Last week, I explained how upcoming nuclear talks could get bogged down in disagreement if Western powers demand that Iran, as a confidence-building measure, stop enriching uranium to 20 percent (which is steps away from weapons-grade material) and ship existing stockpiles of the higher grade uranium out of the country. 

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that the United States and its European allies will indeed open negotiations with this demand, along with a call for Iran to shutter a nuclear facility burrowed under a mountain:

The hard-line approach would require the country's military leadership to give up the Fordo enrichment plant outside the holy city of Qum, and with it a huge investment in the one facility that is most hardened against airstrikes....

"We have no idea how the Iranians will react," one senior administration official said. "We probably won't know after the first meeting."

Indeed, with negotiations set to begin this Saturday in Istanbul, the Iranians are already reacting. Fereydoon Abbasi, the head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, called the demands outlined in the Times article "irrational."

But Abbasi also struck a note of compromise (or, at the very least, flexibility) -- suggesting that Iran might consider returning uranium enrichment to the lower levels required for power generation once it had amassed enough 20 percent material to produce medical isotopes for cancer treatment and other research.

Iran meter: The Times report hasn't just provoked a strong reaction in Iran. In the United States, former CIA officer Paul Pillar is dismayed by America's reported negotiating position -- particularly the part about dismantling the Fordo nuclear facility.

"The Western message to Tehran seems pretty clear: we might be willing to tolerate some sort of Iranian nuclear program, but only one consisting of facilities that would suffer significant damage if we, or the Israelis, later decide to bomb it," he writes. "Not the sort of formula that inspires trust among Iranian leaders and gives them much incentive to move toward an agreement."

Here at Foreign Policy, Stephen Walt homes in on the same demand, and is equally concerned that the United States is formulating fatally flawed opening bids. "It would be an extraordinarily humiliating climb-down for [the Iranians] to agree to shut the facility down at this point and then dismantle it," he notes.

If Pillar and Walt are right, is there any reason for optimism about the upcoming talks? In fact, there are hints that while the Fordo demand may be a non-starter, uranium enrichment could offer more fertile ground for negotiations -- and that both sides recognize this reality. Take this passage from the Times article: 

While opening bids in international negotiations are often designed to set a high bar, as a political matter American and European officials say they cannot imagine agreeing to any outcome that leaves Iran with a stockpile of fuel, enriched to 20 percent purity, that could be converted to bomb grade in a matter of months.

Or this report today from the Associated Press on the buzz in Iran:

What could get traction -- suggested the hardline newspaper Kayhan -- is a so-called "enrichment level stabilization." That means halting the 20 percent enrichment, the highest level acknowledged by Iran, and continuing with lower levels of about 3.5 percent needed for ordinary reactors....

Mehdi Sanaei, a moderate lawmaker, said a possible bargaining position could be an agreement to temporarily stop 20 percent enrichment in exchange for lifting some economic sanctions.

In other words, there's still hope for a diplomatic breakthrough, though it's difficult to stay optimistic when these reports mingle with the news that the United States is dispatching a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. 

On its Military and Defense page, the popular news site Business Insider is featuring two stories today by one F. Michael Maloof, who is blurbed as a "staff writer for WND's G2Bulletin, and a former senior security policy analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense."

Story No. 1: Citing Russian sources, the headline claims that "Russia Is Massing Troops On Iran's Northern Border And Waiting For A Western Attack." The story goes on to say that "The Russian military anticipates that an attack will occur on Iran by the summer and has developed an action plan to move Russian troops through neighboring Georgia to stage in Armenia, which borders on the Islamic republic, according to informed Russian sources."

The news "comes from a series of reports and leaks from official Russian spokesmen and government news agencies who say that an Israeli attack is all but certain by the summer," Maloof continues. "[S]ources say that Russian preparations for such an attack began two years ago."

