French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé said Monday that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has lost his legitimacy to rule and that France and the United States are prepared to push forward with a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning his regime for its violent crackdown on protesters. However, the path toward the resolution's ratification may not be as easy as he made it seem.

Juppé noted that France refrained from condemning Assad at the outbreak of unrest because it held out hope that he would launch a process of reforms, but those hopes have now been dashed. "In Syria, the process of reform is dead, and we think that Bashar has lost his legitimacy to rule the country," he said.

In remarks at the Brookings Institution on Monday, Juppé said that the difficulty in passing a resolution was that Russia, a longtime ally of Syria, "will veto any resolution … even if it's a mild one." While Russian opposition had long been suspected, Juppé's statement marked the first time an international figure had said definitively that Russia planned to use its veto.

Nevertheless, the foreign minister argued that the best course of action was to press forward with the resolution and force Russia to bear the costs of a veto. "We think it would be possible to get 11 votes in favor of the resolution," he said. "Maybe if [Russia] see[s] that there are 11 votes in favor … they will change their minds. It is a risk to take, and we are willing to take it."

It's not clear, however, that France, Britain, and the United States can actually muster the 11 votes that Juppé claimed were already in favor of the resolution.

"I'm not convinced that we've got this in the bag," a diplomat on the Security Council said.

Of the council's 15 members, nine are said to be firmly in support of a resolution condemning Syria: France, Britain, the United States, Germany, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Gabon, Nigeria, Colombia, and Portugal, according to the council diplomat.

Brazil and South Africa are still on the fence, with Brazil seen as being marginally more sympathetic toward the resolution.

A majority of nine in the Security Council would not put the same sort of pressure on Russia to refrain from using its veto as a majority of 11.

The French foreign minister also addressed his plans to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, framing them as a vital step before the Palestinians seek recognition at the U.N. General Assembly in September. "The status quo is more untenable than ever, particularly in the context of the Arab Spring," he said. "Time is not on the side of peace."

France has proposed to convene a conference in Paris that would negotiate a settlement based on the 1967 borders with agreed upon land swaps, in line with the parameters of President Barack Obama's May 19 speech. After reaching an agreement on borders and security arrangements, a second phase of talks would tackle the more sensitive issues of the status of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees in negotiations that would not exceed one year.

Juppé acknowledged that the idea has been received coolly by U.S. officials. "I wasn't expecting enthusiasm for the French initiative when I arrived in Washington," he said. However, he said that France was willing to amend its plans in line with suggestions from its allies.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has accepted France's initiative to revive peace talks, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is still studying the proposal. Juppé has reportedly indicated that France would consider supporting the Palestinians' request for full membership in the United Nations if the negotiations remain stalled. He did not directly address this issue on Monday, except to say that a U.N. vote would be "difficult for everybody."

David Makovsky, a fellow at the Washington Institute, said that the French initiative is being driven both by hope of a breakthrough engendered by Obama's recent speech and fear of a diplomatic conundrum when the Palestinians take their case for statehood to the United Nations. "The importance here is that it reflects a desire of a key European power to follow up the Obama speeches with a practical idea that would be an alternative to the September vote at the U.N.," he said. "Obama has taken some knocks, but the French proposal suggests that it is having a favorable preliminary impact on a key audience."

In another break from the United States and Israel, Juppé argued that the reconciliation agreement signed between Fatah and Hamas could be a positive step.

"How can we imagine that a peace agreement would be respected and guarantee Israeli security if not all Palestinians were to agree to it?" he asked. "[W]e believe that this reconciliation could represent a chance for peace... if it leads Hamas to evolve in response to our expectations."

Colum Lynch contributed reporting to this article.

The top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee argued against implementing a no-fly zone over Libya on Thursday, and also said that Congress must pass a formal declaration of war if the Obama administration decides to take that step.

