We're going to celebrate Sham el Nassim today by lunching on grilled chicken at a favorite outdoor restaurant near the Giza pyramids. OK, if we can get a table. That's a good way to observe Egypt's wonderful rite of spring, which is roughly translated as "Smelling of the Breeze."

I'll leave you with Nancy Ajram, the Lebanese pop diva, singing Akhasmak, Aah (I'll taunt you) in a Cairo coffee shop, an homage to Egypt's preeminent role in Arab film and music and a reminder of Egypt's special place in the hearts of Arabs everywhere. (Thanks to Clintoncaudill.) By the way, the Akhasmak, Aah music video was denounced by conservatives when it first aired a few years ago, but Ajram sells millions of CDs all over the Middle East including in Egypt.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo

Middle Eastern politics are famously fluid. Alliances shift, friends become enemies, enemies become friends, and it's all so quick and confusing that I have a certain amount of sympathy for Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, who has clearly forgotten who his friends are. Yesterday, Ambassador Dan Gillerman called Jimmy Carter, the former president and Nobel Prize winner, "a bigot" for meeting Hamas leaders in Syria. Gillerman said that Carter (the man who has done more to legitimize Israel's place in the world than any other person alive) has done "some good things" in the past, but now has "blood on his hands." This because Carter asked Hamas to make peace with Israel and release a captured Israeli soldier.

Gillerman's attack on Carter also rings hollow because it is probably only a matter of time before his Israeli colleagues begin dealing with Hamas themselves. The militant Islamic group is the only Palestinian party capable of making a lasting peace with Israel, if for no other reason than Hamas is one of Israeli's most formidable foes. Do I really need to repeat the truism? You make peace with your enemies not your friends.

Israeli leaders have shown such pragmatism elsewhere. This week, we learned that Israel and Syria (Hamas' main state sponsor) have been talking through Turkish interlocutors about a peace deal. So it's ok for Israelis to deal with those who fund and train Hamas, but if a former American president talks to Hamas directly, he's a bigot?

Not that dealing with the Syrians and Hamas are going to be easy. These are dangerous people, and it's far from clear whether they actually want peace. Even though Hamas told Carter that they would be wiling to accept a Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel, they could just be trying to end the siege of Gaza and re-arm.

But it would be a whole lot easier to negotiate from a position of strength if Israel had better friends in the current White House. The Bush administration has given the Israeli government free reign for all kinds of self-defeating policies, from expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank, to invading Lebanon, to avoiding serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians. And when Israel tries something that might free them from the cycle of Middle East violence, like re-enageing Syria, the Bush administration pulls on the brakes.

Which could be one reason why yesterday the White House released files purporting to show that Syria was building a nuclear reactor with assistance from North Korea. Naturally, after the Iraq debacle we should be more skeptical about the Bush Administration's intelligence on WMD. But we should also wonder about the timing of this release -- long after the Israeli air force bombed the alleged nuclear site in September last year. The Israelis have kept mum on the subject ever since, possibly not to further alienate the Syrian Assad regime, which most Israelis recognize is better than whatever crazy radicals might rise up in its place. So why would the White House keep picking this scab? To keep Israel and Syria from getting too cozy? With friends like the Bushies, one is never short of enemies.

Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut

The Internet is wildly popular in Iran, and blogging has become a vital source of information and analysis due to the systematic rollbacks of press freedoms (such as they were) during the last few years. Censorship and self-censorship takes its toll, as does intimidation and imprisonment of bloggers. But how-to-blog sites are among the most visited by Iranians, I reckon an indication that huge numbers of Iranians feel they have something to say and are doing their best to say it.

That brings me to Omid Memarian, one of Iran's most courageous bloggers. A reformist journalist, he took up blogging in 2002 and has paid a heavy price, including arrest, imprisonment and torture. Lately he's been in the U.S. as a fellow at the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, and I phoned him from Tehran last week to ask him about his blogging from there. He's been writing a lot about America and the U.S. presidential election campaign in both Farsi (http://www.memarian.info) and English. Here's a bit from our exchange. I'll have some other posts from inside Iran soon, but wanted to get this one out while we were still on the subject of Iran and the U.S. elections:

SM: Why are you doing the Farsi blog from the U.S.?