Story No. 2 alleges that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is basically in league with the Islamic Republic of Iran and is seeking a strategic alignment with the ayatollahs in Tehran. "For years," Maloof writes, "Shi'ite Iran has been a major financial supporter of the Sunni Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and quietly worked for some two years with the group to oust Washington-backed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak last year." He goes on to claim that "Analysts say that Iran's Shi'ite form of Islam has more appeal among Egyptian Sunnis than among Sunnis in other Arab countries." I've not seen any credible analysts make either claim before -- and it's worth noting that the Egyptian media is rife with anti-Shia invective these days.

This is the kind of questionable reporting you normally see on conspiracy-theory websites, not an ostensibly respectable outlet like Business Insider.

Who is F. Michael Maloof? Careful followers of the Iraq war's aftermath may remember that he, along with fellow analyst David Wurmser, was tasked by Pentagon officials Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith after 9/11 with finding links between Iraq and al Qaeda. "Saddam used al-Qaeda as an indirect conduit because he needed plausible deniability," Maloof later said -- a claim that was hotly disputed within the U.S. intelligence community at the time and widely discredited after the invasion, including in a 2004 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report. Maloof's security clearance was revoked, though his allies continued to defend his work. ("The Wurmser-Maloof work was professional: carefully researched, organized, and well presented," Feith wrote in his memoir.)

And what is G2Bulletin? According to its website, "Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin is your independent, online intelligence resource edited and published by the veteran newsman and founder of WorldNetDaily.com. Each week he taps his vast network of international intelligence sources to bring you credible insights into geo-political and geo-strategic developments."

Yes, that WorldNetDaily, one of the main "birther" websites promoting the false idea that President Obama was not born in the United States.

My question is: Why Is Business Insider publishing this stuff?

Kilis, Turkey — Just as international efforts to reach a ceasefire in Syria intensify, the long-running crisis appears to be growing even bloodier. On Monday, the violence spilled over into both Turkey and Lebanon: A Lebanese cameraman was killed while filming from the northern town of Wadi Khaled, while two Syrians were killed and more were wounded when they were fired upon at a refugee camp inside Turkey. Two Turkish nationals attempting to help the fleeing Syrians were also injured in the crossfire.

The clash at the Turkish-Syrian border began when Syrian regime troops launched an offensive in the town of Azaz, on the Syrian side of the border, in the dawn hours of Monday morning. Syrians who lay wounded in the hospital in Kilis said that violence began when Syrian soldiers opened fire on refugees who walked to the border to protest the attack on Azaz.

The camp, which lies about a fifth of a mile from the border, was established to provide aid to the thousands of Syrians who have fled President Bashar al-Assad's crackdown. Over 9,000 refugees are living in the Kilis camp, and more are expected to arrive to alleviate overcrowding in other camps. As we drove from the Turkish province of Hatay to Kilis, five buses filled with Syrian refugees traveled ahead of us, making their way to a new place of supposed refuge.

In Kilis, we walked into a ward where three Syrian men lay sprawled on hospital beds, blood seeping from fresh wounds where bullets had just been removed. "We were watching the attack over the border," explained Betar, a Syrian man who was shot twice in the leg while inside the Kilis refugee camp. As Syrian forces attacked Azaz, refugees across the border in the camp looked on helplessly and began to protest the violence. "When [the Syrian Armed Forces] heard us say ‘Allahu Akbar' they started to shoot at us," he said.

Betar, who lives in the Kilis refugee camp with his family, thinks the Syrian regime is following them into Turkey to kill them. Snipers fired on the camp from less than 500 meters away, noted his friend, who recounted how he picked up bullets from rooms within the camp. Around 21 Syrians have been wounded and three have died, according to wounded Syrians within the Kilis hospital. (Other reports said that two Syrians had died).

Turkish officials, eager to prevent the cross-border violence from spiraling out of control, are limiting access to information for inquiring journalists. Police stopped us while we were interviewing a badly injured Syrian man and directed us to a small room, where we were questioned for two hours. They interrogated our Syrian translator on his opinions of the Assad regime. Two other French-speaking journalists were being questioned as well.

