I guess Americans do not realize how psychopathic their obsession with make-believe threats looks to the rest of humanity. (The normal peaceable people of this world that is trampled nonstop by a fascist-imperialist monster that calls itself a democracy).

What "threat" exactly could Iran possibly pose to the US, even if it had a nuclear weapon? Even if 20 years down the road Iran has a nuclear weapon AND an intercontinental delivery system capable of hitting the US, would that really be a "threat?"

No. Not to any sane person. Iran could never attack the US. it would mean instant nuclear annihilation.

So what threat is there? The only real "threat" that Iran poses (or Iraq, or Serbia, or North Korea, or any of the countries that have been attacked without provocation by the US in just the space of a few years) is that these countries do not wish to bow to the diktat of the US World Empire.

That is the only possible "threat" these countries have ever posed to the US, their desire for freedom. If you want freedom then you are a threat to the US monster.

It is really too bad that even progressive writers such as Mr. Walt engage in this pathological the discussion of "threats." It goes to show how sick the US society is that there is no room in the public debate for a bit of simple sanity.

The fact is that the US people have come to love the military monstrosity their leaders have created and cheer on with pure and simple blood lust as this monster is unleashed against country after country without provocation.

They delude themselves with crazy talk about threats, when in fact they have the least real threats of any country in the world. What a sick country and people. I hope you can invent a pill to take for this sickness, but I doubt it.

Iran has invaded nobody in 280 years, has no nukes but needs nuclear energy to conserve their oil resources, has signed the NPT and has nothing to gain by attacking anybody with much to lose. Israel, in contrast, has invaded and occupied all 4 of its neighbors more than once in its brief 62-year history, illegally occupies, confiscates and blockades Palestinian territory, has 200-300 undeclared nukes, has refused to sign the NPT, continuously threatens to attack Iran, and pressures the U.S. to do so. So where is the real threat to peace in the Middle East?

1) Is there a % of GDP that would make a country a threat?

Yes. Wealth is the foundation for a strong military. As countries get richer, they translate that wealth into military might, and they typically expand when there is a large regional power-imbalance. That's a fairly obvious assertion, cases in point: France, the U.S., Germany (twice), the Soviet Union, and watch China.
Of course this does not apply to Iran because the Middle East is a multi-polar region. Iran does not even pose a threat to its nextdoor neighbors, let alone the United States.

2) Number of active duty military, number of tanks?

Yes. If a country has significant military superiority it is likely to use it.

So, what is the % of GDP that would constitute a threat to our interests? The ratio of armed forces? And, under this reasoning, the EU is a threat to the US because it has roughly equal GDP, or not a threat because it has a small ratio of armed forces? How about the Soviet Union, which has a small % of GDP relative to US, but a large ratio of armed forces? Was that a threat? Going by rough figures, Iran has the GDP of Columbia and Azerbijan: so, it would roughly be the same threat to us as them? And the same importance in world affairs? And Iran's military is considered to be roughly the size of Egypt's or Mexico's? Same threat level as those two to our interests?

should read, the Soviet Union has a small % of GDP relative to the US...

had

Blue,
pls read Steve's article, before going Postal with your keyboard........

"Obviously, simple bean counts like the one presented above do not tell you everything about the two countries, or the political challenges that Iran might pose to its neighbors. Iran has engaged in a number of actions that are cause for concern (such as its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon), and it has some capacity to influence events in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, as we have learned in both of these countries, objectively weaker adversaries can still mount serious counterinsurgency operations against a foreign occupier. And if attacked, Iran does have various retaliatory options that we would find unpleasant, such as attacking shipping in the Persian Gulf. So Iran's present weakness does not imply that the United States can go ahead and bomb it with impunity. "

GDP and population make up the basic power potential of a country, but obviously, you also need to have a look at how much money is actually being spent on military expenditures and how much active personnel and equipment a nation actually has (as is being done in the article). The Soviet Union did have a small GDP relative to the coalition arrayed against it, but it mobilized a much greater share of it for defense purposes and was thus able to achieve a parity in armaments (up until the eighties, the Soviet conventional forces were actually considered to be superior to NATO). Needless to say, we now know this mobilization wasn't sustainable in the long term, and its huge military expenditures were slowly eating away at the economic base of the Soviet Union.

