The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Militant Network is Intact Long After Mumbai Siege.” It describes the efforts of India and Pakistan to arrest the terrorists responsible for attacking two five-star hotels, a cafe, train station and Jewish institution in Mumbai, India. The article is frightening in its implication of future conflict between the two nuclear-armed nations.

Apparently, the terrorist group, Lashkar-e-Taiba (or Lashkar for short) continues to operate with impunity in Pakistan and maintains unofficial relations with the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, as well as the Pakistani military. In addition, the government refuses to arrest the head of Lashkar, Hafiz Saeed, despite Indian intelligence regarding his participation in the Mumbai plot.

Lashkar also boasts wide membership, up to 150,000, among the Pakistani people as well as support for its mission to liberate the Muslim majority in Kashmir, currently under Indian control. More ominously, Lashkar is planning future attacks, and, if successful, it would most likely generate an Indian military response.

The mind boggles at the current possibilities of nuclear or otherwise horrific combat these days including between Iran and Israel, India and Pakistan, and, last but not least, between Al Qaeda and the United States. Any single one of these events would be enough to start a conflagration that would be difficult to control.

Hopefully, while President Obama works on health care and other domestic matters, he’s keeping his eye on the ball overseas.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “U.S. is Seeking Tougher Tactics Against Tehran.” The article describes recent developments in our Iran foreign policy including the push for new sanctions in light of the revelation of a secret nuclear facility there.

The article describes some of the possibilities and limitations of the sanctions approach. It lists possible new sanctions such as banning the import of refined gasoline products but notes it will be hard to get Russia and especially China to agree. It also notes the difficulties of pursuing sanctions that are bound to be “leaky” and the fact that Iran will probably allow inspectors to visit the new plant, thus making it even more difficult to enforce and obtain a broad coalition. In other ominous news, Iran fired three short-range missiles yesterday in an apparent act of defiance.

This doesn’t look good. What happens when we impose sanctions and nothing changes? Do we just wait while Iran continues to build a bomb? Our people, and by extension our government, are not known for their patience. At some point, when sanctions fail, hawks will start to beat the drums for military action.

The article notes that some sanctions that are effective with other people, such as suspending passports and visas for high-ranking officials, aren’t effective with members of Iran’s Islamic Republic because they don’t want to indulge themselves in foreign pleasures in the first place. And in addition, sanctions are bound to hurt the Iranian people more than the government, a people we have started to bond with in light of the protests against the recent election there.

In short, escalation seems bound to occur with no alternative in sight.

The lead story in The New York Times today is titled, “U.S. and Allies Press Iran Over Nuclear Plant Deception.” It describes the action of Western allies after the revelation of a new, previously hidden, nuclear plant being built by Iran deep inside a mountain at a Revolutionary Guard headquarters near Qom. Because of the small size of the plant, it is unsuitable for commercial uses but perfect for building a bomb that only requires 55 pounds of enriched uranium.

Iran, after learning that the Western allies had discovered the plant, rushed to declare it in a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Meanwhile, President Obama, Sarkozy of France and Gordon Brown of Great Britain, revealed the deception and warned Iran to cooperate during the first direct negotiations with the United States in 30 years, due to start on October 1.

The article requires little commentary because it speaks for itself. Iran was caught and its pretense of only wanting peaceful nuclear energy was shown to be a farce. I am pessimistic about any change in direction by Iran; it’s attempt to build a bomb has become a matter of national pride, and it will be unable to reverse direction without losing face. This crisis, however, does present an opportunity for President Obama to really show what he’s made of. It will be interesting to follow events over the next few weeks to see how he handles the situation.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Terror Suspect is Charged with Preparing Explosives.” It describes the arrest of an Afghani-American who had apparently prepared explosive chemicals after training and instruction in an Al Qaeda camp in Pakistan.

Unlike some of the phony Bush arrests, this plot appears to be the real thing. In addition to his training in Pakistan, the arrested man, Najibullah Zazi, was preparing the same chemical used in the London subway bombing, TATP. He had purchased a large number and volume of the necessary chemicals at beauty supply stores and had already begun to “cook” some of them to prepare the explosive.

The details of the plot are chilling, and of even more concern is the fact that he was a legal resident of the United States and thus able to move about relatively freely to accomplish his goals. One factor buried in the interior of the article is of particular concern: the FBI had botched the investigation by informing an imam in Brooklyn who immediately warned Mr. Zazi that he was under suspicion.

This forced the FBI to make a hasty arrest before learning the full scope of Mr. Zazi’s plans, including any accomplices. Another item buried in the interior of the article: several backpacks were found in Mr. Zazi’s apartment. In my opinion, these could have been the vehicles for simultaneous explosions, the preferred method of Al Qaeda, and suggest that several individuals are still at large.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama, at U.N., is Backed on Iran and Arms Curbs.” It describes a major breakthrough with Russia regarding sanctions against Iran as well as progress on future arms negotiations and the renewal of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

President Medvedev agreed, for the first time, that serious sanctions against Iran may be necessary. In addition, both China and Russia, agreed to support a U.S. resolution in the Security Council to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

In my opinion, these results clearly demonstrate the superiority of President Obama’s approach compared to the bluster and threatening of the Bush administration. Though the Administration maintains there was no quid pro quo, one can’t help but attribute part of the results to the decision to modify the U.S. approach to missile shield technology originally slated for installation in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Being agreeable and personable with other leaders gets results. And it doesn’t hurt to be intelligent for a change, too. While there is still an impasse in the Middle East, you have to believe that, if any one person can make a difference, it would be President Obama.