The Kilis refugee camp has become an easy target for Syrian forces, and eye-witnesses within the camp say the Turkish police did not fire back when the attack began. Betar described how Turkish police in the camp fell to the ground to protect themselves, but did not retaliate.

With the end to the conflict nowhere in sight, Syria's refugees have found little comfort in escaping Assad's brutal crackdown. They left Syria in the hope of finding safety and peace, but violence still seems to follow them wherever they go.

Sophia Jones, a former editorial assistant at Foreign Policy, is an Overseas Press Club fellow and freelance journalist based out of Cairo. Erin Banco is a Cairo-based freelance journalist.

Hu Jintao, China's president for the last decade, is the first leader of China since the Empress Dowager Cixi (who died in 1908) to refuse to speak with foreign press. Chiang Kai-Shek gave interviews, Mao Zedong pontificated to Edgar Snow; Deng Xiaoping joked with foreign reporters while expounding on his pragmatic philosophy.  Even Hua Guofeng, Mao's short-lived successor, chatted with a British journalist. China's current premier Wen Jiabao has sat down with CNN's Fareed Zakaria twice for a relatively gentle round of questioning but the top leader, and the other members of China's ruling council the Politburo Standing Committee, have stayed silent. 

More than any other reporter, Mike Wallace, the charmingly aggressive 60 Minutes correspondent who passed away this Saturday at the age of 93, may be the reason for Hu's reticence. A sit-down with Wallace was rarely a pleasant experience for world leaders -- particularly autocrats: he lectured Yassir Arafat on violence, challenged Vladmir Putin on democracy, and suggested to Ayatollah Khomeini that he might be a lunatic and a 'disgrace to Islam.' But his 2000 interview with former Chinese President Jiang Zemin may have played a role in convincing Jiang's successor of the value of keeping his mouth shut. 

In contrast to Hu, Jiang was a flashy (for a Chinese leader) former Shanghai Party secretary, who sang karaoke on state visits and recited the Gettysburg address to foreigners. He told Barbara Walters in 1990 that the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre was "much ado about nothing," and Lally Weymouth in 1998 that "I really don't know what kind of threat China poses" to India.

Wallace's genius was the ability to unblinkingly chastise power. Even during the aired pleasantries, Wallace looks unimpressed with Jiang. During minute 2 of the hour-long interview, aired days before Jiang's 2000 U.S. visit, Wallace tells Jiang "shorter answers, please. More concise" and a touch of panic breaks through Jiang's placid smile.

One of the benefits of China's state-managed media system for its leaders is that journalists cannot embarrass them. Hu comes across far more introverted than Jiang, even during prepared Chinese media interviews. In one netizen conducted interview in 2008 hailed as "startling," Hu answered three questions about his Internet habits. (In case you were wondering, he said "because I'm pretty busy, it's not possible for me to go online every day"). It's a safe way to appear human. 

Jiang had to account for the sins of his administration: Wallace calls him a dictator, criticizes him for cracking down on the banned-in-China spiritual movement Falun Gong, and chides him for his lack of military service. When Jiang waxed about Sino-US relations, Wallace responded that "there's no candor" in his answer.  

Wallace chased Jiang to see if he would admit to admiring the courage of the student who stood down the tank during the student uprising in Tiananmen Square:

Jiang: He was never arrested. I don't know where he is now. Looking at the picture I know he definitely had his own ideas.

Wallace: You have not answered the question, Mr. President. Did a part of Jiang Zemin admire his courage?

Jiang: I know what you are driving at, but what I want to emphasize is that we fully respect every citizen's right to freely express his wishes and desires. But I do not favor any flagrant opposition to government actions during an emergency. The tank stopped and did not run the young man down.

Wallace: I'm not talking about the tank. I'm talking about that man's heart, that man's courage, that man, that lonely man, standing against that.