For those above who are not the swiftest deer in the forest or the sharpest knives in the drawer, let me rephrase my cheeky comments above:

al-Queda, circa 2000: GDP: less than 1% of our GDP; military expenditures: less than 1% of our military expenditures; # of men under arms, # of tanks, fighter jets, etc.: less than 1% of ours.
So, using Walt's reasoning, al Queda was not a serious threat to the US on Sept. 10, 2001.

You can agree or disagree with whether Iran is a serious threat to our interests (and completely ignore our reliance on oil if you'd like), but Walt's analysis is just complete silliness masquerading as realism.

Blue, do you realize there's a difference between a nation like Iran and a terrorist organization like Al-Quaeda? One has visible targets that need to be defended in the event of an armed confrontation, and organized military forces serving this purpose, while the other relies on stealth and evading US power. Iran's military forces can (and would) be targeted with high accuracy if a war should ever break out, its cities can be occupied or even destroyed, its government officials can be forced from power. You know, kind of similar to what happened to Iraq? The possibility of this happening, and the ease with which the US could do it, serves as a deterrent against any direct challenge to US interests. Al-Queda, on the other hand, has nothing to defend and little to lose, but this necessarily also puts a limit on what they can actually accomplish and the degree to which they can threaten US interests. Have they gotten any closer to establishing a new caliphate? Arguably not. Can they at least force the US out of the Middle East? No. Can they threaten the existence of Israel? No, and they haven't even tried. Can they cause enough casualties among US citizens to cow it into submission? Not likely, and further attacks would rather provoke more violent responses. A small and determined group of terrorists can certainly constitute a threat to individual US citizens, but not to the nation as a whole or its interests abroad. It would take another state with considerable material resources to do that, and Prof. Walt is simply arguing is that Iran is not that nation.

@ BLUE

Regardless of any sharp knives, elevators that do not go to the top or not, or any other such silly sayings, I would very much like you to provide ONE single item of proof that Al Quaida did indeed carry out the attacks of 9/11. Just ONE item and without regurgitating all the crap that was presented as proof by the criminal junta that ruled Washington at that time. Also, why does the FBI NOT list Ben Laden on their most wanted list. Believing that a bunch of men living in caves half a world away were able to carry out such a well coordinated and sophisticated attack, stretches the bounds of credulity.

I have equally lost any semblence of respect for Walt when he claims that Hammas and Hizb Allah are "terrorist" organizations, when both were created as a direct result of invasion by the mass murdering zionist entity that insinuated itself in the Middle East and Palestine, and under International Law, have every right to take up arms against the occupiers and to defend it. How utterly disgusting of him and other arrogant Americans to continue to refer to them as "terrorists". But then again, we have the good example of the French terrorists in the second world war to go by. Also the Greek terrorists who faught againt the Nazi occupation of their land. Oooops, sorry, those were Christian Europeans and ergo NOT terrorists but "freedom fighters". My mistake!

And by the , Walt, Iran has NOT invaded another country, nor threatened to do so, for at least 300 years and NOT just since the revolution that brought the present government into power.... A revolution fomented by the anger that perculated against the American puppet, the Shah, who was installed by the Americans after they engineerd the downfall of the democratically elected government in Iran of 1953.

Your analysis, Walt, is biased and sophomoric to say the least.

I wish Iran really did get the nuclear bombs everyone accuses them of wanting to aquire. At least then all the hypocrites gathering for blood, would back off a country that has done NOTHING to harm any other country. Hardly something that can be said for the murderous Americans, French, British, et al, with all their bloody wars, occupations and thousands of nuclear weaopons.

BLUE, regardless of % of GDP, any country has the right to defend itself against the bully in the school yard. Iran is NO exception even though they have never and will never pose a threat to the USA. Its the other way around. get off your hysterical and revolting American exceptionalism arrogance.

Iran is constantly accused of ominous intentions from its (very modest) support of Hezbollah and Hamas. Both have arisen as inevitable resistance movements - legal under international law - against Israeli invasion and occupation, so why shouldn't they receive support from somewhere while Israel's military monster, its illegal and suffocating occupation and blockade, and its war crimes are massively subsidized by the generosity of U.S. taxpayers?