"Clearly, the United States should be engaged with allies on how to oppose the Qaddafi regime and support the aspirations of the Libyan people," said Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) at the start of the committee's Thursday morning hearing on the Middle East. "But given the costs of a no-fly zone, the risks that our involvement would escalate, the uncertain reception in the Arab street of any American intervention in an Arab country, the potential for civilian deaths, the unpredictability of the endgame in a civil war, the strains on our military, and other factors, I am doubtful that U.S. interests would be served by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya."

Lugar pointed to the fact that 145,000 American troops are currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the annual U.S. budget deficit is already around $1.5 trillion.

"In this broad context, if the Obama administration decides to impose a no-fly zone or take other significant military action in Libya, I believe it should first seek a Congressional debate on a declaration of war under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution," Lugar said.

Lugar's stance against imposing a no-fly zone puts him at odds with committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA), who supports the move. Kerry didn't mention the no-fly zone in his opening remarks on Thursday. However, he did say that "The will of the Libyan people will in my judgment prevail," contradicting last week's testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who predicted that Qaddafi would win out.

Kerry also argued that America's reliance on foreign oil had led to a misguided foreign policy in the Middle East.

"We had relationships that focused on leaders rather than people and that's part of the energy dependency we are locked into," he said. "We cannot continue to see the Middle East in the context of 9/11. We must see it in the context of 2011."

Kerry also announced he will go to the region this weekend, stopping in Egypt on Sunday.

The hearing's sole witness, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns, testified that "Qaddafi's forces have made significant strides on the ground in the last 24 to 48 hours," and are now 160 miles from Benghazi. Burns said that Muammar al-Qaddafi's troops have been able to take advantage of their overwhelming firepower from both air and land.

He also said that U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice is pushing for a resolution today at the U.N. Security Council that would authorize a no-fly zone.

"Among the options being discussed today are measures that include a no fly zone but also go beyond that to protect civilians," said Burns.

Lugar referred again to the budget crisis in the United States and implored Burns to seek Arab financing for a no-fly zone, an idea Burns said was under discussion. But Lugar still remained extremely skeptical that a no-fly zone was a good idea.

"The president has not spoken directly to the United States' interests in Libya," Lugar said. "Does the president plan to spell out what are our interests in Libya that would justify the used of armed forces?"

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) pressed Burns to say whether or not the administration believes congressional approval is necessary to intervene militarily in Libya.

"I can't give you a yes-no answer," Burns said.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence holds its first public hearing today, ushering in what new Republican chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) calls a new era of bipartisan, apolitical, and aggressive oversight by a committee that had lost its way over the past few years.

The first hearing will cover "World Wide Threats" and will feature testimony from a host of top administration intelligence officials, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director Leon Panetta, National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter, Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, Philip Goldberg.

Rogers sat down for an exclusive interview prior to the hearing with The Cable, during which he promised to reinvigorate the committee's oversight and investigation activities, and use its panel to work with the intelligence community to trim budgets and focus on new threats. He also said that while he seeks harmony with the vast bureaucracy he's charged with overseeing, he has some ideas of his own about how intelligence policy should change

Josh Rogin: What is your overall vision for how the committee should be set up, what it should focus on, and what its attitude should be?

Mike Rogers: One of the main goals is to get the committee back to its original roots. The partisan era of national security should be the rare exception. Over the last few years, the committee has really diminished in the eyes of the intelligence community as the place for national security issues to be discussed, solved, and to conduct proper oversight.... We want to be knowledgeable, we want to be responsive, we need to ask hard questions, and it's ok to conduct thorough oversight. And if we get back to doing that in a bipartisan or non-partisan way, we'll be doing the intelligence community a real service.

JR: Where did the committee go wrong and what were the consequences?

MR: I saw this in the Bush administration. When the political rhetoric exceeded the bounds of the committee it had a negative impact on the committee's ability to do its proper oversight. It became not about true oversight of 17 intelligence agencies...it was the political flavor on national security of the day. When that started, the committee stopped looking as hard as it should have, even at the Bush administration.... It wasn't helpful because it stopped us from asking hard questions.

