The State Department is planning to significantly increase the amount of information in its now-famous Visa VIPER cables as part of the impending administration review on the security failures surrounding underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a State Department official tells The Cable.

All departments are required to submit their recommendations to the White House Thursday and the administration is expected to collate the information over the weekend to present to President Obama when he gets back to town, although some conclusions are already leaking out.

But from State's perspective, the key issue remains its handling of information given to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria by Abdulmutallab's father, information that was passed on to the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) in Washington but not linked up with other data that might have kept the disgruntled plotter off the plane to Detroit.

Foggy Bottom seems to be digging into its argument, made by spokesman Ian Kelly on Monday, that State fulfilled its role by passing on the basic information and that it was the NCTC's responsibility to go back and check the database and connect the dots.

"The way the system works now, we rely on the counterterrorism folks to get the cable and go into the database," the official said. "It may have been a presumption on a lot of people's part to gather that the NCTC would actually do that."

So, the fix State is proposing is to include in the VIPER cables from now on "any information that the State Department would have under its purview," the official explained, as to "not rely on someone at NCTC to go into the database and look up the information."

The official acknowledged that too much information could also pose a risk of being counterproductive. But the VIPER cable on Abdulmutallab only had basic info, his short bio and one line stating that his father had some concerns about the would-be attacker. An explicit mention that Abdulmutallab had obtained a visa to travel to the United States would have been helpful.

Whether or not that argument will keep State off the hook is another matter, as the blame game over who is culpable for the security breach heats up. Suffice to say there is plenty of blame to go around.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been leading the State Department's role in the review from her home in Chappaqua, the official said, while Deputy Secretary Jack Lew has been manning the shop here in Washington. Lew and Undersecreatary for Management Patrick Kennedy have participated interagency meetings on Clinton's behalf.

Other State Department officials critical to the review include State Department Counselor Cheryl Mills, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Janice Jacobs, State's coordinator for counterterrorism Dan Benjamin, and the folks in the bureau for Diplomatic Security. Jacobs has been in on the briefings on Capitol Hill.

Despite a lot of bilateral contact over the incident with countries such as Yemen, Nigeria, Netherlands, and the UK, Clinton has been focused on internal issues and plans to turn to diplomatic engagement in a more formal way as early as next week, the official said.

"The secretary has been getting regular updates from senior staff here [at the State Department] and is leading the effort to respond to the president's directive to review all of our processes," said Kelly, when contacted for a comment on the review.

Since President Obama has now come out and blamed the security breach that resulted in a near successful attack by underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on "systemic failures," the question becomes: How do we go about fixing that?

For some answers, The Cable turned to Jim Locher, the president and CEO of the Project on National Security Reform, a nongovernmental organization with ties to National Security Advisor Jim Jones that has been sounding the alarm about America's dysfunctional national security infrastructure for years.

"While President Obama said there were systemic failures, our problem has been that we haven't done systemic reform," said Locher. "We've had lots of reforms in the past but they've been marginal adjustments, ad hoc in nature."

"Here we're seeing play out that lack of integration, that lack of cooperation, that lack of collaboration."

Information sharing across the intelligence agencies is just not occurring to the degree necessary, as evidenced by early reports on the Obama administration's forthcoming review of the incident, which point the finger somewhat at the CIA and the Office of the Director for National Intelligence.

Some of the problem is cultural. For years the mantra has been to move from a "need to know" to a "need to share" mentality, but many in the intelligence community still operate from a risk-avoidance perspective. The fact that the CIA had information from Abdulmutallab's father that it failed to pass on is suggestive of that. In the past, the CIA has been criticized for privileging the protection of its sources and methods over sharing intelligence with other agencies.

But on a bureaucratic level, the reforms that Congress has passed have fallen short and succumbed somewhat to the struggles between the actors, Locher said. Meanwhile the Obama administration, which has yet to come out with a National Security Strategy, hasn't matched its rhetoric with results.

"The Obama administration came in and has been talking about collaboration across the national security system, they've talked the need for integrated effort, for the need to make use of all the instruments of national power and influence, but that's not been translated into action," Locher said.

