Nearly a year after a disputed election sent tens of thousands of Iranians into the streets to protest against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's return to power, Sen. John McCain praised President Obama and said that his personal narrative and sparkling personality gave him the unique ability to make progress toward overthrowing the clerical regime in Tehran.

"The United States has never had a president whose personal story resonates as strongly overseas as President Obama's does -- whose ability to inspire, to move people, to mobilize them on behalf of democratic change is one of the greatest untapped sources of strength now available to Iran's human rights activists," he said. "If the president were to unleash America's full moral power to support the Iranian people -- if he were to make their quest for democracy the civil rights struggle of our time -- it could bolster their will to endure in their struggle, and the result could be historic."

McCain's speech to the National Endowment of Democracy (NED) was a full-throated call for regime change in Iran, in addition to being a call for increased administration support for Iranian democracy advocates.

"I believe that when we consider the many threats and crimes of Iran's government, we are led to one inescapable conclusion:  It is the character of this Iranian regime -- not just its behavior -- that is the deeper threat to peace and freedom in our world, and in Iran," McCain said. "Furthermore, I believe that it will only be a change in the Iranian regime itself -- a peaceful change, chosen by and led by the people of Iran -- that could finally produce the changes we seek in Iran's policies."

NED Thursday gave its 2010 Democracy award to the Iranian Green Movement in a ceremony including NED Chairman Richard Gephardt and Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-CT and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen R-FL.

McCain implored the audience not to believe the conventional wisdom in Washington that the Green Movement is waning.

"The Green Movement lives on. Its struggle endures.  And I am confident that eventually, maybe not tomorrow or next year or even the year after that, but eventually, Iranians will achieve the democratic changes they seek for their country," he said. "The Iranian regime may appear intimidating now, but it is rotting inside."

Leading Jewish Americans are reportedly just about fed up with the government of Turkey, but many of them are still very much interested in working with the Palestinian Authority and will meet with President Mahmoud Abbas tonight.

The S. David Abraham Center for Middle East Peace is hosting a private dinner for Abbas this evening that will bring together more than 30 Jewish community leaders and former officials to schmooze with Abbas, including former national security advisors Stephen Hadley and Sandy Berger and former White House Middle East hand Elliott Abrams. The event's host is the center's president, former Florida Congressman Robert Wexler, who is widely rumored to be soon appointed the next U.S. ambassador to Israel.

"The meeting tonight, it's all for the purpose of supporting the administration's effort to enable the Palestinians and Israelis to come together to engage in direct talks in a serious fashion about substantive issue related to final status issues," Wexler told The Cable.

Regarding the Gaza flotilla incident that has dominated the headlines for weeks, Wexler said the Jewish community's message will be: "It cannot or should not be an excuse or the mechanism in which to undermine the proximity talks."

The Obama administration has fought hard to protect those indirect talks, led by Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell, from becoming a casualty of the flotilla affair, but is growing impatient about what has been nearly a year and a half of little progress. President Obama echoed Wexler's call for constructiveness in comments after meeting with Abbas, and urged the Palestinian leader to come to the table and negotiate with Israel.

"President Abbas and I spent most of our time discussing how do we solve the problem. One of the things that we see is that so often rhetoric, when it comes to issues in the Middle East, outstrip actually solving issues," he said. Regarding Gaza, he said, "the status quo that we have is one that is inherently unstable."

Abbas also argued that the Palestinians want to move to direct talks and don't have any preconditions.

"We are not saying that we have conditions. What has happened is that we agreed that should progress be achieved, then we would move on to direct talks," he said. "We are working in order to make progress."

According to comments yesterday by the PLO's representative in Washington, however, the Palestinian side will not move to direct talks with the Israelis until they engage on "fundamental issues" -- meaning borders, Jerusalem, and the right of Palestinian refugees to return.

Regarding anger in the Jewish-American community at how Turkey has handled the Gaza flotilla crisis, Wexler said it was nothing compared with Turkey's vote against the U.N. Security Council resolution on Iran sanctions today.

"I respect and admire the American Jewish community's engagement over the years with the government of Turkey. But I regret deeply the vote that Turkey made at the U.N. Security Council today," he said. "It is a significant setback in American-Turkish relations. It cannot be sugar coated."

Wexler declined to comment in any way about his rumored appointment to Tel Aviv.

When President Obama and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas meet in the Oval Office Wednesday, they will have a largely shared albeit astoundingly ambitious agenda: to show movement on the peace process after nearly a year and a half of little progress and to craft a way forward on Gaza in the wake of last week's deadly flotilla incident.