Compared to the Bush administration approach, “You’re either with us or against us,” President Obama says, “Come, let us reason together.” That’s true leadership.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama Considers Strategy Shift in Afghan War.” It describes deliberations by the administration regarding the best way to proceed in Afghanistan. The alternatives include a plan by Vice President Biden to pull back from opposing the Taliban and focusing on Al Qaeda instead, primarily in Pakistan. The potential change in strategy is described as a shift from a counterinsurgency effort to counterterrorism.

The article notes several possibilities and contingencies. The potential fraud in the recent Afghanistan election makes it more diffiicult to partner with President Karzai due to his increasing unpopularity among the Afghan people. In addition, the evaluation and coming request from General McChrystal for more troops raise the fear of getting bogged down in a quagmire. Many Democrats in Congress share this fear and oppose increased involvement.

In my opinion, President Obama  is correct to reconsider. Vice President Biden was originally chosen as a  candidate because of his foreign policy experience, and his opinion should be reconsidered, if only for that reason. One thing to observe as this debate moves forward: How fixed or flexible is  President Obama compared to President Bush? Once President Bush had decided upon a course of action, it was almost impossible to sway him. His stubborn streak was a major weakness. Can President Obama reevaluate his policy as the facts change (e.g., the recent election in Afghanistan), and admit he may have been wrong?

We shall see.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Aggressive Push in White House in States’ Races.” It describes a hands-on political strategy by President Obama and his strategist, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, in intervening in State political campaigns, most recently their request for New York State Governor, David Paterson, to forego a reelection bid.

The article also notes other White House interventions, such as the Senate race in Pennsylvania where they are supporting Senator Arlen Spector in a primary, and another endorsement in a Democratic primary for Senator of Colorado. The New York State intervention, however, is noteworthy because it involves a Governor’s race and the candidate they are trying to beat is Rudy Guiliani, a potential opponent in 2012.

In my opinion, the intervention was most definitely mishandled. Sure, this sort of thing goes on in politics all the time, but it is rare for it to be displayed in the front pages of The New York Times. The timing, just before a visit by President Obama to New York State, was particularly inauspicious. In fact, if the situation was just left alone to play out by natural causes, Andrew Cuomo would have easily defeated Governor Paterson in a primary and gained strength in the effort. Now, the results of any primary will just look like the result of the stereotypical “smoke-filled room.”

So, yes, the intervention by the White House is not surprising or shocking. The poor execution by its operatives most definitely is.

Today’s lead article in The New York Times is titled, “Terror Suspect Had Bomb Guide, Authorities Say.” It describes the arrest and criminal complaint against several figures implicated in a plot to make and detonate explosives in the United States. According to the article, notes were found on the laptop of the central individual, Najibullalh Zazi, about the manufacture and handling of explosives as well as detonators and a fusing system. Mr. Zazi also participated in an Al Qaeda training camp in Pakistan.

There also seems to be additional developing information about the plot though no details regarding the timing or target. According to the article, there was a classic tension between counterterrorism officials and law enforcement agencies. The counterterrorism people want to proceed with an arrest as soon as the danger is discovered while law enforcement prefers to conduct surveillance in order to create a stronger case and find all the individuals and information involved.

In my opinion, unlike the phony or crackpot fears and plots during the Bush era, this matter seems to be the real deal, a genuine threat from Al Qaeda. The training in an Al Qaeda facility in Pakistan is particularly worrisome. Information is still developing, but we should be grateful to the authorities for protecting us. Stay tuned for more information to come.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama Reshapes a Missile Shield to Blunt Tehran.” The article describes a decision by President Obama to stop President Bush’s proposed anti-ballistic missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic and use smaller ground-based interceptors instead.

The article notes several advantages to this system. First of all, they meet an immediate threat due to Iran’s recent success in developing short and medium-range missiles. President Obama will be using SM-3 interceptors based on current technology. As a result, these interceptors can be deployed on ships in 2011 compared to a much later activation of an ABM shield.

Also, 40 to 50 interceptors can be activated instead of the 10 bigger missiles planned for Poland.  And the new configuration does a better job of protecting Israel, thus delaying an independent attack by that country on Iran. And even though the Republicans are doing their usual knee-jerk reflexive opposition to anything that President Obama decides, it isn’t such a terrible thing to have better relations with Russia who had expressed deep opposition to the Bush plan.

In my opinion, this is a win-win situation. We gain a better defense system sooner and placate the Russians and Israelis at the same time. We are reacting to the events on the ground (a phrase that Republicans love to use), namely Iran’s focus on shorter range missiles in a flexible manner.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “Senator Unveils Bill to Overhaul U.S. Health Care.” It describes a bill released by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus. The bill comes after three months of negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, the “Gang of Six,” but no Republican ended up supporting the legislation.

The bill is less expensive than House versions, and the CBO has scored it as budget neutral, a key demand by President Obama, who said he would not sign a bill if it adds one dime to the deficit. Partly as a result, however, it places significantly more burdens on the middle class who would be required to purchase insurance with reduced subsidies. And the bill does not provide the highly promoted “public option” designed to limit health care costs.

In my opinion, Senator Baucus has been played by the Republicans who demanded compromises then deserted the final bill after the compromises had been included. The Republicans clearly have no desire to support any form of legislation despite their protests to the contrary. So, in effect, Senator Baucus and the Democrats were negotiating with themselves.

It is hard to see the silver lining when some Democrats demand a public option and others vow to oppose it. Plus the Democratic vote in the Senate, even if all Senators support the bill, is limited to 58 votes. And even Senator Olympia Snowe, the best shot for Republican support, still objects to portions of the legislation. Still, I hope against hope for some way forward. The country demands it, and many of our citizens desperately need it.