There aren't incentives for people in the system to get on board with cooperation. Interagency mechanisms have been slow to materialize and where they do exist there is confusion over roles and authorities, he added.

Prime examples are the recent conflict between CIA and ODNI over responsibilities, as detailed in this LA Times piece, as well as longstanding conflict between the State Department and the National Counterterrorism Center (State sought to shift blame this week to NCTC).

Perhaps not surprisingly, Locher is calling for more authority over missions and budgets for the ODNI, which is headed by his ally Adm. Dennis Blair. The 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which created ODNI, made too many compromises and created confusion as a result, he said.

Overall, the underwear bomber incident "just proves why national security reform is so important," Locher said.

Unfortunately, PNSR's work on the issue was significantly complicated this month, when House Appropriations Defense subcommittee chairman John Murtha, D-PA, moved to completely defund the organization in a move to protect his own bureaucratic turf.

Vladimir Putin deliberately threw a wrench into U.S.-Russian negotiations over a follow-on to the START nuclear reductions treaty yesterday when he explicitly linked the issue to U.S. missile-defense plans.

But what's not mentioned in these otherwise excellent articles by the New York Times' Ellen Barry and the Washington Times' Eli Lake on the development is that the prime minister's comments directly contradict the July 6 joint statement of U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who made it clear that missile defense would be dealt with separately from the START follow-on talks.

Moreover, in their July 8 Joint Understanding, the carefully negotiated compromise was spelled out. The START follow-on would include "a provision on the interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms," nothing more, nothing less. Multiple senior administration officials have told The Cable that this compromise was well understood to mean that missile defense would be delinked from the START negotiations -- and that was the assumption the American team led by Rose Gottemoeller was working under.

Some on the Obama team are now suggesting they have already factored in these types of games coming from the Russian side.

"This is not unexpected and negotiations will resume in mid-January as we have said they would," said an administration source familiar with where things stand.

So what's going on? Well, there are two schools of thought among Russia experts. One is that Putin's comments represent a clear difference between his view of U.S.-Russia relations and Medvedev's. Medvedev, who is supposed to be in control of foreign policy, is more conciliatory and wants genuine rapprochement, the argument goes, whereas Putin ... not so much.

Under this theory, there are two power structures in Moscow and they are jockeying for control. But even in this analysis, time and time again, Putin seems to win the day by making the final decision.

"Perhaps there is a power struggle, but if there is, it's being overwhelmingly won and controlled by Putin's faction," said Alexandros Petersen, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. "Supposedly the idea was that Medvedev would tackle these types of issues. But then all the sudden Putin steps in and completely undermines him. Every time the going gets tough, Putin steps in and takes the reins."

The competing theory is that Putin and Medvedev are working somewhat in lockstep, again with Putin calling the shots and benefiting from the illusion of a power split. For Putin, it's useful to have Medvedev out there as the nice guy (aided by the fact that he may genuinely want to cooperate), setting up a good cop/bad cop routine. That catches Western officials off guard and makes it convenient for Putin because he can wait until negotiations with Medvedev play out and then make his move at the eleventh hour.

The bottom line is that the START talks now seem to be at an impasse. Since the administration doesn't deal directly as much with Putin's faction, resolving the dispute is problematic. And although the Obama team denies that its adjustment of plans to deploy missile defense to Poland and the Czech Republic was a concession to Russia, it would be a tough sell domestically to make any further concessions on missile defense and still get START ratified in the Senate.

So what can the administration do? Petersen recalls a similar incident when Ronald Reagan was negotiating the original START agreement with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik. Gorby demanded that START be linked to U.S. missile defense and Reagan said it was not negotiable and walked out of the room.

"The result of Reagan taking a hard line was that it wasn't linked from the beginning," said Petersen.

More broadly, the question is: What do the current problems with the START process say about Obama's pledge to reset relations with Russia? Perhaps that Russia is looking at the long term and isn't confident that Obama's overtures will be continued by successive administrations.

"They view Obama as somewhat of an anomaly in U.S. foreign policy, and START is for decades," Petersen said.

