As of 0855 GMT Tuesday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has ordered a halt to Russian operations in Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This is according to the Russian press agency Interfax. Hürriyet reports that French President Nicolas Sarkozy will attempt to cement a cease-fire.

“On the basis of your report, I have taken the decision to bring to an end the operation to force the Georgian authorities to peace,” Medvedev told Russian Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, according to a Kremlin spokesman.

The ceasefire proposal is apparently the one drawn up by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which was signed yesterday by Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili.

Not that this will return the region to normal. NATO’s eastward expansion has now finished, and American promises of friendship are not worth the paper they’re written on. As the Georgians have complained, why did the help the U.S. in Iraq if Washington turns its back on them when they come under attack? (That it appears that Saakashvili walked into a trap set by Russia is almost beside the point.) And could President Bush have appeared less concerned as he yukked it up with volleyball players in Beijing?

The world has entered a both a new period, but one that looks very familiar to those of us who remember the Cold War.

Greetings all... Sorry for the site problems. I upgraded MovableType and the site went all sideways. I'm thinking of switching over to WordPress, but I'm worried that the old content would then be unavailable (as happened with a WP experiment I'm running right now.)

Does anyone have any suggestions?

A Journal editorial picks up on Gina Chon’s non-scoop front-page story yesterday to crow that “Moqtada packs it in.” Well, as I pointed out yesterday, there was little in that story that was new, as Moqtada al-Sadr seemed to be more clarifying earlier instructions to his people than issuing new ones. He will still maintain secret cells to attack U.S. troops, for instance.

And does the Journal really want a kinder, gentler al-Sadr? Paradoxically, keeping him an angry, violent outsider will go a lot further toward advancing the Journal’s goals in Iraq than having him as a peaceful political player. Because if he’s on the outside, his unruly Mahdi Army will continue to act like thugs, causing Iraqis to resent them and cling to the Maliki government (which the neo-cons at the Journal like.)

Having him inside the process, while decreasing the violence, gives him a chance to win at Maliki’s own game of politics, however. And if al-Sadr wins, does the Journal think an Iraq dominated by Shi’ite nationalists will be very friendly to U.S. interests? Perhaps it does, but I certainly don’t.

Like most Journal editorials, this is a grunt from the reptilian cortex, in line with the triumphalist bullying so common to that page.

This is great, and a welcome respite from politics. Researchers have found the world’s oldest joke.

“Something which has never occurred since time immemorial; a young woman did not fart in her husband’s lap,” goes the joke, which dates from 1900 B.C. and which originated in what is now southern Iraq.

Now, I like a good fart joke as much as the next guy, but WTF? Does anyone actually get that?

No matter. Iraqi humor even today doesn’t quite translate into English, a fact that often left me feeling damn confused over gruesome tales that my Iraqi friends found hilarious.

Many of modern day Iraqi jokes deal with the Dulaimi tribe from Anbar and tend to focus on their perceived backwardness and sheer yokelry. One I remembered went something like, “A Dulaimi drove his cousin to Baghdad. His cousin sat behind the driver so he could take over the wheel after he killed the first guy.” Much laughter would then ensue, and no, I still don’t get it.

But the real genius of Iraqi humor was poking fun at Saddam and making word plays. (Too bad puns don’t translate well.) ‘Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, the sickly vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council who today may or may not be part of the neo-Ba’athist insurgency (what’s left of it) often came in for humiliating jokes. The craven yes-man was often pictured impersonating a woman, for some reason.

Ancient humor was no different, and megalomaniacal rulers have always been good for a laugh. Some of the ancient jokes the researchers found poked fun at Egyptian pharaohs.

“How do you entertain a bored pharaoh?” goes one. “Sail a boatload of young women dressed only in fishing nets down the Nile — and urge the pharaoh to go fishing.”

Put your favorite Iraqi joke — not jokes about Iraqis, mind you — in the comments.