Memarian: Iranians love the U.S. Surprisingly, many Iranians differentiate between U.S. politics and American people or culture. People think that their government's animosity toward America has done more harm than good. I've grown up with two myths about the United States: Ayatollah Khomeini's depiction of the U.S. as “Great Satan” on one hand, and the idea of the American dream on the other. Many Iranians prefer to choose the second option. So I write about the myths of America and the real America. The Islamic government spends lots of money to create a dark, evil picture of the U.S. —the same picture that the Bush administration creates of Iran. I simply share my firsthand experience and write about different aspects of this country that people in Iran cannot see.

SM: Why are you writing so much about the U.S. elections?

Memarian: The Islamic government portrays the United States political system as corrupted with a huge amount of conspiracy, and magnifies its obstacles and shortcomings with regular basis via its powerful propaganda machine. But I think the U.S. political system is complicated, unpredictable and amazingly transparent, in a way that seems brutal for countries like Iran that suffer from a very unaccountable, nontransparent and corrupt political system. For many Iranian politicians and officials, the U.S. political atmosphere is an impossible one in which they could not survive.

I also think this election is very unique because of the digital nature of campaigns, which has brought extreme transparency to the political arena. This helps my readers see how simplistic the majority of remarks by Iranian officials about the United States are. I write about how, just like in any other country, Americans are suffering from race and gender discrimination, poverty, corruption and injustice, but there are incredible aspects to living in the U.S. which should not be ignored.

SM: What are you trying to get across to Iranians?

Memarian: I'm trying to explain how the major issues in this society are similar to those in many other countries, even Iran, but on different levels. People in the United States have an opportunity to talk about their political and cultural problems. I would like to show Iranians how the media works here, how bloggers criticize politicians and what makes America unique.

SM: What are you picking up from your reader comments about the election?

Memarian: Many Iranians are obsessed with Barack Obama. If he goes to Iran, I'm sure he could fill Tehran's Azadi Stadium, which has a capacity of 100,000. To a large extent this is because of the nature of Obama's message about change and hope. Iranian people truly want to change their situation, get rid of decades of marginalization and restore their reputation in the world. They feel connected to his message of change. They are tired of living under the threat of economic sanctions and military attacks. Obama's remark about initiating a dialogue with Iran translated for many Iranians into hopes of normalizing the relationship between the countries and Iran rejoining the international community. For many Iranian women struggling for women's rights, Hillary is incredibly inspiring. Senator McCain, on the other hand, they see as just as a third term of President Bush, and I see no reason for them to connect to him.

SM: How do you think the American election will affect U.S.-Iranian relations, or perhaps next year's presidential election campaign in Iran?

Memarian: I think the U.S policy toward Iran has been consistent over the past two decades. I believe that none of the candidates will tolerate a nuclear Iran. None of them will take the military option off the table, either. Iran should prepare to reach a compromise following the U.S. elections. However I do not think any of these candidates will do much before Iran's presidential elections. They would prefer to talk to a new leader rather than President Ahmadinejad.

Iranian officials know that they should not take sides in the U.S. presidential elections because it is very risky for them. Imagine they show their desire for Senator Obama then he goes to the White House and proposes incentives for Iranians. There will be consequences if they are not ready to solve their problems with the U.S. To preserve the current no war-no peace situation, McCain will be the best option for Iranians.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo

A quick followup to my Obama-Iran post:

The National Iranian American Council sent me a press release, which I thought was worth sharing, strongly criticizing Hillary Clinton's remark about obliterating Iran on Good Morning America on election day in Pennsylvania. The non-profit, Washington-based group calls itself an advocate for the interests of Iranian Americans on civic, cultural and political issues.