It's pretty naive to accept the official story that 9/11 was independently pulled off by 19 amateur Arabs, circumventing US and international intelligence and US air defenses designed for decades to repel an infinitely more daunting Soviet attack. In fact, although the precise methods will never be known due to massive and diffuse COINTEL as well as other concealment devices, they could not possibly have accomplished this without assistance by forces within the US government.
Disregarding the many questionable theories, some facts are unambiguously known. Foreknowledge provided the government from at least 15 foreign intelligence agencies has been established, and Israeli foreknowledge is abundantly documented. Who scheduled the hijack exercises at precisely the same time to confuse air traffic controllers, and who arranged for defensive aircraft to be exercising elsewhere that morning? Why did the administration adamantly resist a 9/11 commission, then insist on appointing the commissioners, then resist subpoenas, and then heavily redact documents when forced to provide them under subpoena?
To many of us their guilt or complicity has been obvious from the beginning but the COINTEL including planted theories that are easily discredited (e.g., no plane hit the Pentagon) have made it impossible to identify the perpetrators and method necessary for indictment and successful prosecution. Those who know the truth would obviously be among the guilty or terrified to reveal it under threat of certain death.

UGH. You people are worse than the birthers.

If you just came to hurl insults — a la a "16-year-old girl from Orange County" — go elsewhere. Walt's points are debatable; the point of this board is to debate them, not to engage in puerile name-calling.

Given your criticism of Walt, who are some of the "grown ups" that FP should employ to blog?

On a side note, it seems to me that the gentlemen most commonly referred to as "grown ups" in the past decade are usually those of Walt's realist persuasion: James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, etc.

Dr. Walt, it would be interesting to have a guest post from Caitlin Talmadge on the subject of Iranian threats to both the United States and the United States' interests in the Middle East. Her "Closing Time" article was great.

Point taken. I admit that the "16 year old girl" was unnecessary. I usually keep a cool head and never throw insults into policy discussion but I guess I've just been a little frustrated and dumbfounded by Walt's articles recently. I always had a great deal of respect for him as one of my best professors on U.S. foreign policy revered Walt, studied under him, and had us study Walt's theories in depth. I guess that's why I've been so frustrated with him. I find it irritating when intellectuals, merely for the sake of distinguishing themselves from other intellectuals, float theories that are simplified and short-sighted (and theories which they often don't even believe themselves). That being said, I should have limited my own criticisms to the substantive points of contention. Though Pippon can take a hike with his Google search suggestion and his lame head in the mud comment. I'm well aware of who Walt is and acknowledge his "academic prestige" in my first post. As I said, I just think he may have gotten a little too comfortable with it and no longer puts the same effort into his postings because he's secured his spot as the academic who calls out those he sees fit to be labeled as fear-mongers and bravely stands up to big bad Israel. He's found his niche and now feels obligated to cater to his loyal "realists" and lead the charge.

I have a great deal of respect for Baker, Scowcroft, and the "realist" school. Nevertheless, I think Walt has strayed away from that course and tradition more recently.

Oh and I didn't hear Ippon or Mohair crying when Walt was throwing Ad Hominem accusations at Satloff. It wasn't problematic when he was questioning Satloff's loyalty to the US based on little more than a hunch, but I guess he was just being a bold "realist". Bravo!

You, EW66, said that so well. I'd love to have read similar comments from 70 years ago, when I'm sure "journalists" opined that "Germany isn't a threat to the US", nor is Italy, nor Japan.

At least they came to their senses when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

The enemy we have in the Middle East is NOT one that we have faced before. We cannot reason with radicals who have no fear of death and are willing to sacrifice women, children, and anything else to achieve what they believe that Allah wants; yea, demands. And people like Walt want to continue the belief that we can negotiate and reason with these enemies. We cannot! They have proven time and time again that they are not interested in that.

And it's fine to compare our GDP, military outlay, etc. to theirs and claim that they are no threat. Having a nuke is a great equalizer. Puts them right up there with the Big Boys.