Jiang refused to answer the question, looking stubbon and weak. Investment banker and China watcher Robert Kuhn in his book How China's Leaders Think wrote that "going one-on-one with Mike Wallace was daring and dangerous but Jiang Zemin's down to earth, open and thoughtful tone scored well." To me, it seems like a lesson to Chinese leaders on the benefits of staying home and keeping quiet.

Jiang also recited lines from the Gettysburg address for Wallace, who used it as a chance to press the president on the autocratic nature of his rule. "Why is it that Americans can elect their national leaders, but you apparently don't trust the Chinese people to elect your national leaders?" Jiang, who Deng Xiaoping appointed with consensus from a small group of elderly party leaders, responded unconvincingly, "I am also an elected leader, though we have a different electoral system."

Explaining power dilutes it. Now Hu is silent. 

The secretary-general has raised some eyebrows with comments made last week during an address at the Global Colloqium of University Presidents:

"To unleash the power of young people, we need to partner with them. This is what the United Nations is trying to do," he added, announcing his decision to appoint a U.N. Special Adviser on Youth.

"Some dictators in our world are more afraid of tweets than they are of opposing armies," he declared, pointing out the rising political clout of the younger generation.

Some commentators have responded to Ban's comments with mockery... on Twitter naturally. "What's Ban Ki-moon smoking? Show me one dictator who's more afraid of tweets than armies." wrote Evgeny Morozov. 

FP's Daniel Drezner chipped in: "Some dictators no doubt would reply with, "How many divisions does Twitter have?... And, inevitably, some lolcat on Youtube will say, "I can haz divisions?!"

In (partial) defense of Ban, this isn't that absurd a comment if you don't take it literally. Most autocratic governments are probably under greater threat from the possibility of uprisings by their own populations -- particularly young people -- than invasions by foreign armies. Granted, it's not the tweets they're worried about but the people sending them. 

There's still a lot of confusion surrounding the death of Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika from a heart attack yesterday, but from what Reuters is reporting, it seems that his country's shoddy infrastructure and medical system may have played a role:

The 78-year-old was rushed to hospital in Lilongwe on Thursday after collapsing but was dead on arrival, the sources said. State media said he had been flown to South Africa for treatment although his immediate whereabouts remained unclear.

Medical sources said the former World Bank economist had been flown out because a power and energy crisis in the nation of 13 million was so severe the Lilongwe state hospital would have been unable to carry out a proper autopsy or even keep his body refrigerated.

Many Malawians blamed Mutharika personally for the economic woes, which stemmed ultimately from a diplomatic spat with former colonial power Britain a year ago.

"We know he is dead and unfortunately he died at a local, poor hospital which he never cared about - no drugs, no power," said Chimwemwe Phiri, a Lilongwe businessman waiting in a snaking line of cars for fuel at a petrol station.

It's impossible to say if Mutharika would be alive today if he could have made it to a properly supplied hospital, but as BBC Kampala correspondent Joshua Mmali put it on Twitter last night, "Lessons outta #Malawi 4 #AfricanPresidents: You can't go to the UK or Germany to treat a heart attack. Improve your health systems"

It has indeed become a depressingly common occurence for leaders to head abroad for major medical treatment -- an option Mutharika didn't have. In recent years, we've seen Venezuela's Hugo Chavez travel to Cuba for cancer treatment, Saudi King Abdullah come to New York for tests, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh travel to Saudi Arabia to treat injuries sustained in an attack, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari go to Dubai for undisclosed medical treatment, and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani head to Jordan for treatment of exhaustion and dehydration. There are plenty of other examples from Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika to New Guinea Prime Minister Michael Somare.

It's always a bit surprising that this isn't more politically embarrassing. If there isn't even one hospital in a leader's country where he feels confortable getting treated -- presumably by that country's best doctors and the most advanced equipment available -- that would seem to be a pretty damning indictment of his leadership. 