"We look forward to engaging with President Abbas to move the process forward so that we can get to direct talks to address all the final-status issues, and to ensure that neither side take provocative steps that could stand in the way of progress," said a White House official, adding that the two leaders "will discuss steps to improve life for the people of Gaza, including U.S. support for specific projects to promote economic development and greater quality of life, as well as a long-term strategy for progress."

Moving forward to direct talks also means that both sides must "address all the final-status issues, and ensure that neither side take provocative steps that could stand in the way of progress," the White House official said.

That tracks largely with what Abbas said he wants to focus on in an op-ed Tuesday and what other Palestinian leaders are saying is on Abbas's agenda when he gets to the White House. The difference is that Abbas will tell Obama that it's the Israelis who need to change their tone and actions to make it happen -- and it's the Americans who need to push them to do so.

"The president [Abbas] is going to stress in the process the importance of accelerating these efforts in order to end the Israeli occupation," PLO representative Maen Rashid Areikat told The Cable in an exclusive interview. "And he is going to urge the administration to use whatever leverage they have with the Israelis in order to end this inhumane blockade and siege of the Gaza strip."

Areikat said that it was too early to know if the proximity talks are bearing fruit. But he warned that the Palestinian Authority will only move to direct negotiations when Israel engages on "fundamental issues," meaning final-status issues such as borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the longstanding Palestinian demand for the right of return of refugees.

The Obama administration, which has said it wants to find ways to increase assistance getting into Gaza but not at the expense of Israel's security, will also want to know what the delegation Abbas sent to Gaza following the flotilla incident heard from Hamas, which controls the impoverished coastal strip.

That delegation was sent, Areikat said, because "some believe that there is an opportunity to try to speed up these efforts to reach reconciliation." He didn't, however, say that Hamas should be included in the peace process or that the Obama team should engage with the militant group, which the United States and Europe have designated a terrorist organization.

Experts said that the Obama administration needs Abbas to try to get past the flotilla incident, which should be in the interests of both the White House and the Abbas government. Abbas needs to show that his faction, not Hamas, is the center of gravity in Palestinian politics.

"I think Fatah was getting increasingly optimistic about where they were standing relative to Hamas in terms of popular support," said Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, program officer in the U.S. Institute of Peace's Center for Mediation and Conflict Resolution. "So I think that one of Abbas's challenges here is to take back some spotlight here, and take back the reins in terms of being in control."

If Abbas is really serious about reconciliation, he'll have an uphill climb convincing the Obama administration that goal is achievable in the short term.

"Part of his job on this visit will be to convince the administration why it's important, how he plans to do it and how somehow they can strike a deal behind the scenes that fits with the quartet's conditions," said Scott Lasensky, a senior research associate at USIP, referring to the group of four Middle East players that includes the European Union, Russia, the United Nations, and the United States.

The Israelis have criticized Abbas for refusing to come to the table for direct talks; the Palestinians, for their part, insist they won't negotiate with the Israelis until they freeze settlements completely and indefinitely.

So Obama's Middle East peace envoy, former Sen. George Mitchell, has been shuttling between the two camps in what are effectively negotiations about ... negotiations.

The White House wants direct talks "because there's no way they get anywhere unless the format of the talks change, and they want to find out what [Abbas] needs to get into direct talks," Lasensky said.

On this trip, Abbas will meet with Obama, State Department officials, and lawmakers on Capitol Hill, and will also give a speech at the Brookings Institution.

Meanwhile, the State Department said today that about $45 million of America's $400 million in aid to Palestinians this year was designated for Gaza, with a strong effort to make sure none of that money went to strengthening Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence, or commit to respecting past international agreements, as the U.S. insists.

"We will engage with any political group that is willing to meet our basic red lines for playing a constructive role in the region," said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley,."Those red lines are clear. Hamas has made clear they have no intention at the present time of agreeing to those. And as a result, we do not have a political relationship with Hamas."

As the Obama administration prepares to receive the leaders of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority over the next two weeks, the White House is doing a lot of legwork to try to keep lines of communication with Jewish groups and lawmakers open, to build as much local support as possible for its approach to ending the Middle East conflict.

But not all Jewish groups and lawmakers are on the same page. Most are uncomfortable with President Obama's policy of placing pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and want to make sure that the administration's efforts to bring the two parties to the negotiating table doesn't come at the expense of the U.S.-Israel alliance.

Other Jewish lawmakers openly support pressuring Netanyahu, and take a stance that diverges from the Israeli government's approach to key issues. One of them is Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, who is circulating a letter supporting the proximity talks around the Senate this week, obtained by The Cable.

The letter, addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, hasn't been sent and is still open for signatures. But a couple of its lines are already raising eyebrows in Senate offices on both sides of the aisle.