You actually believe that Arab states (namely Egypt & Saudi Arabia) do not fear Iran's nuclear program because you pulled one article that says Kuwaiti's believe that all states have a right to peaceful nuclear energy? Riiiiiiight.

IPPON,
I could list dozens of articles that demonstrate where Egypt and Saudi Arabia stand on this issue. Indeed you can find several recent articles on this website from experts and commentators (on both sides of the political spectrum) who cite Arab fears over Iranian proliferation as a given. But I'd rather try to explain it to you myself.
The relationship between Sunni and Shiite has been riddled with conflict and distrust on both sides since...well, just about after the death of Muhammad. Egypt and Saudi Arabia have remained extremely wary of Iranian encroachment for some time (read Robert Baer for info on this). Evidence of this is out there all the time but largely flows under the radar, like last year when Egypt busted a 24 man cell of Iranian IRGC agents. And to the South, Yemen has to deal with the Houthi rebels who Iran also has ties with. That's also why all three of these countries are boosting up defense spending (especially in air power).
U.S. policy mirrors this same notion. Gates and Clinton have both outlined their plan several times for containing Iran largely by relying on our nuclear umbrella for the protection of our allies. They specifically cite Egypt and Saudi Arabia being the key to this strategy by coordinating our defense systems with theirs. Both of these nations are well aware of the fact that Iran constitutes a much greater threat to their interests than the U.S. does. In fact, Egypt and Saudi Arabia fear destabilization much more from Iran having nukes than Israel having them. This is also far from a new point of view. The majority of scholars, politicians, and intelligence officials who have attempted to simulate and/or predict what would happen if Israel bombed Iranian nuclear facilities have said that Egypt and Saudi Arabia would both criticize Israel's actions publicly, but would applaud them in private.
Even those who believe that Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon would be a positive thing for U.S. foreign policy quickly list firm support from Egypt and Saudi Arabia as one of the chief benefits. In fact, you can even find some of this in this very comments section (see SMCI's comment below).
As for your claim that Israel is the most belligerent nation in the middle east, well that just says a lot. Most notably how out of touch with reality you are. But still, wouldn't you care to back that up or provide some evidence (maybe list an article?) like you so bravely defended Sir mixalott for doing? No. In fact, you haven't made one substantive post in this commentary with a shred of evidence to back it up. Instead, you've written 2-3 sentence critiques of other posts. Being wrong is never fun, but being wrong and a hypocrite must really suck. Best of luck

HAHA. IPPON, I’m convinced there’s something wrong with you. You’re either illiterate or just have a severe learning disorder.
A) You didn’t argue against one thing I said.
What I said didn’t originate from “something I heard somewhere”. I didn’t think it was necessary to post 100 links (I noticed you didn’t either) because anyone who follows the news and policy discussions is aware of these things I listed. It’s not stuff that I just “want us (ie YOU) to believe”, it’s well documented. Please don’t say “us” as if the majority of other posters are as ill-informed as you on these issues. I’m sure the majority of them are aware of these things. The fact that you refrained from disputing any of it shows that you either have no counterargument, or (and I’m beginning to believe this), that you’re simply unaware of these things, in which case there’s almost no point in arguing against your ill-informed and amateurish knowledge of what goes in the middle east.
B) I accused Sir Mixxalot of posting just one brief article that was in no way central or demonstrative of Arab sentiment in the Gulf. He may not be wrong on how the Kuwaitis feel, but it’s certainly not representative of the title of his post. I intentionally avoided listing a host of articles because I don’t think that’s what the commentary section is for. The difference is, I accused Sir Mixxalot of providing insufficient evidence for what his title proclaimed, which should require a decent amount of evidence because it strays from the conventional wisdom. I don’t think he needs more article postings, only that the one he did post was unconvincing at best. You on the other hand, criticize me for not posting article links while not providing ANY yourself. You claim your statements are based on “hard facts “ and “not some article or opinion piece” but continue to omit any “hard facts”. You sir, are the hypocrite and are venturing into the absurd. I also assumed you’d be aware of the things I listed and not falsely dismiss them as hearsay. That’s laughable.
C) It would have had a little more respect for your opinion if you’d made an attempt to dispute the claims on Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen feeling the dangerous Iranian encroachment or the position of both the State Department and the DOD that I mentioned. You didn’t dispute the position held by those who suggest that Iran’s acquiring a bomb would be a good thing either. Please, try to counter something.
Also, your classifying the conflict that has existed by Sunnis and Shiites as “disagreements” is a joke. Spare me the euphemisms next time you decide to show how much of an ignoramus you really are.
I can’t hold your hand through this. I don’t intend to spend my time forwarding you url’s so that you can begin to educate yourself on the issues. I could easily dismiss everything you said as hearsay and something that goes on in your head. I guess I just want to know, are you unaware of the things I listed? That’s the only way I could understand your dismissing them as hearsay and stuff that goes on in my head. And just a reminder, EVERYTHING you've posted as of yet remains a 2-3 sentence childish criticism that makes no attempt to list counterpoints or anything substantive of that nature. Please take a moment to think long and hard before your next post. Or better yet, venture outside of FP.com and start reading up on current events. Who knows, it might make you look a little more informed on later commentaries. Again, good luck, I know you've got an uphill battle on your hands but I won't lose faith just yet.