Kudos to TPMMuckraker for looking into Randy Scheunemann’s record on Iraq. Scheunemann is Sen. John McCain’s chief foreign policy strategist and a spokesman, but he’s also part of the Project for the New American Century, helped draft the letter making regime change on Iraq official U.S. policy after 1998, a man who saw WMDs under every Iraqi rock and pebble and, perhaps most damningly, a backer of Ahmad Chalabi, who did a pretty good job of snookering the U.S. into invading Iraq.

To me, all of Scheunemann’s sins pale compared to his backing of Chalabi, a man who not only lied to get the U.S. to take down his nemesis, Saddam Hussein, but might also have given information to the Iranians that America had cracked their codes. Chalabi denies any wrong doing.

Josh Marshall and his team complain that the mainstream media (whatever that is these days) have ignored or glossed over Scheunemann’s appalling track record. Usually, when a blog complains about this, it’s hooey, but a quick Google News search comes up with no major coverage of his past errors in judgment. And since this campaign seems to be focusing on the very pertinent question of who has the better judgment on Iraq, this seems a valid press inquiry. And if Obama is going to take heat for his advisors, shouldn’t McCain’s be under similar scrutiny?

Bret Stephens, a regular columnist for the Journal’s op-ed page, finds four American-installed leaders in Iraq who back McCain. Imagine that. He then takes these four guys’ views and extrapolates them to include all Iraqis. And while he mentions a Pew poll that shows the overwhelming majority of the world supports Sen. Barack Obama, he notes that the poll skips Iraq. And he adds that he did no polling of his own. But speaking to four guys allows him to state: “Iraq, all but alone among the nations, will be praying for a McCain victory on the first Tuesday in November.”

This column is so silly it’s barely worth mentioning, especially because there are dozens of polls that have been taken over the years that show Iraqis overwhelmingly despise the American presence and most of them want the troops out. (This is not to say that all Iraqis want the Americans to leave. I’m very aware some want the troops to stick around.)

Anyway, two can play at this game. According to a Facebook poll I found using a simple Google search, 62% of Iraqis prefer Obama as president. Now, obviously, my “research” is about as scientific at Stephens’s. Which is to say, not at all. But then, I’m not desperately trying to preach to the choir.

DUBAI — Greetings all… As is obvious, I’ve not been writing much. There are some good reasons for that. First and foremost, I’ve been busy. Since November of last year, I’ve

• Gotten married
• Moved to Dubai
• Taken on a new job
• And started a new phase in my career.

Married life is great, and very comfortable. Mrs. Back-to-Iraq seems to like it, too, but to be honest, I got the better end of the deal. (That’s usually the case, no?)

Dubai is less comfortable. It’s a strange place, an odd cross between Singapore and Las Vegas without the former’s clean efficiency and the latter’s cheerful and unapologetic sinfulness. Its love of bureaucracy, lack of any concept of customer service and no real planning makes it much less of an ideal place than people should believe. It’s also damn expensive, and the era of good living, cheap housing and fat salaries is long over.

But the new job is a good one. I’m editing Trends Magazine, one of the region’s top business and political magazines, if I do say so myself. My bosses are really devoted to the idea of journalism — a rarity in this part of the world — and are willing to take on big powers here, like real estate companies. (They’re all connected to the government, which has any number of vaguely defined “red lines” that journalists cross — or even approach — at risk to their jobs and residency visas.)

But the big news is that I actually won’t be staying here. I’ve been awarded the Knight Stanford Fellowship, one of America’s big journalism fellowships, to go study the feasibility of various business models for online news. I plan to concentrate on foreign correspondence, naturally. Back-to-Iraq.com was a big part of getting me into the fellowship and I look forward to nine months at Stanford University with excitement and humility.

So my four years in the Middle East seem to be coming to an end, for now. I’ll be back in Dubai in July 2009, armed with experience, contacts and new language skills. Let’s hope Back-to-Iraq can be revitalized with the experience.

Check out my World Economic Forum twitter here.

DUBAI — Just a few thoughts and observations from the Vegas-meets-Singapore hotspot on the Gulf:

Tom Vanden Brook of USA Today writes yet another story for his growing clip collection on MRAPs), those big, expensive and lifesaving armored vehicles used by Marines in Anbar. The news in this story? Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says they’re great. Seriously. Four hundred words for what should have been a single sentence in another story. Please stop, Tom. The Pulitzers have already been announced. You didn’t win.

