My old employer, the Middle East Media Research Institute runs a ticker service that broadcasts headlines from the region. It includes frequent gems, like:

IRANIAN SUPREME LEADER KHAMENEI SAID THOSE WHO HOLD HOSTAGES IN IRAQ ARE NOT MUSLIMS. WE SUSPECT VERY MUCH, HE SAID, THAT THEY ARE AGENTS OF ISRAEL AND THE UNITED STATES. (AL-ZAMAN, IRAQ, 7/14/04)

Iran is condemning hostage taking - and they are "shocked, shocked..."

In the 1980s Iran orchestrated hostage taking in Lebanon to great effect - spurring political scandals in France and the U.S. It is very likely that they are also involved in the hostage taking in Iraq. More broadly, Iran and its Hezbollah ally tutored al-Qaeda in agent handling and building explosives.

The recent surrender of al-Qaeda figure Khaled al-Harbi changes nothing (and fits nicely into the pattern of Iranian duplicity) - it was basically PR. Al-Harbi, a minor al-Qaeda figure, surrenders in Tehran and flies to Saudi Arabia. Iran, which undoubtedly knew of his presence for some time, portrays itself as an ally in the war on terror and Saudi Arabia claims that this shows its amnesty program is working. A win-win: for them!

Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff reports that, at the request of the US Election Assistance Commission, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “asked the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place.”

Naturally this is beginning to raise hackles in predictable quarters. On Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Stewart asked about Bush, maybe, declaring himself Ceasar. Stewart is hilarious – but the various humorless blogosphere denizens are beginning to percolate with conspiracy theories and rants. In no time, this will join the litany of the Bush Administration’s evil power grabs. Leaving aside the fact that no final decision has been reached - these guys are just doing their jobs.

DHS Secretary Tom Ridge has been warning that al-Qaeda could target US elections. Considering the terrible success of the 3/11 Madrid attacks, this is not unreasonable. (In all fairness, there probably won’t be an attack. Al-Qaeda likes to yank our chain. They claimed responsibility for last summer’s blackouts in the northeast.) Ridge has admitted we don’t have definite intelligence on this issue (although “definite intelligence” is an oxymoron by now.)

But imagine if there were such a strike and no plan in place. Would we go forward and hold the election, knowing that tens of thousands of people near the target (almost certainly a major city, and probably in a swing state) would be unable to vote? Or should we allow voting to proceed piecemeal – giving each state the option of going forward with the others holding elections later? Assuming a closely contested election, either scenario would create endless fodder for conspiracy theorists and breed frustration with and contempt for our system.

Almost any plan for this contingency beats no plan. That being said, maybe this issue doesn’t need to go to the President. Granted, the President is the only figure who can declare a national emergency. But the states are responsible for elections. The state election commissioners could develop a set of procedures to postpone elections in the event of a national emergency.

The administration can justly be accused of less than creative thinking here – but of a vast conspiracy, certainly not. But if a big flap does ensue, we can be sure that Osama, the Iranian Mullahs and our other enemies will enjoy the show.