JR: What are the trends in intelligence threats that you see the committee focusing on?

MR: We have everything from a growing radicalization here at home to a more integrated al Qaeda around the world. Finances have merged, training events have merged, radicalization efforts have merged. Our liaison partners have been damaged through public discourse of things better left unsaid between nations.

WikiLeaks is a great example. We're going to have work hard to regain the trust of our liaison partners overseas.... Cyber is huge. We are going to come up with a policy or law on cybersecurity that will put us in a much better place.... [House Speaker] John Boehner has made that commitment.

JR: How are you going to deal with the intelligence budget and the intelligence authorization process?

MR: The military intelligence budget has not been scrutinized the way it needs to be. I'm going to call it a scrub...in a way that's not been done before. We haven't had an authorization bill in six years. That's not going to happen anymore.... The [fiscal 2011] budget has to get done...that's going to be clean of any policies. When we look at the policies, we're either going to influence the policies by working with the intelligence communities at senior levels, or we will legislate it: it may be a stand-alone bill, it may be part of the defense bill; we'll do it that way.

JR: Are you looking to cut the intelligence budget?

MR: I've told the community that I will be the most ardent protector of mission-essential funds. The last thing we want to do is get to the same place we did in the 1990s where they cut mission-essential funds so they actually couldn't perform at the level they should have been performing at. I'm not going to let that happen. But that doesn't mean we can't find efficiencies and savings in the intelligence budget. We're going to do that in cooperation with the intelligence community.

JR: You've called for the intelligence bureaucracy to be "rattled." What do you want to see happen to that bureaucracy?

MR: I think they have gotten the message. For years this whole town was fighting against [the Office of the Director of National Intelligence] from getting bigger. Director Clapper has gone through it and now says ‘I have a plan and help me work through this plan to make the DNI more effective.' At the end of the day I think that will reduce the bureaucracy that we saw in the past.... It's not just about giving him the first crack at this, he laid out a good plan and we're going to be his partner.... It makes the mission more efficient, and when you make it more efficient I think you'll see the bureaucracy get smaller.

JR: Do you plan to use the committee to investigate the policies that led to the WikiLeaks disclosures?

MR: I think we would be irresponsible if we didn't take a look at the policies that we engage in for information sharing. I've found the happy medium [between the need to know and the need to share], it is ‘the need to know with whom to share.'

JR: Do you still plan to try to get rid of the High Value Interrogation Group as established by the Obama administration?

MR: I'm still a skeptic of the High Value Interrogation Group. In the past, we haven't gotten all the information we need. I'm not sure it's the best use of money and investment in people and we'll make that determination in the next couple of months.

JR: Should laws that govern how the government can collect private information, like the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), be expanded to include email and Facebook?

MR: The way we communicate is changing. As long as it is consistent with due process, and I believe CALEA is, we have to do it. We know bad guys are communicating through Facebook and online video games. It's foolish for America not to keep pace with the changing way the world communicates.

JR: Who do you think is really running intelligence policy in the Obama administration? John Brenner? James Clapper? Leon Panetta? Someone else?

MR: We want to better understand that question. We are going to ask questions and we are going to try to come to the conclusion in how it is structured, how decisions are being made -- and at the end of the day does the structure they have created keep us more safe or less safe? If it's more safe, we're going to be with [the administration], if we come to the conclusion that it's not keeping us as safe as another way, we're going to seek some changes.

President Barack Obama's pseudo-envoy to Egypt Frank Wisner is on his way back to Washington after meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and new Vice President Omar Suleiman, but he has so far failed to convince the Egyptian leadership to start an immediate transition to a new form of government.

Top officials in the Obama administration continue to urge the Mubarak regime's leaders, who are still their primary interlocutors, to begin the transition of power, despite violence against protesters by pro-Mubarak groups and increasing signs that the Egyptian president has no intention of stepping aside any time soon. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke over the phone with Suleiman on Wednesday.

