The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Tehran Rejects Nuclear Accord, Officials Report.” It describes the decision by Iran to reject an agreement negotiated with the United States and European Union to transfer about three-quarters of its uranium to Russia for processing. This processing would render the uranium useful for nuclear reactors but not for making an atomic bomb.

While Iran expressed a willingness to continue negotiating, this decision to reject the core plank of the agreement just concluded will inevitably lead to stricter sanctions of the country, provided that Russia and China can be persuaded to endorse them.

The decision also seems to represent a failure of President Obama’s attempt to engage our enemies instead of rejecting them out of hand. On the other hand, having tried the diplomatic approach and going the extra mile for a peaceful resolution, the United States is now in a stronger position when the issue of sanctions is debated.

In my opinion, there will never be an unforced nuclear agreement with Tehran because the development of nuclear weaponry represents a status symbol that the nation is desperately pursuing, if only to mollify its population with national pride. And after looking at our tepid response to North Korea, Iran must feel they will be able to get away with this approach.

Another thorn bush for President Obama to untangle.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Brother of Afghan Leader Said to be Paid by C.I.A.” It describes the situation regarding the brother of President Hamid Karzai, Wali Karzai, who is paid by the C.I.A. for a variety of services. The conflict is especially sharp because of the recent fraud committed during the election for President of Afghanistan where Abdullah Abdullah has apparently forced a runoff.

Wali Karzai is described as a strong influence in the  south of Afghanistan where the Taliban insurgency is the strongest. He helps the C.I.A. recruit a paramilitary force and has established a close working relationship with the agency.

However, he also appears to be benefiting from the illegal opium trade and is viewed as somewhat of a thug in the region. He definitely does not jibe with the counterinsurgency strategy of winning over the local population.

On the other hand, he is also viewed as a go-between with local leaders of the Taliban who may be useful in stopping Al Qaeda in a similar manner as the Sunni in Iraq.

In my opinion, this whole mess represents a typical conundrum during the fog of war, especially when fighting against shadowy elements like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Hamid Karzai’s brother may represent a necessary compromise in a battlefield situation.

The lead article in The New York Times this morning is titled, “Senate’s Leader Vows to Pursue a Public Option.” It describes the decision by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to include a government-run healthcare plan in the legislation he brings to the floor of the Senate. The plan will include an opt-out provision for states who do not wish to participate.

Senator Reid’s decision was praised by much of the Democratic caucus and endorsed by President Obama as the best means to contain healthcare costs. Predictably, insurance companies and Republicans attacked the decision including Senator Olympia Snowe, the sole Republican supporter of healthcare legislation.

In my opinion, Senator Reid chose the right course. The overwhelming majority of the American people support a public option, and it seems to be the sole element of healthcare reform with a potential for really changing the system. I believe the one or two moderate Democrats in the Senate who have expressed pro forma objections will eventually come aboard for the good of the country, the Democratic Party and their own reelection. No Democratic Senator wants to be the one who killed this nation’s best hope for healthcare reform in a generation.

So, kudos to Senator Reid for finally standing up to the Republican attack machine and taking a risk on behalf of the American people.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Deadliest Bombs Since ’07 Shatter Iraqi Complexes.” It describes two simultaneous suicide bombings yesterday at the Iraqi Justice Ministry and a provincial council area. As of publication, 132 people were dead and more than 520 wounded. The bombings were particularly troubling because they occurred at high-profile government buildings and because the bombers were able to pass through multiple checkpoints.

The article goes on to note that the Foreign and Finance Ministries had already been bombed in August, and this recent event has thrown a wrench into the plans of Prime Minister Maliki. He is in the midst of campaigning for the national elections in January and has tried to present the image of having turned the corner on all the past violence. He had already been removing many of the barricades around Baghdad before this bombing occurred.

The article paints an especially vivid picture of the event, at one point noting that a water main had broken, and when mixed with all the blood, it had created red pools all around the area.

Unfotunately, I don’t find these events particularly surprising. I have empathy for the people of Iraq and that troubled land, but I don’t think there’s anything the United States can do, short of becoming more involved in that quagmire of human suffering and misery. The Iraqi people must work out their own destiny, and one can only hope that events like yesterday will increase their resolve to root out those whose only real goal is to spread anarchy and hatred.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “NATO Ministers Support General on Afghan War.” It describes a decision by defense ministers from NATO to support General Stanley McChrystal in his recommendation to add 40,000 new U.S. troops in Afghanistan. General McChrystal made a suprise visit to the meeting to explain his point of view.

The article points out, however, that this point of view has not been widely supported among the political leadership of NATO countries, a significant caveat. General McChrystal, however, is continuing to lobby, an action that conflicts with our country’s tradition of civilian leadership of the Armed Forces. He was not originally scheduled to make any appearance here, and his continued insistence, at a time when the White House is undergoing a series of meetings to evaluate his recommendation, is becoming redundant and suggests an effort to box President Obama into a decision in his favor.

Vice President Joe Biden, who supports a more focused counterterrorism approach, as opposed to counterinsurgency, seems to have much of history on his side, if not the military-industrial complex. It has been widely quoted that there are only about 100 combatants from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, compared to Pakistan where they have established training camps — and where Osama bin Laden is hiding out.