What Clinton said: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel). In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

NIAC President Trita Parsi responded, saying: "Senator Clinton's statement reflects a mindset of perpetual conflict that has guided our Iran policy for the last seven years. This is disastrous for U.S. national interest, since we are in desperate need of a new and fresh Iran policy aimed at resolving the conflict rather than prolonging it. Fixation on deterrence, sanctions and threats of war have all failed to advance U.S. national interest and change Iran's nuclear policy. What we need now is not nuclear deterrence, but nuclear diplomacy."

What Parsi says about the failure of past policies to advance American interests in the Middle East and the world is an important one to note. Unfortunately, Clinton is engaging in some war-mongering here that she might think will help her get some votes but reflects a mindset that is unlikely to help resolve the real problems with Iran and the Middle East. Iran is not going to nuke Israel, and the U.S. is not going to obliterate Iran, and Clinton knows that. Or, she should.

--By Scott MacLeod/Dubai

Jimmy Carter and Bashar al Assad in Damascus on Friday. / Photo by Andrew Lee Butters

Wouldn't it be great if just as the storm clouds gather in a darkening Middle East, the person who has done more to achieve peace in the region than any one else alive could come back from semi-retirement and somehow pull off the impossible?

For a moment after former President Jimmy Carter's controversial trip to Damascus, it looked like the man who brokered the Camp David Accords had a little of the old magic left. After meetings last week with Syrian President Bashar al Assad and Hamas leader Khaled Meschaal, Carter yesterday announced peace overtures on their behalf. Syria, which has been one of the most anti-Israeli countries in the Arab world, said it wants a peace treaty with Israel and wants it fast. Also according to Carter, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic militant group, would be willing to accept a Palestinian state within the West Bank and Gaza, a de facto recognition of Israel as it existed before 1967. Just how serious a peace proposal is this? Serious enough that it was quickly denounced by Osama bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. Surely if al Qaeda is grumpy, peace is back on track, no?

But Carter's efforts have gone unappreciated in Jerusalem and Washington. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice took time out of a trip to the Persian Gulf to tell reporters that President Carter was in no way a party to peace negotiations, that his meeting with Hamas was unhelpful, and that the real American peace negotiators were not going to talk Hamas. A spokesman for the Israeli defense department said that the proposals were more of the same hot air from Hamas.

How did the Carter initiative tank so quickly? The problem is not so much the proposals from Syria and Hamas, but the deep layers of cynicism that now surround the Arab-Israeli conflict, which will enter its 60th year next month. President Assad has been offering to restart peace talks with Israel for over a year now, but many Israeli leaders don't think he's serious. Critics of Syria say that the Assad regime is unlikely to stop playing the role of regional troublemaker –supporting Hamas and Hizballah militants and trying to topple the Lebanese government, for example -- even if Israel returned the Syrian land it has occupied since 1967. Critics of Israeli policy say that Israel has gotten too comfortable in Syrian territory, and is unwilling or unable to withdraw from the strategic Golan Heights, especially not after its botched invasion of nearby Lebanon in 2006, and the botched withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2004.

The Hamas proposal appears to be a more significant development. Though the group officially calls for the destruction of Israel, Hamas has now given Carter written assurances that it would accept the outcome of Palestinian-Israeli peace talks if the outcome is ratified by a popular Palestinian referendum. The only Palestinian group that actually has the strength to create a lasting peace (or de-rail it) has essentially said that it would be willing to accept the existence of Israel.

But the Israeli and American governments have consistently refused to meet Hamas until it explicitly denounces terrorism and explicitly recognizes Israel. In their view, to give Hamas a place at the table would essentially reward those who have chosen violence, opening up Israel to other predators in the region who think that they too can scare the Jewish state into concessions. Besides, Israeli leaders say that they have seen Hamas cease fires come and go, and suspect that the group is merely playing games to end the Israeli siege of Gaza, which has been the group's stronghold since it won elections there in 2005.