"We strongly believe that a permanent peace agreement ... can only be achieved with the United States bringing the parties together and driving them to a settlement," the letter states (emphasis added).

Later on, it argues, "While the Israeli Government has announced a moratorium on settlement activity, for too long the expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem undermined confidence."

The Netanyahu government vigorously disputes that building in East Jerusalem should be deemed as "settlement" activity. The approval of construction on 1,600 new residences in East Jerusalem during U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Israel is what kicked off the whole fracas between the Obama and Netanyahu administrations in the first place.

Senators including Charles Schumer, D-NY, and Lindsey Graham, R-SC, have been very vocal about their view that building in Jerusalem should not be considered "settlement" activity. Schumer even called the Obama approach to Netanyahu "counterproductive" before he backed off those comments.

Netanyahu is certain to be irked by the letter's language. "Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital," he told the recent AIPAC conference. "Everyone knows that these neighborhoods will be part of Israel in any peace settlement. Therefore, building them in no way precludes the possibility of a two-state solution."

Whether or not the U.S. should "drive" the two parties to make peace is another point of contention. The Palestinians see the proximity talks as a great way to keep the Obama administration actively involved, while the Israeli government and its supporters feel that although the U.S. has an important role to play, the Obama administration shouldn't be pushing Netanyahu to do things he doesn't want, or isn't able, to do.

"It's unclear what more Senator Feinstein wants to push Israel to do," said one GOP Senate aide. "At what point do we really want to force democracies to do things their people don't support?"

"I can't see how this letter is at all helpful for the administration or the peace process right now," said a Democratic Senate aide working on the issue, who feared the letter could damage whatever trust the administration has worked to rebuild with the Israelis over the past several weeks.

During the recent powwow between the president and 37 Jewish members of Congress, Feinstein was among the only members that expressed agreement with Obama's view that confrontation with Netanyahu was the right approach, according to one Hill source who was briefed on the meeting.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, struck a different tone in a letter he sent to Clinton last month, when he said, "I hope that the Obama Administration will do everything possible to reduce recent tensions with Israel while reaffirming the need to move forward with the peace process."

As Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri makes the rounds in Washington today and tomorrow, he faces deep questions in Congress and in the Defense Department about the future of the U.S. military aid to the Lebanese Armed Forces.

Supporters of the funding, mostly at the State Department and the White House, argue that strengthening the Lebanese military is the best way to bolster Hariri against the mounting influence of both Syria and Hezbollah, the radical Shiite militant group, inside Lebanon. The Lebanese military, this faction argues, is the most representative of the country's civic institutions and continuing the funding can help convince Hariri that working with the U.S. is a beneficial and defensible strategy.

But many lawmakers and some at the Pentagon, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, are extremely skeptical that continuing to funnel large amounts of cash and supplies to the LAF is really a good way to approach the Lebanon problem. They are angry about statements Hariri has made about Syria's alleged transfer of long-range missiles to Hezbollah, and question whether the military aid to Lebanon is part of a coherent strategy.

"Threats that Lebanon now has huge missiles are similar to what they used to say about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," Hariri reportedly said last month. "These are weapons that they did not find and they are still searching for."

But Hariri's reaction to the alleged arms transfers has given many inside the administration pause. There's also a concern he could let U.S. weapons slip into the hands of Hezbollah, although the track record of the LAF in that regard has been solid so far.

"The number one issue now is arms transfers from Syria to Hezbollah and this confounds our policy of supporting the Lebanese military," said Andrew Tabler, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The Obama administration wants Hariri to use the state's instruments of power, such as the LAF, to confront Syria over the alleged arms transfers, but Hariri is in no position to confront Damascus.

Hariri has been careful not to upset Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is widely thought to have ordered the 2005 assassination of his father, former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri.

"It would be hard for anyone not to take note that he visited Damascus before he visited Washington," said long-time Lebanon hand Firas Maksad, who said that Hariri is walking a very thin line as he tries to placate the United States and Syria at the same time.

Overall, the arms transfers are on balance a good idea, said Maksad. "We need to think about how we can strengthen our leverage in Beirut. At the end of the day, that's the only hope for a counterbalance to Hezbollah."

But lawmakers, always looking to pinch pennies, and Pentagon officials, who are most concerned about the Hezbollah-Israel tensions, aren't satisfied that strategic hedging is enough of a justification for continued military assistance like on the order of $500 million since 2006.

"The Defense Department has always asked the question: Why are we doing this, what are the objectives, what is the end state we are trying to achieve in Lebanon?," said Aram Nerguizian, visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It's an idea that is not linked to an end state. We like the process, but ultimately, what is it that the U.S. is trying to do in Lebanon? That's what hangs in the balance."