For the U.S. side, this might also change the calculation about giving Russia concessions before a negotiation is near completion.

"You give them a finger and they take an arm," said Petersen. "With this statement [from Putin], the debate has shifted completely."

"It would certainly make the treaty dead on arrival in the Senate," said one senior GOP Senate aide, who added that senators will be watching to make sure the Obama administration won't cut any side agreements involving the missile-defense program.

Earlier this month, The Cable broke the news that Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-MA, had pitched the idea of going to Tehran, in what would be the highest-level U.S. public visit in decades.

The Wall Street Journal followed last week, confirming that Kerry suggested the idea and reporting that the White House was not opposed to it. Kerry subsequently denied to The Cable that he had plans to go but didn't deny that he had floated the idea.

Today, several Iranian news outlets are reporting that Kerry has officially submitted a request to visit Tehran. Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani and Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast are among the Iranian officials who have reportedly confirmed that.

Mehman-Parast said that the request had been referred to Iran's Parliament, which was "exploring" the idea.

Spokespeople for Kerry didn't respond to requests for comment on the matter.

Jide Zeitlin, the Obama administration's nominee to be America's point man for financial reform at the United Nations, has withdrawn himself from consideration for the job, an administration official tells The Cable.

Zeitlin, a former Goldman Sachs executive and telecom entrepreneur, had faced criticism for his business dealings related to Indian contractors and was also accused of identity fraud for an incident in which he admitted to sending an email to investors masked as coming from one of his competitors. Zeitlin testified before Congress that the email was a prank.

He was approved out of the Senate Foreign Relations committee in November. Just before his hearing, the Washington Post detailed some of his business dealings that have come under scrutiny. For example:

A New Delhi court last month ordered the liquidation of Zeitlin's wireless firm, Independent Mobile Infrastructure Ltd., which stands accused of failing to pay about $2.4 million in supplies, services and interest to a client. The client, Unitech Power Transmission, charged that Zeitlin's company reneged on an agreement to pay for 34 wireless towers as part of a larger deal to construct a network of 137 towers throughout India. The issue is still being litigated, with Zeitlin's firm contesting the liquidation and saying it is financially strong; a hearing is scheduled for March.

The police in Lucknow, India, got involved in the case just after Zeitlin's hearing and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-IN, followed up with Zeitlin about the incident. But Zeitlin denied the allegations and the charges were dropped. Very soon thereafter, the case was settled between IMIL and Shatakshi Contractors, according to settlement documents obtained by The Cable.

Zeitlin was also sued in 2007 by competitor American Tower over an incident where Zeitlin forwarded an article that contained negative information about the company to two of its biggest investors. Zeitlin admitted to using a computer program to make the email seem like it was sent by American Tower CEO James D. Taiclet, Jr.

"This was a joke that clearly fell flat," Zeitlin told the committee about the email.

But concerns about his nomination grew as rumors swirled around Washington and New York that Zeitlin was engaged in other activities that called into question his overall character and also may have included elements of identity fraud.

Specifically, one woman contacted several government offices and multiple news outlets, including The Cable, with allegations that Zeitlin had used deception to lure her into what eventually she claims was a romantic relationship. Those allegations could not be independently confirmed by The Cable. The administration official declined to comment as to whether they had been investigated as part of Zeitlin's vetting process or afterwards.

In his letter, Zeitlin said his withdrawal was due to "personal reasons," the administration official said.

"We appreciate his willingness to serve and wish him the best of luck in the future," said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, when contacted about the story.

Zeitlin could not be reached for comment.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly held a press conference Monday afternoon at the State Department focused almost exclusively on State's role in the visa process for the underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Here are the important parts:

Abdulmutallab received his State Department visa on June 16, 2008. It was good for two years. As for what was the classification under which he applied for a visa, "We don't talk about what's on his application," Kelly said. "You damn well better start talking about it because you're about to have the hammer of God come down on your head," a reporter responded.

As for why the visa was granted, there was no alarming or disqualifying information on the visa application, Kelly said. He was a student at a reputable school and had ample financial resources, meaning he wasn't seen as an illegal immigration risk, according to Kelly.