But Hamas is unlikely to go all the way and explicitly accept Israel on its own. The group's refusal to recognize Israel is its greatest weapon. The inaccurate rockets it fires into Israel are a deadly nuisance, but they don't threaten the country's existence. On the other hand, the fact that Hamas, the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people, don't accept the Jewish state denies Israel the self-confidence that comes with being a normal country. Hamas won't give that up for nothing, and what it wants is international recognition. It's a closed circle.

Such is the absurd tragedy of the Middle East. Giving recognition to one's foes is the ultimate concession and sign of weakness, and yet is also the only solution. It will take more than one well-intentioned old man from Georgia to resolve that Catch-22.

--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut

After a week in Tehran speaking with politicians and analysts across the political spectrum, I came away with conclusions on two important issues. Iranians are confident if not over-confident in their overall strategic position, and are not so worried about a military strike before the Bush administration leaves office nine months from now.

And, as I have written in a time.com piece today, there's a widespread feeling that the election of Barack Obama may be an important opportunity to lessen or end U.S.-Iranian hostility. One of President Ahmadinejad's vice presidents told me that if he himself was an American voter, he might have cast his ballot for Obama.

An Iranian Map of the United States

On Iran's position in the region, Iranians pour on the irony in giving Bush much of the credit for bolstering Iranian fortunes--albeit, of course, unintentionally. They gleefully point out how Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan toppled neighboring regimes that were the most hostile to Iran's interests. And they are keenly aware that the invasion of Iraq and bungling of the occupation has helped more than quadruple oil prices to more than $115 a barrel--which nicely provided the major oil-producing nation with vast windfall revenues to help cushion the effects of the Bush-driven U.N. sanctions against Iran. After one Iranian official ran down the list of Iran's geopolitical gains during the Bush administration, I felt compelled to jokingly respond by saying, "You're welcome!" That prompted quite a jolly laugh on his part.

Iranian officials believe that the Bush administration has the intention to attack Iran--Bush has repeatedly warned Iran about its alleged nuclear weapons program-- but at this point lacks the capability to do so. One official assured me that Iran had the capability to launch a powerful retaliatory attack--perhaps a reference to what mischief Iran could inspire through proxies against U.S. interests in Iraq and Israel, which could help fan flames of anti-Americanism throughout the Islamic world. But he also said that a bigger Iranian deterrent is what a U.S.-Iranian clash would do to the global economy through the disruption of the world's oil supplies. I spoke to a few analysts who expressed fear about a Bush attack, but compared to other Iranians they came off as either naive or as trying to promote Bush's war-mongering image in the Middle East. Officials and analysts close to the government seemed unanimous in almost completely dismissing the possibility.

I was struck by the extent to which Iranian officials are seeing positive signs in the prospect of Obama or even John McCain being elected president. McCain has a very negative image in Iran, partly because of his rather insensitive joking for an American leader about bombing Iran. At least 300,000 Iranian lives and perhaps many more were lost after Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980 and enjoyed support from the U.S. during an eight-year war. In 1988, a U.S. Navy warship shot down an Iranian passenger flight en route to Dubai, killing the 290 people aboard. Nevertheless, Iranian officials are intrigued by recent statements by Henry Kissinger calling for direct U.S.-Iranian negotiations. Iranians believe that Kissinger is an influential advisor to McCain and they have great respect for Kissinger's weight in American foreign policy circles. It's easy to see how if Iranians decided to follow through with a "Grand Bargain" with the U.S., they would feel more comfortable and confident dealing with an American president who would involve a Kissinger in the process.

Yet, Obama is the candidate that Iranians much prefer. Besides reflexively sympathizing with an African-American with Islamic family roots, they believe Obama's personal experiences in that regard make him more understanding of the developing world and especially the Muslim world and hence more capable of approaching Iran with a better perspective and with more sincerity. They are also impressed with what they feel is Obama's diplomatic, respectful language, which they see as being in utter contrast with insulting U.S. rhetoric dominant during the Bush administration.