The Presumptive Nominee

After pulling off a hat trick on Tuesday night, winning the primaries in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Wisconsin, Mitt Romney now boasts an unassailable lead in delegates. Barring major unforeseen circumstances, he seems virtually guaranteed to be the Republican candidate in November. (Though second-place contender Rick Santorum -- not to mention Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul -- has given little indication that he plans to drop out.)

His new position as the presumptive nominee may give Romney more latitude to broaden his pitch to moderates and independents and focus his attacks more directly on President Barack Obama. The president certainly assumes that Romney is the opponent he will face in the fall, taking time during a speech this week to mock the former governor's support for a GOP budget he described as right-wing "social Darwinism."

Obama's hidden agenda

The Romney campaign has continued to take advantage of Obama's "hot mic" moment during a conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Last Friday, spokesperson Andrea Saul suggested that the president "should release the notes and transcripts of all his meetings with world leaders so the American people can be satisfied that he's not promising to sell out the country's interests after the election is over."

The notion that the president has a hidden agenda on foreign policy may emerge as a central campaign talking point. In a speech Wednesday to the Newspaper Association of America, Romney suggested that the incident "raises all kinds of serious questions: What exactly does President Obama intend to do differently once he is no longer accountable to the voters? Why does ‘flexibility' with foreign leaders require less accountability to the American people? And on what other issues will he state his true position only after the election is over?"

Release the Biden

Vice President Joe Biden has been relatively quiet during this primary season. But in an appearance on Face The Nation last Sunday, the VP came out swinging, questioning Romney's qualifications on foreign policy. Referring to Romney's description of Russia as America's No. 1 geopolitical foe, Biden said, "He just seems to be uninformed or stuck in a Cold War mentality." He went on to say that Russia is "united with us on Iran."

The Romney campaign responded: "Vice President Biden appears to have forgotten the Russian government's opposition to crippling sanctions on Iran, its obstructionism on Syria, and its own backsliding into authoritarianism."

Good for the Jews?

Heading into Passover weekend, a new poll shows that fears that Obama's tensions with the Israeli government would erode his support among Jewish voters may be unfounded. The poll, by the Public Religion Research Institute, showed 62 percent of Jews supporting Obama's reelection, with little evidence of change in support for the president since 2008. While Jews tend to hold more hawkish views on Iran than other American voters, according to the poll only 2 percent listed it as their top voting priority. Just 4 percent listed Israel.

In a Passover message this week, Obama referred to the recent anti-Semitic killings in France, saying that the Exodus story was a reminder that "Throughout our history, there are those who have targeted the Jewish people for harm, a fact we were so painfully reminded of just a few weeks ago in Toulouse."

Trump roast

Guess who's back? In an appearance on Laura Ingraham's radio show on Tuesday, real estate mogul, reality-show star, and onetime primary candidate Donald Trump suggested that Obama will start a war with Iran to bolster his reelection chances. "If you remember Bush, Bush was unbeatable for about two months, and then all of the sudden the world set in when he attacked Iraq. And he went from very popular to not popular at all. But I think that Obama will start in some form a war with Iran, and I think that will make him very popular for a short period of time. That will make him hard to beat also."

The comment was somewhat overshadowed the next day when the Donald offered to show his genitals to attorney Gloria Allred.

What to watch for:

Obama's week will be heavy in Latin America, with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff visiting the White House on Monday and the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, beginning April 14.

There are no primaries this week, but Romney is looking ahead to the April 24 contest in Pennsylvania, trying to put the final nail in Santorum's coffin by winning his home state.

The latest from FP:

Joshua Keating lists 7 foreign-policy flip-flops Romney needs to make now.

Heleen Mees says Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke might be the greatest obstacle to Obama's reelection.

Uri Friedman looks at the foreign-policy views of Rep. Paul Ryan, whose buzz as a possible VP contender has been growing.

Daniel Drezner asks readers to take the Trump Foreign Policy Challenge.