After Abdulmutallab's father raised concerns with the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria on Nov. 19, the embassy sent what's known as a Visa VIPER cable to the State Department and the counterterrorism community on Nov. 20, but "he information in this VISAS VIPER cable was insufficient for this interagency review process to make a determination that this individual's visa should be revoked," Kelly said.

The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) would be the one to make that call, not the State Department, Kelly said. "We were obliged to report this information and we reported it." While State was not required to notify in the VIPER cable that he had a visa already and didn't in this case, "Everybody has access to this database, or everybody who wanted to check could see that this individual had a visa," Kelly went on.

Of course, the State Department has the authority to revoke visas, as it did for Honduran officials earlier this year, they didn't do it in for Abdulmutallab "because it's not our responsibility," Kelly said. Shouldn't the fact that he had a visa come up in the VIPER cable? "Clearly, we need to review all of our procedures, and that's what the president has ordered the interagency community to do," Kelly responded.

This was not Abdulmutallab's first visit to the United States. He had been granted and used a visa in the past, Kelly mentioned. No word on whether the Brits had notified the U.S. government that they had decided not to renew his visa for their country.

The VIPER cable itself wasn't too specific and only would include "just a very short characterization of the father's concerns," Kelly said.

The National Security Council is taking the lead on interacting with foreign countries on this issue, Kelly said. As for any more questions about why Abdulmutallab wasn't on the lists that would have prevented him from getting on the plane, "It's not up to me to say," Kelly explained, "It's up to my colleague at the NCTC. And if you don't know the contact information, I can get it for you."

And yes, the State Department does have a seat on the NCTC.

Top Senate leaders promised Thursday to bring Chris Dodd's Iran sanctions legislation to the Senate floor soon after returning to town next month.

"I want everyone to know that I am committed to getting this legislation to the floor sometime after we return in January," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, said on the Senate floor just after Thursday's early morning vote on healthcare reform legislation, "It would impose new sanctions on Iran's refined petroleum sector and tighten existing US sanctions in an effort to create new pressure on the Iranian regime and help stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon."

The significance of Reid's comments is that he is committing to moving the bill regardless of whether or not he can get unanimous consent from all 100 Senators, as was attempted unsuccessfully this month. It places pressure on negotiators working on the bill by telling everyone that time is of the essence.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-MA, was playing a leading role in negotiations between Congress and the administration over the State Department's concerns about the bill, as communicated in this letter from Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg. The key issue was how to exempt from the sanctions countries that cooperate with U.S. efforts to punish Iran.

"I know these discussions will be continuing during recess with the intention of reaching a mutually agreeable resolution so that this legislation can be considered as soon as possible when we get back," Kerry said.

In a Thursday morning interview with The Cable, Kerry said that an agreement with the administration was all but complete, but multiple Hill sources said that there were still key items left to be worked out.

The bill could come to the floor any time from January 19, when the Senate is scheduled to get back to business.

"This is a matter of great urgency," said Josh Block, spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "Iran's possession of a nuclear weapons capability would be a devastating blow to America's national security interests. The US and our allies must do everything we can to prevent Iran from acquiring that capacity, and AIPAC strongly applauds the Senate's firm commitment to passing this critical sanctions bill upon their return to Washington." 

Meanwhile, Kerry said he is not, after all, traveling to Iran... at least for the time being. The Cable reported last week he had pitched the idea to the White House and the Wall Street Journal followed with a similar story this morning.

"I may go sometime in the future, but I have no plans as of now," Kerry told The Cable, neither confirming or denying that he had proposed being the first senior official to publicly visit Tehran since the revolution.

"There have been a lot of discussions about Iran that I've been involved with," he said, "We talked about various ways to engage Iran and a lot of proposals have been on the table."

The Senate gave the U.S. Agency for International Development an early Christmas gift Thursday morning, confirming Rajiv Shah to be the first official administrator of the organization in the Obama administration.

The confirmation was done by unanimous consent just after Thursday's early morning vote on healthcare. Rest up over your break, Mr. Shah. You have quite a task ahead of you in 2010.