Mona Yacoubian , who just released a new report on the Syria-Lebanon situation for the U.S. Institute of Peace, said that there is growing concern inside the administration that the shift of power inside Lebanon toward Hezbollah suggests that it may not be wise to put more resources into the Lebanese military. She argues, however, that the best way to deal with Hezbollah is to help build and strengthen the Lebanese state.

Meanwhile, Hariri is faced to deal with the facts on the ground, which are clearly tipping toward a negative direction, she said.

"He's coming to Washington with a very difficult task. He's got to balance day-to-day concerns with the broader concerns of his ally, the U.S. If he moves to please us, he angers Syria, Hezbollah, and others. If he seems to mimic the U.S. position, he suffers at home. He's in a no-win situation."

The White House readout of Hariri's meeting with President Obama gave little inkling of these tensions, and said the meeting focused on Arab-Israel peace effort, the suspected transfer of Syrian weapons to Hezbollah, and Lebanon's role as rotating president of the U.N. Security Council, which is currently mulling over new sanctions against Iran. But the statement also pointed to President Obama's "determination to continue U.S. efforts to support and strengthen Lebanese institutions such as the Lebanese Armed Forces and the Internal Security Forces."

Privately, the White House was sending a much tougher message, however. Hariri brought so many officials into his bilateral with Obama, sources say, there was no way to speak frankly about subjects of real contention, like U.S. military support and Hariri's unhelpful statements regarding the alleged Hezbollah arms transfers. So Obama and Hariri had a separate, private meeting amongst themselves, where we hear the tough messages were really delivered.

Hariri also met with Gates, Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman, and Middle East Special Envoy George Mitchell today. Feltman, who was the U.S. ambassador in Beirut at the time of Rafiq al-Hariri's assassination, released a statement citing Lebanon's role in promoting international security and "the key role of Lebanon in the long-term effort to build a lasting, comprehensive peace in the Middle East."

But Feltman didn't mention Lebanese military assistance, which will be at the top of lawmakers' agendas Tuesday.

"His meetings went very well today," David Schenker, director of the Arab politics program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said of Hariri. "I don't think that's going to be the case when he goes to Capitol Hill tomorrow."

The administration has requested $100 million for the LAF in its Fiscal 2011 budget request.

Twelve Republican senators wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Friday to let her know they intend to block the nomination of Robert Ford, whom President Obama has named to become the first U.S. ambassador to Syria in five years.

In the letter (pdf), 12 Republican senators, any one of whom could hold up the Ford nomination, said they weren't satisfied with the State Department's latest attempt to alleviate their concerns about sending an envoy to Damascus amid allegations that the Syrian government may have sent Scud missiles to the terrorist group Hezbollah.

The senators aren't buying State's argument that sending an ambassador to Syria is not a reward, but rather a smart way to engage and perhaps even persuade Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to stop taking provocative actions.

"If engagement precludes prompt punitive action in response to egregious behavior, such as the transfer of long range missiles to a terrorist group, then it is not only a concession but also a reward for such behavior," the letter reads.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said recently that "Syria and Iran are providing Hezbollah with rockets and missiles of ever-increasing capability," but did not confirm that Syria had sent Scuds to the Lebanese militant group.

Not only have U.S. officials said they aren't sure whether Syria actually did make such a transfer (nor has the Israeli government presented evidence to back up its allegations, which Syria denies) but the administration contends that the lack of a U.S. ambassador is actually making it very difficult to talk to Assad on a daily basis. A recent State Department inspector general's report found that the embassy isn't getting much face time with senior Syrian officials.

High-level visits, such as the recent ones by Undersecretary Bill Burns and Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Feltman, are actually more of a reward, administration officials say, because they always make news. An ambassador can do the quiet unglamorous diplomacy that's called for in Damascus, they argue, without the fanfare.

The GOP senators don't see it that way, however, and won't budge until State tells them what "new sanctions" it will place on Syria, or alternatively, when the deadline for engagement to show results will be.  They also want State to send over congressionally mandated reports on sanctions that State has simply never completed.

Indicating some pique that Clinton didn't respond to their last letter on this subject, they write tersely, "We would appreciate a response from you personally." The department's previous response came from Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Richard Verma.

Meanwhile, Ford languishes at home, having given up his previous gig at the Baghdad Embassy but unable to start something new while this drama plays out.

Add the Obama administration's WMD czar Gary Samore to the growing list of top officials who believe that Middle East peace is a necessary precursor to solving wider regional problems, including the drive to curb the spread of nuclear weapons.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday afternoon, Samore tied the peace process to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference, currently ongoing in New York, by saying that one of the key signs of success would be if "at least some progress" can be made toward a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

"We recognize and I frankly think everybody recognizes that in the absence of a comprehensive and endurable peace settlement, achieving the zone... is just not likely to be the outcome any time soon."