Some Iranian officials and analysts go so far as to say that Obama's election could be a historical turning point. As one Iranian put it to me, "This could be a moment of truth for the U.S. and for Iran." What he probably meant was that Obama's possible willingness to make a significant outreach to Iran could be what is needed to convince Iran's leadership that Washington is truly serious about ending the 30 years of hostile relations. In this view, Iran itself could never make the first move or provide the initial compromises, because Iran is the weaker party, and it is feared that concessions would simply embolden the stronger party to demand more. Looking back over the last four U.S. presidential terms spanning nearly 16 years, Iranians regard Bill Clinton as wishy-washy and Bush as strong hostile. Thus, a clear-cut diplomatic outreach by Obama would be a sea-change in American attitudes, from Iran's perspective.

Iranians believe such a bold diplomatic initiative by Obama would be a moment of truth for Iran in the sense that Iran's leadership would have to decide whether to continue its "controlled" hostility to the U.S., which it uses for domestic and international support, or bite the bullet and enter into a cooperative relationship entailing major compromises on issues like the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Iranians realize that another Obama may not come on to the American scene for quite a while, and that rejection of his olive branch--if one is indeed extended-- might inexorably push the region to the World War III that Bush has warned about. Although Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatullah Khamenei has the ultimate say, his moves are influenced by the winds blowing in Iranian politics. Iranians go to the polls in '09 when Ahmadinejad, a hard-liner, is likely to face a strong challenge from more pragmatic candidates, even from within the so-called fundamentalist camp. There's a feeling that McCain's election in the U.S. would aid Ahmnadinejad's re-election whereas an Obama or Hillary Clinton presidency may provide more ammunition to Iranian hopefuls arguing for a more pragmatic approach to the U.S.

Iranian officials were at pains to insist to me that they have no aggressive hegemonic plans for the MIddle East, that they are simply content to exploit the new strategic benefits they have gained thanks to the Bush administration's own goals in the region. They are eager to point out that except for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iranian and American interests in the region strongly converge. They say that both countries support the Iraqi government of Nuri al-Maliki and would like to see stability in Iraq. One analyst said that Iran wanted the U.S. to succeed in Iraq, but not to succeed so much that Washington would then turn its sites on changing the regime in Tehran. Iran's interference in Iraqi affairs, the analyst suggested, was simply part of the U.S.-Iranian chess game. Furthermore, officials say that both countries are determined to curb the rise of extremist Sunni Muslim groups in the Middle East and prevent the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan. As an oil exporting country, Iran is in sync with American desires to keep the oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz.

The Iranian may have been correct in saying that an Obama presidency would be a moment of truth for the U.S., too--if he failed to decisively help defuse U.S.-Iranian tensions, it could auger against American standing in the Middle East for years to come. Yet, a serious American effort to achieve a rapprochement with Tehran--whether by Obama or whoever else is inaugurated U.S. president next January-- would clearly put Iran's true intentions to the test. Some in Iran want the confrontation to continue, both for ideological reasons and to strengthen their position in domestic politics. But other Iranian leaders clearly see advantages in a rapprochement with the U.S. Normal relations with the U.S. would consolidate Iran's strategic position in the region, make Iran the most significant, unchallenged power in the Muslim Middle East and strengthen Iran's economy by dramatically easing Iranian trade with the world.

--By Scott MacLeod/Tehran

The Presidential Palace sits on a hill overlooking Damascus, its dark glass windows gazing at the city like a blank computer monitor or an unblinking eye. I went up there today, ostensibly as part of the local press pool covering the visit by former American president Jimmy Carter, but really just to get a look at Syrian President Bahsar al Assad's layout.

Its impressive, as was no doubt intended. The walled complex is done is a crisp white International Style mixed with Arabesque motifs like a 60's era space station for the film version of 1001 Nights directed by Stanley Kubrick.

T

Also as expected, we were hustled through the meeting of two presidents fater than I could think of the word for "cheese" in Arabic. All I caught of the discussion was a bit of Georgia drawl: "there are a lot of people in my country who would like to have that conversation."

