Let’s play word association. I say “UN sanctions”, and you think… what? “Weak”, “useless”, “waste of time”?

If you didn’t chose one of those, I bet your answer was somewhere in the neighborhood. My sense is that Americans are generally skeptical of imposing sanctions - UN or US - on despotic regimes because their ineffectiveness dents Americans’ self-image. Here we are, the most powerful military, economic, and cultural force in the world, and petty dictators thumb their collective noses at us by surviving - even thriving - under sanctions year after year while their populations feel the effects. Paging Mr. Castro… Mr. F. Castro… you have a call on the white courtesy phone.

Of course, Fidel is joined by his friends in Pyongyang, Tehran, and - for a time - Baghdad, at least until we grew so sick of Saddam skirting around the stupid things that we sure showed him, didn’t we?

So I’ll bet you shook your head disapprovingly as you read that for a fourth time, the United States is working to draw up a new list of sanctions against the Iranian regime if Iran chooses not to seriously engage the international community on their highly suspect nuclear program this Thursday in Geneva.

While there are no guarantees that these sanctions will force Iran to the bargaining table or to give up the kitchen sink on its nuclear program, I believe that this round of sanctions has a better chance of working than any previous attempt.

Here’s why they could - repeat could - be more successful in forcing Iran into serious negotiation on its nuclear program:

1. Remember the goal. It’s to force Iran into serious negotiations on its nuclear program. If sanctions have even the possibility of crippling Tehran, Iran may decide it’s better to talk things through.

2. The Iran regime is hurting right now. Iranian President Ahmadinejad stole an election in June. Everyone knew it, and massive street protests followed. This has left his regime in a precariously fragile spot - cross the electorate again, especially with economic penalties, and expect more headaches if not curtains.

An important caveat here: if the international community plays its hand wrong, the regime could rally Iranians around it while blaming the UN for economic hardship. So caution - and a way to talk to the Iranian street - is at a premium.

3. What they target: These sanctions target Iran’s gas imports. Wait, Iran imports gas? I thought they were sitting on mounds of the stuff… Well, yes, they are. However, Iran does not have the capacity to refine enough to bring to its domestic market. So, Tehran imports some 40 percent of its consumption. And cutting off the supply will drive up the price at the pump…

4. Who’s on board: Previous UN attempts to sanction Iran haven’t exactly been bear-claw tight. That’s because - though they were passed through the UN Security Council - they had to be watered down to avoid Russian and Chinese vetoes.

That may be changing. Russia has indicated that it may be sympathetic to harsher sanctions, despite recent ambiguity on the subject by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. If Russia can be swayed to support stiff sanctions on oil and gas, they would be used as leverage to pressure China into getting on board. Chinese thirst for Iranian oil continues to be a major obstacle, but it is at least conceivable that China could be brought along under the right circumstances.

Now go back and read #1 - Iran may decide to avoid any gamble with popular instability. Success is hardly assured, but with a few breaks the right way, it’s conceivable that Iran might view the lesser of two evils as negotiation when faced with an unpredictable domestic situation. Remember: the sanctions themselves don’t have to work, but it’s the real threat of them working that counts.

George Bush again proves his political genius, even from the grave.

The country is torn on Afghanistan, the Obama administration appears split, Democrats are arguing amongst themselves.  The result - a September Gallup poll that puts Republicans ahead of Democrats by seven points on which country is better equipped to fight terrorism.

How did this happen?  You guessed it: Bush under-resourced Afghanistan in troops, aid, and civilian manpower for eight years.  The current fight within the Democratic Party about properly resourcing Afghanistan is a direct result of having to clean up his incompetence.

Will Marshall and I have an op-ed on Afghanistan in The Hill.  Check it out here.

It hasn’t been easy going of late for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s illegitimate president.

First came the summer repression - in the wake of a fraudulent election, Ahmadinejad spent most of his time repressing an internal revolution as hundreds of thousands took to the streets in mass protest.

Up next was this week’s speech to the general assembly of the United Nations, where Ahmadinejad carried on about alleged Jewish desires to start a new form of slavery, charges that prompted a mass walk-out by many of the world’s major powers.

It’s tough to mix such bombast with dented credibility under normal circumstances.  But the hits keep on coming for the regime in Tehran:  The U.S., Britain, and France have just revealed  knowledge of a secret Iranian underground nuclear facility near the holy city of Qom.

We call this getting caught with your pants down.

Iran tried to limit the damage by preemptively notifying the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency in advance of the tri-lateral announcement in Pittsburgh, but to no avail.  Iran was hiding a facility, and even if it proved to be of the benign civilian power variety, the burden of proof now falls squarely on the mullahs’ shoulders.  Perhaps this is why Ahmadinejad left the door cracked open at the end of his unsettling UN address with a pledge “to shake all those hands which are honestly extended to us.”

The Obama administration should be salivating:  Iran’s damaged legitimacy at home and abroad likely make it more willing to engage in meaningful dialogue about its nuclear program.  And with Russia recent indication of support for sanctions - a bonus, repeat bonus, outcome from chosing to strengthen American security by abandoning missile defense in Eastern Europe in favor of a sea-based system - there is a real chance of leveraging broad international pressure to move Iran.  (And indeed, Russia’s main task may be pressuring China to support sanctions.)