He then took the argument one step further and said, "The Obama administration is working very hard to try to push the peace process forward and it seems to me that's an essential element to making progress in any of these zones... It's hard to imagine how you could have an arms control regime in the Middle East without having peace and diplomatic recognition... it's a precursor to negotiations."

It's longstanding U.S. policy that Israel should eventually join the NPT, but it's also longstanding U.S. policy not to push Israel to change its stance of neither confirming nor denying its estimated stockpile of 100-plus nuclear weapons. Samore said he does not personally support Israel changing its policy of ambiguity and that no such discussions were taking place that he was aware of.

He also sought to set clear expectations for what might come out of the four-week conference, namely that the administration was not expecting all of the conference members to sign onto any agreement together.

"We believe that if a strong majority of countries support an outcome that pledges support for the treaty and supports practical steps for all of the three pillars plus language on the Middle East, that would be a successful outcome... even if that document is not accepted by the conference as a whole."

Samore also defended the U.S.-Russia civilian nuclear agreement, which the White House sent over to Congress Tuesday. Some lawmakers see the agreement as an undeserved reward to Russia, before that country has publicly committed to signing onto a strong Iran sanctions resolution at the UN.

He said the deal, known as the 123 agreement, won't come into force until later this year and he predicted a UN sanctions resolution would materialize well before then. And he doubted that Russia would go through with the delivery of the S-300 air defense system to Iran, which could also provoke opposition to the deal.

"We've made it very clear to the Russians that would have a very significant impact on bilateral relations and the Russians understand that the consequences would be very severe... I'd be surprised if those transfers take place," said Samore, declining to specify exactly what those consequences would be.

He also headed off another potential concern about the deal by saying, "As long as I've been in this job, there's been no concern about Russian entities providing nuclear assistance to Iran."

Samore said the START treaty with Russia will probably be submitted to Congress this week.

The National Security Council's Dennis Ross is the latest U.S. official to link the Obama administration's drive to secure peace between Israelis and Arabs to the overall goal of bringing greater stability to the region and combating the threat from Iran.

"In this region, pursuing peace is instrumental to shaping a new regional context," Ross said in remarks Monday evening. "Pursuing peace is not a substitute for dealing with the other challenges ... It is also not a panacea. But especially as it relates to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, if one could do that, it would deny state and non-state actors a tool they use to exploit anger and grievances."

Ross was speaking at the closing dinner for the Anti-Defamation League annual conference, where attendees also heard from the NSC's Daniel Shapiro, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism Daniel Benjamin, special envoy for monitoring anti-Semitism Hannah Rosenthal, Israeli Amb. Michael Oren, and others.

Ross, whose exact portfolio at the NSC has been the subject of much speculation outside the administration, noted that "the greatest challenge for peace, for security in the Middle East, lies in Iran" and tied the Israeli-Arab conflict to the Islamic Republic.

"Clearly one way that Iran is increasing its influence in the region is by exploiting the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians," Ross said, echoing statements made by U.S. Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus in a report (pdf) submitted to Congress back in March.

"The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests," Petraeus wrote. "The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."

Conservative hard-liners ripped Petraeus for the statement, linking the report to a story on Foreign Policy's Middle East Channel (some elements of which are in dispute). The National Review's Andrew McCarthy even accused the general of "echoing the narrative peddled incessantly by leftists in the government he serves and by Islamists in the countries where he works."

But Ross, who is not often accused of being too hard on Israel, made similar comments Monday. "The continuation of the conflict strengthens Iran's rejectionist partners and also Hezbollah. Iran deliberately uses the conflict to expose even the moderates in the region by stoking the fears of its populations and playing the worst most anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist prejudices," he said.

Ross also had some harsh words for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose government the Obama administration believes may have considered transferring sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah.

"By transferring weapons including long-range weapons to Hezbollah, Syria is engaging in provocative and destabilizing behavior," said Ross, borrowing language from earlier remarks by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "President Assad needs to make a decision whether he wants war or peace in the region."

Clinton made also linked the peace process to Iran in remarks last month when she said, "Those who benefit from our failure of leadership traffic in hate and violence and give strength to Iran's anti-Semitic president [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]and extremists like Hamas and Hezbollah."

At Monday's dinner, ADL Executive Director Abe Foxman defended Ross from a recent attack by an anonymous administration source quoted by Politico's Laura Rozen.

"He [Ross] seems to be far more sensitive to Netanyahu's coalition politics than to U.S. interests," the source told Rozen, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"Ambassador Dennis Ross has been advancing U.S. interests in national security for over 25 years," Foxman said. "He's a gifted statesman who is trusted by people on different sides of the negotiating table and on both sides of the aisle here at home."