"She emphasized again our condemnation of the violence that occurred today, encouraged the government to hold those responsible fully accountable for this violence. We don't know at this point who did it," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. "And she continued to stress to the -- to Vice President Suleiman that the transition has to start now."

Obama has insisted that Mubarak begin the transition "now" in a phone call with his Egyptian counterpart on Tuesday night. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs doubled down on that position on Wednesday, saying, "now means yesterday."

Crowley spelled out exactly what the administration's message was on the path forward for a transition. "There needs to be a national dialogue, a serious conversation among a variety of players, and a clear process," he said.

The Egyptian Foreign Ministry explicitly rejected calls for the transition to begin immediately, accusing Washington of inciting the protesters. Crowley responded by saying, "These demonstrators are not going away. You know, this is gathering momentum.... These steps [by Mubarak] have to be broader. They have to be more visible."

Meanwhile, a host of senior U.S. officials have been working the phones to maintain close contact with their interlocutors in the Egyptian government, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, Undersecretary of State Bill Burns, Assistant Secretary of State Jeff Feltman, and others. Ambassador Margaret Scobey has been meeting with Egyptian officials at all levels in Cairo, as well as with opposition leaders, including Mohamed ElBaradei. But Crowley said no one in the administration has met with the Muslim Brotherhood

The administration acknowledges that they've had to change their stance on the crisis several times and that some of their decisions, such as sending Wisner to Cairo, have not worked out as planned. ABC News reported that Obama pulled Wisner back from Cairo because his effectiveness was diluted following the leaking of his conversations to the media.

A senior administration official told ABC that the administration was being forced to change its strategy "every twelve hours."

"First it was ‘negotiate with the opposition,' then events overtook that, then it was ‘orderly transition,' and events overtook that, then it was ‘You and your son can't run,' and events overtook that, and now it's ‘the process has to begin now,'" the official said. "It's been crawl-walk-run -- we had to increase the pace as events required."

Many experts see the administration as stuck with an ineffective middle-of-the-road policy that is angering both the regime and the protesters.

"The administration people are really struggling," said George Washington University Professor Marc Lynch. "They want Mubarak to go but they don't know how to make him leave."

In a rare instance of bipartisanship, the House of Representatives moved to pass a resolution Friday honoring the life and work of the recently departed Ambassador Richard Holbrooke.

The resolution (H.Con.Res 335) was sponsored by outgoing House Appropriations State and Foreign Ops Subcommittee chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-NY), and cosponsored by incoming House Foreign Affairs chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Howard Berman (D-CA), and Mike Turner (R-OH). The bill is "a concurrent resolution honoring the exceptional achievements of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and recognizing the significant contributions he has made to United States national security, humanitarian causes and peaceful resolutions of international conflict."

"The passing of Ambassador Holbrooke on Monday, December 13th, is a great loss for the American people," Lowey said in a statement. "One of our nation's most talented diplomats, Richard Holbrooke possessed a fierce determination and unsurpassed brilliance in advocating for American security, diplomatic, and development interests around the world - in Southeast Asia and post-Cold War Europe, at the United Nations, and most recently in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His exceptional accomplishments as a peace-maker, diplomat, writer, scholar, manager and mentor will define his legacy as one of the true great foreign policy giants of our time."

Ros-Lehtinen praised Holbrooke as "one of the most consequential world diplomats of the last half-century," and said that "his tireless work in pursuit of United States national interests and international peace have put us all in his debt."

After praising his career -- which included two stints as assistant secretary of state, peace negotiator in the Balkans, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., and service as U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan -- Ros-Lehtinen called for reform of the United Nations and protection of Israel within its bodies.

"In New York at the UN, [Holbrooke] did much of the heavy lifting on Congressionally-led efforts to rein in UN spending, to make more equitable the dues paid by the United States, and to improve the standing of Israel in that multinational body," she said. "Sadly, those concerns have returned with a renewed urgency -- with the need for fundamental reform of UN budget and the virulently anti-Israel UN Human Rights Council -- and the Congress can only hope to have such a tenacious, principled partner in the future."