The trick is to ensure that the Iranians don’t get away with “window dressing” diplomacy - that is, giving the appearance that they’re meeting internationaldemands, while actuality not giving away much at all.

The first such test will come soon - Iran has promised to give the IAEA access to interview Iran’s nuclear scientists.  The international coalition must insist that the interviews take place on the IAEA’s terms:  likely outside of Iran, for as long as the IAEA requests, and covering whatever topics are deemed necessary.

Next, the international coalition should push for IAEA access to all Iranian nuclear sites, and couple refused access with broad sanctions on imports of refined gas.

These will be the first important steps to learning if even a fault-ridden Iranian regime can be an honest partner.

William Prescot, an American General in the War of Independence, might have had a different take.  Prescot is the military genius attributed with saying, “Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes.”  But should he have been straddling a battlefield against a cadre of well-endowed Swedes, he may have uttered, “Don’t fire until you see them trying to reattach their highly flammable brassieres!”

It’s every 15 year old boy’s fantasy come wildly true: Swedish military womens’ bras are coming unhitched at the most inappropriate times.  It has caused the 500-odd women in Sweden’s armed forces to issue a complaint against their apparently sub standard-issue bras.

But with some 1000 female conscripts scheduled to join up next year, no worries - Stockholm is hard at work developing a “new battle safe bra.” Consulting on the project is Mr. Austin Powers, apparently for his developped expertise in spotting “machine gun jubblies.”

Let’s say that tomorrow, a brave American GI patrol along the boarder between Afghanistan and Pakistan stumbled across a cave.  After a brief look inside, and low-and-behold, a stone-faced Osama Freaking Bin Laden is dragged out . Handcuffed and stuffed, he’s whisked away to Bagram Air Base for interrogation.  The media goes nuts,  Americans rejoice.

What then?

Consider the context:  We’re in the middle of a contentious strategy review on Afghanistan.  President Obama has outlined clear goals that the region must not be a safe haven from which Al Qaeda could launch a massive terrorist attack against the United States.  General Stanley McChrystal - the new US/NATO commander in Afghanistan - has written a new report that lays the groundwork to ask for more troops and resources.

But Obama’s confidants, including Vice President Biden, his Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, and apparently Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, are questioning whether more troops are necessary to achieve the President’s goals.  Congressional Democrats, nervous over poll numbers indicating 50 percent of the country doesn’t think the war effort is worth it, have become more ever more vociferous.

That’s why it’s quite conceivable then that Osama Bin Laden’s capture would end the war:  The war-weary public would no doubt view the capture of the man responsible for 9/11 as a definitive end point.  Congress would advocate on their behalf.  And the President would have an extremely tough sell to members of his administration.   Never mind debating more troops, President Obama might be forced to reduce America’s presence significantly.

How ironic therefore that Bin Laden’s capture today might weaken American security.  Though Osama is the titular head of a now fractured organization, America’s near term departure could faciliate the conditions that permit the Taliban to return to power.  With insufficient security forces, a corrupt bureacracy, and a questionable mandate following last month’s ugly elections, it’s doubtful Afghan President Karzai would last long before his military and police were militarily defeated or bought off by the Taliban.

And though Osama Bin Laden would be gone, it’s anyone’s guess whether the remaining power-brokers within Al Qaeda and its broader movement would be able to reconstitute a viable international structure under the Taliban’s umbrella with the intent and capability of striking the United States.

This is, of course, a doomsday scenario, but if you’re Private JarHead, I might caution you to think twice before parading Bin Laden in front of that CNN camera crew.

Since Vietnam, the Army has never had so much combat experience. Since Vietnam, the Army has never been this exhausted.

That’s the basic conclusion of a fascinating article in the current edition of the National Journal that analyzes the Army’s attempts to grow while maintaining its all-volunteer status.  During Vietnam, 18-year old kids were drafted and cycled through training and a tour of duty in under two years.  They quickly returned to civilian life.  Today the Army relies on seasoned professionals whose continuing association with the military is of their own choosing.  Given the necessity to grow our armed forces during two major military deployments, Army recruits are now lower in educational quality, but after at least four to eight years of service which more-often-than-not includes several deployments through combat zones, our military lifers are becoming the most experienced but exhausted force in the country’s history.

In a way, for many whose parents served and have grown up around military facilities, the Army has become the family business as children and grandchildren take up the mantle of their seniors.  An uncomfortable side effect is the increase civilian-military divide.  Think about it:  do you know anyone who has deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan?

Today’s Army may be equal to the U.S. population in its demographic representation, but it is also separate.

And it is getting more so all the time. That reduces the chance that declining public support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cause Army morale to collapse, as it did in Vietnam. Still, it raises a different danger. “I don’t think they’re going to get burned out,” said retired Col. Patrick Lang, a Vietnam veteran. “But they’re going to get harder and harder, and more detached from the values of civilian society.”