Certainly Carter wasn't talking about the Bush Administration, which would rather that neither Carter nor anyone else talked to Syria, which the US accuses of supporting terrorism in Israel, Lebanon and Iraq. But Carter's visit today is just one example of how the effort to isolate Syria is failing.

--Andrew Lee Butters/Damascus

A rug shop in the Old City of Damascus

One of the fringe benefits of being a Middle East correspondent is that my travels in the region have allowed me to start a decent little collection of oriental rugs. This may sound like I'm acting out an imperialist fantasy, but it's actually a fairly practical pastime. Rugs are the perfect piece of furniture for a modern nomad. Originally designed to fit on pack animals, modest-sized rugs easily fold into airplane carry-on; their irregular, hand-made patterns brighten up cookie-cutter hotel rooms; and as exotic gifts, they appease far-flung friends disappointed that you missed their wedding or the baptism of their child.

The first purchase I ever made was a small prayer rug from a souk in the old city of Damascus to celebrate the safe completion of a stint working in Iraq. Syria is a particularly good place to pick up rugs, and has been ever since Silk Road travelers from the great weaving cultures of central Asia passed through this final arc of the fertile crescent on their way to the holy lands. Those days are long gone, but Iranian pilgrims visiting Shia Muslim shrines in Syria still sometimes bring rugs in order to evade restrictions on taking hard currency out of the Islamic Republic.

But even in Syria, rug buying can be pretty intimidating for the beginner. All the seemingly innumerable variations of region, style, and quality make valuating any particular rug seem like the ultimate in bazaar bargaining, and any transaction a potential clash of civilizations between straight-forward, naïve Westerners and wily, opaque Orientals.

Naturally, these clichés are exactly that. Arab traders drive a hard bargain for the same reason everyone else does: money. And anyone who thinks that Western capitalism is inherently transparent should try making sense of the sub-prime mortgage derivatives mess. But if it's a whole lot easier to enter the rug market than get a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, there are still some useful lessons I've learned from buying rugs, which, when taken with a healthy dose of skepticism for metaphor, are also perhaps useful as a guide, if not to the Middle East, than at least to the post-everything era we live in now.

They are going to win because they invented the game. Friends in the industry tell me that the way to start buying rugs is to start doing homework: go look at the catalogs from big auction houses, ask big dealers for their prices, and then hit the small shops and look at a lot of rugs. In other words, develop your own expertise.

I tried this for a while, but one thing got in the way: reality. I've got a job to do and friends I don't see enough and no matter how much time I spend trying to tell the difference between a Iranian Kurdish sumac from an Azeri kilim there's still little chance that I'm going to out-fox a shop owner who has years of experience and generations of rug traders in his blood. One way or another, I'm going to have to pay the pink-face tax.

So play your own game. If the rug works for you, it's a good rug. Conversely, if you got a great price on a rug that doesn't fit in your apartment, you're still a sucker. Early on, I decided that I much prefer simple, single-knot tribal rugs that have a homespun quality to them, as opposed to the grand, Persian, double-knot silk carpets that go well in a living room full of ivory elephant tusks. This may mean my tastes aren't very elevated, but I've saved a lot of money.

But don't care too much. Life is unfair. It's easier to get a job when you already have one, easier to get laid when you already have a girlfriend, and easier to get things when you don't really want them. I did my best-ever bit of bargaining while killing time on a layover in Istanbul in the middle of January. A rug trader lured me into his shop and showed me a beautiful Anatolian kilim. “I'm on my way to Iraq, I don't want to buy a rug,” I kept telling the guy, as the price kept plummeting.

The way you keep from taking feeling embarrassed about an expensive purchase on the one hand, or from wanting any one rug so much that you end up paying through the teeth is to think about the big picture. And the big picture is grim.