The State Department didn't hold a press briefing Monday, as many top officials including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are in New York for the kickoff of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

So the only official readout from State's press shop today comes from official statements mailed from the press office and the brand new Twitter account of Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J. Crowley. (@pjcrowley)

Crowley is only the latest administration official to take to Twitter, and we hope his feed won't become a replacement for direct interactions with the public and the press. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (@presssec) has come under criticism for seemingly bypassing the White House press corps by breaking news on his Twitter account, such as the announcement that President Obama was delaying his trip to Indonesia.

So far today, Crowley has four tweets, including reiterating the administration's position on Iran's nuclear program. Here are his first day's tweets:

2:53 PM: Hello world. Excited to be here on Twitter. Looking forward to our global conversation.

3:08 PM: At #UN, President Ahmadinejad claims that #Iran accepted TRR offer. But Iran has yet to respond to #IAEA. The ball remains in Iran's court.

4:03 PM: At #UN, rather than answer questions about his nuclear program, President Ahmadinejad tried to hide the ball. We aren't playing his game.

4:04 PM: At the #UN, #SecClinton pledged the U.S. will do its part to strengthen the #NPT. Didn't see anyone walk out in protest.

One of the State Department's e-mail fact sheets on the NPT review conference contains Clinton's announcement Monday that she is starting a campaign that seeks to raise $100 million over the next five years "to broaden access to peaceful uses of nuclear energy," with $50 million to be raised from outside the U.S.

"The funds are to significantly expand support for projects sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), addressing energy and important humanitarian purposes, such as cancer treatment and fighting infectious diseases, food and water security, and the development of infrastructure for the safe, secure use of civil nuclear power," State's fact sheet reads, "These efforts will be aimed to assist developing countries."

When U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Michele Sison met with Lebanese officials on Wednesday, she had a mission: She was there to urge Lebanon to help avoid a new outbreak of violence between Israel and the Shiite militant group Hezbollah.

Sison, an affable and well-liked career Foreign Service officer, was given the difficult task of both urging the Lebanese to do what they can to avoid an eruption of war and convincing them that U.S. and Israeli concerns about alleged Syrian arms transfers over the Lebanese border should be taken seriously.

Arab press reports cited anonymous sources as saying Sison showed Lebanese Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri photos of truck convoys, evidence of increasing and escalation weapons shipments to Hezbollah. More shockingly, the reports said that she told Lebanese officials the United States had stopped Israel from launching an imminent strike against the convoys. Neither of those details is true, according to multiple administration sources.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told The Cable that the idea American waived Israel off of a strike on Syrian weapons transfers is "totally false," but declined to describe the specifics of the meeting. Another U.S. official described the Arab press reports as "bullshit."

Two administration officials close to the issue, however, said that the meeting did in fact take place, but no photos were shown and the United States did not halt an imminent Israeli strike.

"The Israelis weren't ready to shoot anything. There was never a point where they said, ‘We are going to strike something,'" the official said, adding that at some point Israeli action could of course be a possibility -- albeit a disastrous one.

Regardless, the controversy surrounding Sison's meeting reflects the extremely high tensions in the region following reports of new Syrian weapons transfers, including possibly SCUD missiles, to Hezbollah -- tensions the Obama administration is trying to tamp down.

Sison's message was the same message the U.S. is sending to all the parties, which is, "A war now is not in anyone's interest," the official said.

The administration is still not clear that any SCUDs have been transferred, but there is an acknowledgement that Syrian weapons transfers are increasing in both quantity and quality.

"It's a deterrence game and each side is building up its deterrence capability," this official said, adding that as both the Israelis and Hezbollah prepare for war, the seriousness of any actual outbreak of fighting is keeping both sides from initiating battle -- for now.

"In a way, the deterrence is working," the source added, noting that the downside risk of the arms buildup is that any miscalculation that begins an open conflict would precipitate a large-scale war that whose consequences would be impossible to predict.

According to this official, who stressed that they were only conveying their personal analysis, not the overall administration position, Hezbollah is still seeking revenge for the 2008 Israeli assassination of its military leader Imad Mughniyeh, and sees some spectacular attack on Israel as a way to achieve that.

But Hezbollah, now accountable to the Lebanese people due to its role in the government, doesn't want to be seen as firing the first shot that could lead to devastating retaliation from Israel. So the group is trying to goad the Israelis into starting the conflict, the official believes.

The Israelis are aware they are being goaded, the official said, and are doing their best to resist while warning Washington that at some point violence might be unavoidable. "The Israelis know that once they strike, that's all the excuse that Hezbollah needs to wage a full-scale war," the official explained.