HAHA. I expected this retreat back into the vague assertions and crying you’ve been doing. It’s funny that you accuse me of whining. Reread my posts and yours and ask yourself who’s whining. Don’t put yourself in the same category as Walt. Making a joke about Walt and calling you childish IS very different. And by the way, please look up the definition of hypocrite when you have a minute. I’m a bit surprised that you still refuse to put forth any substantive arguments despite my prodding and pleading for you to do so. I'd (and I’m sure Kayl would agree) rather be accused of being unoriginal than saying absolutely NOTHING as you continue to do. I’m sure it makes you feel special when you throw out words like “superficial” when you critique other arguments. Yes, I saw Brzezinski on Fox news last year too. I’ll take your hollow response as yet another admission that you’re completely incapable of formulating a response. However, I would’ve at least appreciated a response to my question as to whether or not you’re aware of the things I listed earlier. That would have done a lot to clarify why you’re responses are so pathetic. It’s gotten to that point where you’ve already demonstrated beyond any measure of doubt that I’m arguing with a complete fool and you’ve now retreated back to your original complaint that I’m not being civil enoungh. Awwww...stop whining!!! Anyway, I’ll leave you to it. And better luck next time.

@ EW66;

The ONLY thing Egypt and Suadi Arabia have to fear from Iran is the fear its autocratic and dictatorial leaders have from being ousted by their own people in a popular mass uprising that would emulate the overthrow of the equally vicious Shah in Iran back in 1978. To equate that fear of a couple of dictators for their own personal fear with Egypt, or SA, and to transpose that into an existential threat to both nations, is ludicrous to say te least.

And the only fear the Western nations and in particular, the USA, have to fear from Iran is that it might become simply too powerful for it to be brought into line and "tamed" by the USA as a pupper country similar to all the other Arab countries that cow tow to American domination. The USA simply cannot allow any nation there to be independent, and that is the heart of the matter.

And Israel is, has been and will continue to be the most murderous "country" in the Middle East. Its litany of crimes against Palestine and the Palestineans is legion and well documented (If you insist that I provide dates and names of places to support that, simply as me to and I will.) Its invasion of neighbouring countries on several occasions is also well documented. Its present occupation and continued theft of what was left of Palestine and of the Syrian Golan, is equally there for all to see.

Israel was/is and will always be an illegal and illegitimate creation according to both the UN charter and International law: It was "created" by the General assemply when it recommended that Palestine be partioned (due to heavy pressure on dozens of nations in the general Assemply by the USA to vote for partition) into an Arab and a Jewish state. The GA has NO power to create anything. All what the GA can do according to the UN charter, is to make recommendations. The security is the body that can either implement or reject the GA's recommendations. The Security Council NEVER ever approved that recommendation. Israel immediately declared their "independence" upon the recommendation of partition. Ergo, Israel is illegitamite and illegal by any yardstick one would wish to use. not to mention that the partition plan gave the overwhelming minorty Jews in Palestine 54% of the land when they only owned between 4 and 6% of it.