The wars and upheavals of the 20th century have almost completely destroyed the nomadic herding cultures that created these wonderful rugs. And although the Antiques Roadshow hasn't shown up in Damascus yet, the heavy hand of globalization has almost finished scouring the souks of Syria for all that is old and good and shipped it off for sale in antiseptic showrooms in London, New York, and Dubai. The rugs that you see before you now are almost certainly the best you will ever see again, artifacts from a time when humans made things of meaning and value. Why not salvage them? On the other hand, Hizballah has re-armed, Israel could attack Lebanon again at any time, Iran is probably building nuclear weapons, the surge in Iraq is mirage, and America is falling apart. Is now the right time to spend $1,000 on a wool mat?

Andrew Lee Butters/Damascus

I'm traveling to Syria, or at least I'm trying to (turned back at the border late last night because of visa problems) which is a shame since I'm missing out on a week of art openings and cultural happenings. It's always pretty eye-opening how many talented and creative people there are in Lebanon, despite (or because of?) all the crap that happens here.

Still, the past weighs heavily on the exhibitions I've seen so far: an archive of beautiful and disturbing militia posters from the civil war era; a display honoring a Palestinian poet killed by Israeli operatives in Rome in the 1970's that includes a copy of A Thousand and One Nights scarred by the bullets that killed him; and in a vacant lot downtown, rows upon rows of toilet seats, a reference to the days when bathrooms served as emergency bomb shelters. "Haven't 15 years of hiding in the toilets been enough?" signs say.

Let's hope the country doesn't go further down the, um, tubes.

--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut

Mahmoud Abbas keeps getting weaker. The Palestinian president and his secular, moderate Fatah movement has been losing ground in the Palestinian territories ever since the Islamic party Hamas won the Gaza elections in 2005. Still, at least Fatah remained the most powerful party among Palestinians living abroad, especially among the 400,000 refuges in Lebanon. Now however, Abbas's power is being challenged in what could shape up to be a mini inter-Palestinian civil war fought out in Lebanon's lawless refugee camps.

Last week, Fatah rivals staged an assassination attempt against Abbas' chosen man in Lebanon, Abbas Zaki, according to both Palestinian officials, who gave TIME details of the unreported event, and to Lebanese security officials who confirmed the account. The would-be assassin was nabbed just as he was about to plant a car bomb in front of the Palestinian embassy in Beirut. Under what was no doubt less-than-polite questioning in one of Fatah's prisons inside the camps, the suspect fingered the number two Palestinian leader in Lebanon, Sultan Abul Ainain, whose name means “the Emperor of Eyes.” Sultan is a warlord of the old school, accused by Lebanese authorities of heading a jihaddist sleeper cell and various mafioso-style criminal activities.

President Abbas sent Zaki to Lebanon three years ago in order to clean up Sultan's mess. Conditions inside Palestinian camps in Lebanon are miserable, in large part because of institutionalized discrimination by the Lebanese, but also because of corruption among Palestinian leaders. But Sultan reportedly has allies of his own: notably the intelligence agencies of pro-American Sunni Muslim Arab countries such Saudi Arabia and Egypt, according to Lebanese newspapers. These countries might have an interest in supporting Sunni Palestinian militants as a possible counter-balance to Hizballah, the Shia Muslim militia that is currently trying to bring down the Saudi and American-backed Lebanese government. Though there is no known connection between Sultan and the Americans, he and his men carry the latest in American-made light assault weapons.

The episode has some eerie echoes of the inter-Palestinian civil war in Gaza last year (albeit on a much smaller scale.) In Gaza, Fatah leaders backed by the Bush administration tried to stage a coup against the democratically elected Hamas government. As in Lebanon, those Fatah leaders had a widespread reputation for corruption and crime, and the resulting chaos in Gaza only strengthened Hamas and those groups opposed to peace with Israel.

President Abbas wants Sultan to face trial in a Palestinian court in Jordan. But the warlord – holed up among his faithful in south Lebanon -- is unlikely to go quietly. In the event of an inter-Fatah civil war in Lebanon, (which Sultan would probably win) it is hard to imagine how Abbas could command enough respect among Palestinians to pull off a peace deal with Israel. But at this point, it's hard enough to imagine peace in the Middle East anyway.

--Andrew Lee Butters with reporting by Rami Aysha/Beirut