As for why Syria seems to be playing such an unhelpful role, "that's the million-dollar question," the official said. The Obama administration genuinely does not understand Syrian intentions and there are three basic theories within the administration as to why Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would continue to escalate arms shipments to Hezbollah despite U.S. warnings.

According to one school of thought, this is Assad's way of playing hardball with the Israelis in advance of Israeli-Syrian negotiations. No one wants to negotiate from a weak position, so he is amassing chits that he can bargain away later.

An opposing theory is that Assad has no interest in engaging with the Americans or negotiating with Israel at all. This line of thinking concludes that he is simply paving the way for eventual conflict with Israel.

The third, more nuanced analysis portrays Assad as a man in a bind. He has himself so tied up with Iran and Hezbollah that perhaps he can't disengage as easily as those in the West think he can. Also, Assad has always been a gambler and may have simply become entangled in his own web of deals with so many competing interests.

"We do not understand Syrian intentions. No one does, and until we get to that question we can never get to the root of the problem," the official said. "Until then it's all damage control."

Meanwhile, the administration is trying to explain to the Syrians how foolish the weapons transfers are, if they are really happening, while telling the Israelis to be patient and arguing that the only beneficiary of a new Israeli-Hezbollah war would be Iran, which would seize upon a new conflict to deflect international pressure over its nuclear program.

And what about Hariri, who said the SCUD allegations were "reminiscent of the weapons of mass destruction allegations against Saddam Hussein" and "a pretext for threatening my country"?

"Hariri is terrified that another war is going to break his country apart and if that means denying the weapons transfers or whatever, he's going to do it," our official speculated. "He's desperately trying to save his country from utter decimation."

Although the public fireworks between top U.S. and Israeli officials may have died down in recent days, a fully fledged debate has erupted inside the Obama administration over how to best bring Middle East peace talks to fruition, let alone a successful conclusion.

Some reports have suggested there are two camps within Obamaland -- one favoring an incremental approach focused on persuading the Israelis and Palestinians to return to negotiations, and a second group pushing the president to lay his own "American plan" on the table.

But one U.S. official close to the issue told The Cable there's a more diverse spectrum of opinion inside the administration, with different officials exhibiting a range of views on what the tactics and tone of the U.S. approach should be going forward. There is no prospect of an Obama peace plan surfacing anytime soon, however.

"That's obviously an option we have. At some point we may exercise it," the administration official told The Cable. "There's been no decision to do it and there's no plan to do it."

National Security Advisor Jim Jones is the one most clearly advocating for a more definite American plan for how to proceed. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius and New York Times reporter Helene Cooper both described Jones as the prime mover behind a recent White House meeting in which a group of former national security advisors urged Obama to consider proposing his own peace initiative.

But Jones denied Friday that Obama has decided to take their advice.

"These are ongoing discussions, and I think that while we've not taken any decision to jumpstart any dramatic shift in our strategy, I think we should say, to make clear, that we don't intend to surprise anybody at any time," Jones told reporters.

"Some people suggested an American plan; other people had problems with it. Obama didn't weigh in one way or the other," the official said.

Meanwhile, Special Envoy George Mitchell, who has been shepherding the negotiations over the proximity talks that are meant to lead to direct talks, isn't necessarily opposed to a U.S. plan, but believes even talking about it now is premature.

Mitchell is for "getting to the negotiations, somehow" and is not in favor of releasing U.S. ideas "at this time," the official explained. That's different than being for "incrementalism," which in and of itself is a misleading term, in this insider's view.

"By definition all processes are incremental until they're not," the official said. Mitchell's other concern is that announcing a plan could be disastrous because the outlines of such a deal would certainly contain items that would upset each side.

"There are issues that are nonstarters on both sides, so what happens when both side reject it?," the official wondered.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agrees with Mitchell that it's not yet time for an American plan. But she is also saying inside the discussions that both sides need a lot of pushing to do things they don't want to do.

That's somewhat different than Vice President Joseph Biden, who leans more toward thinking about how to solve the logjam between the U.S. and Israel first, and then figuring out how to solve the overall issue after that. He is not thought to be in favor of announcing an American plan in the near term.

Add to that line of thinking the National Security Council's Dennis Ross, who due to his experience and inclination is also said to be more focused on solving the dispute over Israel's settlements. Yes, Ross argues for going a little easier on the Israelis than the other members of the team, the official said, but recent attacks on his loyalty to America from unnamed sources were way overblown.

Valerie Jarrett is another team member to watch. Two officials confirmed she is in almost all the meetings, although one official cautioned that doesn't mean she has a foreign-policymaking decision role, per se.