The Vice President has been widely praised for his acumen on foreign policy, and I’m hoping that President Obama will listen to him.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “Vatican Bidding to Get Anglicans to Join Its Fold.” It describes a new Vatican initiative to make it easier for Anglicans to join the Catholic church and was viewed as an effort to attract new members among Anglicans who opposed their church’s liberal theology, especially regarding the ordination of women and gay priests.

The attempt was described as especially powerful regarding the Anglican Church in Great Britain where there are 26 million members. The Vatican’s announcement set up a formal structure to streamline conversions that had previously been considered on a case-by-case basis. Historically, the Anglican Church had split from the Catholic Church during the Reformation in the 16th century concerning theological differences including the primacy of the Pope.

The overture was a continuation of past attempts at unity including the ability for married Anglican priests to convert and become Catholic priests. However, married Anglican priests were forbidden from becoming bishops.

The New York Times article also mentioned some problems with the overture including ownership of property for wholesale conversions and the ability for large numbers of married Anglican priests to become Catholic priests while Catholic priests were forbidden to marry.

As a devoted member of an Assembly of God Church, a Pentecostal Protestant denomination, I hesitate to comment on this article other than to note, on an individual basis, it is our relationship with Jesus that matters most.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Afghan Leader Said to Accept Runoff Contest.” It describes a decision by the current President of Aghanistan, Hamid Karzai, to accept a decision by the country’s election panel mandating a runoff election with his opponent, Abdullah Abdullah.

Such a result bodes well for the United States and our presence in the country. Despite all the debate about talking to dictatorships, e.g., North Korea and Iran, it still behooves our country to promote democracy throughout the world and to be on the right side of the people’s wishes.

The runoff election, though difficult, will probably result in Mr. Karzai’s re-election in any case, and it will legitimize his standing among the Afghan people. It will also provide the United States with a partner in peace and contrast with the violent ways of the Taliban.

Senator John Kerry appears to have played a key role in the outcome. The article notes he was in the country consulting with Mr. Karzai and apparently conveyed the message that we could not increase our troops to support a potentially illegitimate government. This decision on the number of troops seems to have provided the key leverage necessary for Mr. Karzai to aquiesce to a runoff election.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Diverse Sources Pour Cash Into Taliban’s War Chest.” It describes how the Taliban have expanded from the drug trade to many other ways to finance their operations. In fact, the Taliban’s main source of funds now comes from foreign donations, specifically from Arab citizens in the Middle East.

These donors contributed about $106 million in the last year alone and have learned how to disguise the source of the funds to prevent interdiction by international sanctions. Other funds come from kidnapping and protection payments from legitimate businesses.

Again, the United States seems to have been caught flat-footed by a clever enemy who is constantly changing and improving its modus operandi. Destroying opium fields now seems like a useless exercise, except for its ability to alienate the farmer who relied on it as a means of survival.

Apparently, Taliban involvement in the drug trade has also expanded to cover every aspect of the industry, including protection payments by the poppy farmers, drug lab operators and the smugglers.

It’s hard to see what use an expansion of the size of the United States troops would have on all these means of achieving funding. In fact, according to the article, the Taliban has already stockpiled enough opium to satisfy two years of world demand, and should some of these other sources dry up, they will still have funding for a long time to come.

Maybe, President Obama should reconsider being caught up in this increasingly hopeless quagmire.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “U.S. Deficit Rises to $1.4 Trillion, Biggest Since ’45.” It notes that our deficit for the past fiscal year (ending September 30) represents 10 percent of our economy compared to 21.5 percent after World War II.

The article notes that TARP and the two-year stimulus program account for only a quarter of the deficit, and one of the main culprits was the high jobless rate, a major factor in decreasing revenues. It also points out that President Obama was faced with a severe recession and financial crisis when he assumed office, and that dictated his need to provide large infusions of cash.

In my opinion, this topic distracts from the real problems facing this Administration, namely the need to get Americans back to work. Many people are suffering despite the relative boom on Wall Street, and they need immediate relief on humanitarian grounds. Of course, this will add even more to the deficit, but only in the short term.

President Obama has done what he had to do, and many have suggested that the stimulus was too small. In fact, some are suggesting it would be disastrous to try to balance the budget when the economy is still recovering.

Of course, Republicans will try to use this statistic to rally opposition against the health care bill, but this tactic smacks of political opportunism more than anything else.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Pakistan Attacks Show Tightening of Militant Links.” It describes a new alliance in Pakistan among Al Qaeda, the Taliban and local militant groups including those devoted to fighting India’s presence in Kashmir.

The article analyzes the recent takeover of the Pakistan Army headquarters as well as the assault on two Pakistani military training centers and a federal investigations building on Thursday. It found cooperation between Pakistan militant groups is increasing in a combined attempt to overthrow the government and forestall a planned government attack on Taliban and Al Qaeda strongholds in the Waziristan provinces.

In my opinion, this unholy alliance represents one more setback to American efforts in Pakistan. By combining their objectives against India, the United States and the civilian Pakistani government, the militant groups have become a powerful force to be reckoned with, not just guerilla bands carrying out isolated attacks. Even more ominously, the article notes that the Pakistani population supports the militant groups because they view the Americans as an occupying force.

This alliance could make it even more difficult for the Pakistani government because of its ties with the military, intelligence forces and throughout society. Leaks and inside connections will make it nearly impossible to mount a surprise attack, and militant support among the citizenry will ensure their ability to melt away into the population during any sustained operation.