There is not a SINGLE town or city in Israel that at one time was not an Arab town and city. Israel destroyed some 1,700 villages and towns after they ethnically cleansed Palestine of its owners. This also is fact and I would be happy, at the risk of boring everyone here, to list all the names of the towns and villages destroyed.

The ONLY exestential threat to the Middle East, and now to the world, is Israel itself with its racist to the bone policies, its apartaid policies, its nuclear arsenal and its continued arrogant disregard of some 70 SC resolutions and of International law.

I do not subscribe to the notion that occupation, illegal acts of terrorism and theft become legitimate or mellow with age like wine.

Israel is a criminal entity and some day mentioning "Zionism" might be as repulsive as mentioning Nazism. They are both odious and ned to be eradicated.

@ EW66

Here is just one quote from one of the heros of that murderous and illegal state of Israel. I can provide you with dozens more from their top leaders indicating their inyentions and admitting their crimes. Quotes you will NEVE ever see in the western press:

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

How do you people justify these gross crimes of that Jewish nation, with a straight face?

It is NOT Iran that is the problem. It is most definitely that cancer in the Middle East, Israel.

On Iran -- Director of National Intelligence says:

Annual Threat Assessment:

http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20100202_testimony.pdf

“We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

And the "721" report:

http://www.dni.gov/reports/2009_721_Report.pdf

"…we do not know whether Iran will eventually decide to produce nuclear weapons.”

@ JACOB BLUES

I will tell you what Iran will do the very minute they are able to build a crude nuclear bomb: They will immediately deliver it to either Israel or the USA and then sit back and wait the few minutes it would take Israel and the USA to retaliate with a shower of thermo nuclear weapons that would obliterate them in seconds.

Yes indeed my deep thinker and confused obfuscator..... that is what Iran will definitely do!

It never ceases to amaze me how bullies, mass murderers and rogue nations continue to point fingers at other nations and to ascribe intentions to them that have NO basis in reality and merely reflect their own fear of what another nation could/can possibly do to them, as a reflection of how they themselves are thinking and what they are capable of doing.

A thief always thinks that everyone else is also a thief and attacks the other as a thief to be, when its all in their sick mind and in their own hegemonic nature.

@ JEWISH BRIT:

I have seldome come across such well reasoned mental gymnastics. I am not sure were to start to refute all your assertions. Suffice to say that I am grateful for you in providing me a nice "laugh" even though I realise how sad someone like you is.

Oh, by the way, is it possible for you to give us an equally lucid explanation of the muderous exploits of the illegal and bloody apartied and racist to the bone, state of Israel and what it has meant to the Middle East since its illegal implantation and creation on the dead body of Palestine? It would be interesting to read your reasoned analysis of its illegal creation, its constant attacks on it neighbours, its ethnic leansing, its horrendous and inhuman 44 year occupation of what is left of Palestine, its disregard for international law and its racist to the bone/vicious policies.. All this as a begger state and a state that steals all of its technology from the USA and other Western nations. Do you think you can do that?

It would really be nice to see your take on that and how that also relates to your amazing analysis on Iran and other Middle east actors.

...its just that most people I know can read quickly and have an attention span of more than 20 seconds. Sorry if you don't.

the Israel-first keyboard brigade doesn't give a shit about dead Americans. It's all Israel, all the time. My bad.

Why should I, an American that lives in the middle of the midwest, give a shit about Israel or any other piss ant country the other side of the planet? Oh that's right I DON'T. Let them all kill each other, good riddance.

Just kidding. We the People can't help but join in the mass murder fun. Can we torture the Iranians after we mass murder bomb them and their IAEA safegaurded nuclear program to death for their nonexistent weapons program? How about raping some of their children in front of their parents? Want to spread freedom? Start by spreading the butt cheeks. That means you too, Militant American. Bend over and take one for the troops, lazy asses.

Welcome to New America.

p.s. if anyone would like to reply with EVIDENCE that IRAN ACTUALLY HAS A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM, please don't. STOP! Instead, email your proof to an American Intelligence Agency, they are desperately in need of it, much more so than I am. Don't dally, Uncle Sam is refreshing his inbox waiting for your mickey mouse hasbara.