"Certainly how we handle Israel has implications for the public, nongovernmental organizations, and Congress, so understanding how the public and the interest groups will react is important and you have to loop her in," the official said.

To the extent that Jones and Jarrett seem to have increasing clout with Obama, that worries outsiders who fear they are pushing him toward a tougher stance vis-à-vis Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who abruptly cancelled his plans to come to Washington next week for the nuclear summit.

And amid reports that Obama personally directed the harsh response to Netanyahu following the settlements dispute last month and the dressing down Netanyahu received at the Oval Office, Israel supporters worry that he is determined to make Netanyahu come to him.

That still hasn't happened, as the White House waits for Netanyahu's response to the list of ideas Obama gave him to prove Israel's commitment to the process.

"We are still in consultations," the official could only say.

(Correction: Netanyahu's title corrected to "prime minister.")

Special Representative Richard Holbrooke has received a clean bill of health after having his heart valves checked today and will go with General David Petraeus to Afghanistan next week after all.

New America Foundation's Steve Clemons has the news on the Washington Note.

I have learned just an hour ago that the angiogram showed the best possible results. There was no significant obstruction that required intervention.

Richard Holbrooke has been cleared to travel with General Petraeus to Afghanistan.

In fact, Holbrooke spoke to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directly and she cleared the trip.

I can also report that Holbrooke is in excellent spirits -- though he seemed in excellent spirits when he presided over an all staff meeting Tuesday this week and had not yet informed his team of this potential health challenge.

So good news on the Holbrooke health front.

Adding to Congress's threats to move Iran sanctions legislation regardless of what happens at the United Nations, a House appropriator will move to keep all U.S. government money out of the hands of companies that do business there.

"During the House Appropriations Committee's consideration of the Fiscal Year 2011 appropriations bills, I will offer an amendment to each of the twelve appropriations bills to ensure that no federal funds go to companies doing business with Iran," Rep. Steve Rothman, D-N.J, will say in a statement to be released Thursday but obtained in advance by The Cable.

Rothman is responding, in part, to a March 7 New York Times article reported that $107 billion worth of U.S. taxpayer money has gone to companies doing business in Iran, $15 billion going to firms that directly violating existing U.S. sanctions by aiding Iran's oil industry.

If the committee votes to adopt Rothman's language when they takes up the spending bills, it would become the law of the land that no U.S. Government funds would go to such companies, no matter what other sanctions might be in place.

Rothman isn't the only lawmaker trying to close the path of funds from Washington to Tehran. The House version of the Iran sanctions bill currently awaiting conference has a provision to stop U.S. government funds from going to companies involved in Iran's oil sector, written by Rep. Ron Klein, D-FL.

The Senate version of the bill has a similar provision that covers technology exports to Iran, but not oil industry involvement. Inside the conference, several lawmakers are expected to push for language that covers both sectors and perhaps more.

Congress is expected to start working on the spending bills in May.

The "Quartet" of powers focused on Middle East peace has come out with a call for Israel to halt all settlement activity -- just after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Thursday to offer her a compromise that falls short of that goal.

Netanyahu spoke with Clinton Thursday while she was in Moscow meeting with officials there on the new nuclear-arms reduction treaty and a dispute over a new Russian nuclear facility in Iran. Rather than agreeing to Clinton's demand that he reverse the decision to build 1,600 new settlements in East Jerusalem, Netanyahu is reported to have offered a delay of the project and other confidence-building measures to get back to the proximity talks with the Palestinians announced last week.

That was apparently enough to get the Obama administration to have Special Envoy George Mitchell go ahead with his planned, but postponed, trip back to the region. The Cable reported Thursday that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak will join Netanyahu in Washington this weekend for the AIPAC conference and will also join Netanyahu's meetings with top administration officials.

But none of that matches the Quartet's call for the government of Israel "to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth, to dismantle outposts erected since March 2001, and to refrain from demolitions and evictions in East Jerusalem," as communicated in a State Department statement Friday morning.

The Quartet said new talks should lead to a final settlement within 24 months and said that the status of Jerusalem is a "permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties." The group condemned the Israeli decision to move forward with plans for new housing construction in East Jerusalem, saying that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized the by the international community.

Although the Quartet's statement is more aggressive than what the Obama administration and Netanyahu are negotiating behind closed doors, the Israeli response and its reception at the White House is seen as another sign that both sides are trying hard to deescalate the public spat and get ready for a very public embrace at AIPAC next week.

"And so the message is: We've got to get over this," Vice President Joe Biden told ABC news. Clinton called the Netanyahu response "useful and productive" in remarks in Moscow.

The full Quartet statement after the jump:

Read on