport before he took a flight to Dubai.

Complicating matters further, Mr. LaHood is the son of Ray LaHood, the transportation secretary in President Obama’s administration.

Now, there is a big kerfuffle, and the United States’ military aid to Egypt, totaling $1.3 billion is at stake. This sum was previously regarded as inviolate as a positive reinforcement for the 1979 treaty with Israel. With Islamic-based parties moving into power, even the treaty itself is at stake.

It is a tangled situation even for professional diplomats and a skilled negotiator such as Ms. Clinton.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Afghan Soldiers Step Up Killings of Allied Forces,” describes an irreconcilable difference between the cultures in Afghanistan and the United States.

As a result of these differences, the very Afghan soldiers being trained by Allied Forces are committing acts of homicide against U.S. forces. Though previously dismissed as isolated incidents, it appears there is a mutual disrespect between the two sides that has led to the murder of 58 Allied Forces by the Afghan Army and police units.

The issue came to the fore again when videos surfaced of U.S. Marines pissing on dead Afghan civilians. Believe it or not, these pictures were praised by certain members of U.S. forces on their respective Facebook accounts.

Afghanistan has a history of rejecting foreign forces on their soil, and it seems that even after the U.S. Army leaves, they will receive no thanks for their efforts.

At least, we can be thankful to have rid the country of Al Qaeda and to have eventually found and eliminated Osama bin Laden. And perhaps we have brought some measure of civilization, at least in the way they educate and respect their female members.

The killing of U.S. soldiers though by the very people they are training is particularly inexcusable.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Iran Adversaries Said to Step Up Covert Actions,” correctly portrayed the latest assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist as a potential alternative to war against Iran.

The covert actions currently being undertaken by the United States and Israel include assassinations, bombings, cyberattacks and defections, and they are having a devastating effect. The latest incident, the assassination of a supervisor at the Natanz Uranium Enrichment Plant, was carried out with the same modus operandi as the other assassinations: a motorcycle draws up to the car, attaches a magnetic bomb to the outer surface, then speeds away.

In other incidents, just three months ago, a bomb exploded at an Iranian missile plant, wreaking intensive damage and killing an Iranian general at the same time. And the famous Stuxnet computer worm put about a fifth of the Iranian centrifuges out of action.

The one nice thing about these events is that the Iranians don’t know who to retaliate against. Unlike war, which would draft swift international condemnations, sabotage does not evoke the same sort of nationalist outrage.

The hope is that these covert actions in combination with international sanctions will eventually make the Iranians realize that the cost of a nuclear weapon is just too great and not worth the effort.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Iran Sentences American to Die on Spy Charges,” represents another wrench in the frigid relations between the two countries and is unlikely to result in a negotiated release.

Iran is feeling besieged these days after four rounds of sanctions by the United Nations, a computer virus against its centrifuges, the assassination of nuclear scientists and threatened boycotts against its most lucrative export, oil.

As a result, they have conducted military exercises and threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, an essential shipping lane for Arab oil through the Persian Gulf. The U.S. military has responded vigorously to this threat and said it would be a red line that Iran should not cross.

The American convicted has a military background and could conceivably be a spy. The CIA has refused to comment on the allegations, but the family and U.S. government have protested vigorously. One hope is that the conviction has been made as a bargaining chip for possible nuclear talks offered by Turkey as a host.

Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to make bellicose statements about Iran that are totally unhelpful to resolving an already difficult situation. Only Ron Paul seems to understand that war is a terrible thing and should only occur as a last resort.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Iraq Insurgents Take Up Politics, Raising Tensions,” describes an alarming attempt by a militant Iraqi group, beholden to Iran, to enter the Iraqi government, with the blessing of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Maliki is playing a political game, trying to get new allies in the Iraqi parliament where he is currently persona non grata after an attempt to arrest the country’s Sunni Vice President on hard-to-believe accusations of running a hit squad.

This move resulted in a walkout by many members of Parliament, leaving them without the quorum necessary to do business. Maliki claims that the new group, Asabi Ahl al-Haq, or AAH for short, has foresworn violence … after killing scores of Americans and being identified as having a close relationship with the Iranian al-Quds fighting force.

That remains to be seen with numerous American diplomats and securithy contractors still in the country. Even the belligerent political party of Moktada al-Sadr has had a falling out with AAH and views them as too radical to enter the government. Of course, AAH would need to win some elections first.

And meanwhile, violence has spiked again in the country after the Americans’ departure. Multiple bombings, including a recent one killing more than 40 Shiite pilgrims, threaten to renew a civil war in the nation.

What a mess.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Iran Threatens to Choke Route of Oil Shipments,” discusses the rising tension between the United States and Iran as additional sanctions are considered in light of Iran’s continuing attempts to create a nuclear weapon.

Iran’s response, a threat to cut off all oil moving through the strait of Hormuz (through which 20 percent of the world’s oil flows), is strengthened by the current naval exercises the country is holding in the region. The United States immediately countered that it had a plan to keep the strait open, if necessary.

The sanction that seems to have Iran most concerned involves a provision to stop dealing with nations who use Iran’s central bank, an institution through which must of the money flows from Iran’s export of oil.

This threat could constitute one of President Obama’s rare crises, if it is carried out. Most of his other challenges this term have involved the economy or distant matters concerning the Arab Spring.

If Iran blocks the strait of Hormuz, it would create a crisis on a par with the Cuban missile crisis faced by Kennedy. Of course, no one wants this to occur if there is any way to prevent it in accordance with our national security needs.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Clears Path for Yemen Chief to Get Care Here,” describes a questionable decision by administration officials to let Ali Abdullah Saleh come to Columbia-Presbyterian in New York to receive medical treatment for wounds sustained during a bombing in June.

Mr. Saleh has already travelled to Saudi Arabia to get initial treatment but still suffers from extensive burns, shrapnel and an inner-ear problem that affects his balance. U.S. officials, after much debate, have decided to issue him a visa, provided he supplies his itinerary and avoids any efforts to use the visit to shore up his political position.

Mr. Saleh had already agreed to resign and hold new elections in February, but he is notorious for delaying tactics, and there are many indications that he plans to avoid giving up power, if possible. It may also be risky for the U.S. to appear to assist him; when the ex-Shah of Iran came to the United States for similar reasons, it led to the infamous takeover of the U.S. Embassy by outraged Islamic radicals.

There are some who say that it may prove useful to get Mr. Saleh out of his country as his mere presence tends to inflame the situation there. But that remains to be seen, and the trip is fraught with peril for the United States.