Meanwhile, in Lebanon, I’ve heard from friends that Beirut is calm but tense. (I’m not there anymore so I can’t really report too easily.) March 14 is increasingly dispirited and hoping for a response from the world greater than simple condemnation. The SSNP has taken over Hamra, which is bizarre. And what’s up with Hezbollah advancing on the Chouf? And then whining when two of their fighters get taken by the Druze? You don’t mess with the Druze, man. And if you invade someone’s territory — and let’s be honest, that’s what’s going on — you’re bound to take some casualties. Hezbollah can’t have it both ways.

Some of the Lebanese blogs I’ve started reading are From Beirut To the Beltway, Lebanese Political Journal and The Beirut Spring. These are solidly March 14 blogs and the authors hold political views I don’t necessarily agree with, but at least there’s some on-the-ground postings going on.

DUBAI — First of all, thanks to people for writing to check on me. The long radio silence has worried people, but there’s a reason for it. My wife and I left for Dubai back in February, and there’s not been much to write about from here. Anyway, we’re perfectly safe here. Bored, too.

I’m greatly wishing I could get back to Beirut right now. But the airport is closed, and we’re hearing that Hezbollah is attempting to close Beirut’s port, too. In fact, from the sounds of it, Hezbollah is taking the city — at least the western part of it. This was the threat, and it seems like they’re making good on it.

At the moment, it appears the only way in is overland through Syria via Tripoli — although even that road may have been blocked. NOW Lebanon is currently reporting it’s blocked by burning tires. Not sure who is doing the northern blocking, but that’s a heavily Sunni area, so local Salafis might be attempting to block infiltration of forces from Syria. Masnaa, the other main land crossing was closed by Salafists last night. They have good reason to fear reinforcements from Syria or Iran. When I entered Lebanon on July 13, 2006 to get to the war, an Iranian man came in at the same time — I saw his passport. We exchanged glances and went our separate ways.

Friends in Hamra and nearby ‘hoods report that Hezbollah gunmen have taken the streets and are telling people to stay indoors. They’re also taking pro-government people from their homes. One friend near Sporting Club reported a Shi’ite man in her (mixed) neighborhood was taken by gunmen as he was screaming, “I’m from the Dahiyeh!”

Reports coming in right now report that RPGs are hitting Qoreitam, Saad Hariri’s home in West Beirut.

Streets are being sectioned off by sectarian division. There are reports of Hezbollah checkpoints around the information and defense ministries. Young men’s IDs are being checked.

Meanwhile, in the eastern, mainly Christian, part of the city, it’s quiet. Most stores are shuttered and many residents have apparently fled for the hills and mountains north and east of Beirut — the traditional Christian heartlands of Lebanon.

LBC, one of the main broadcasters, is showing patriotic songs on its satellite feed — usually a bad sign.

Mustafa Alouch, a Future Movement MP from Beirut is on Al Jazeera right now saying Hezbollah is the only organized force in Lebanon. The Sunnis fighting back are just citizens defending their homes, he says. This is patently untrue, as Hariri’s Future movement has a militia. It’s just not as adept as Hezbollah.

“Hezbollah has been victorious,” he said. “It has taken over Beirut. But this is a wound that will not heal. … The state of Hezbollah wants to dominate the Lebanese state. … Hezbollah represents in Lebanon an Iranian proxy. This is not a local conflict.”

He’s right. This currently has all the earmarks of a Sunni-Shi’ite scrap as you’ve been seeing in Iraq. Lebanon is — again — a front line in a conflict between Iran/Syria and the U.S.

UPDATE 1148 +4 GMT: Hezbollah and Amal militiamen have cut off the road near the Phoenicia Intercontinental Hotel near where former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated. Speculation: Hezbollah may be plannin to take the hotel, as it housed members of parliament during the long siege of the Serail. I’ve head they’ve since left, but Hezbollah may think some are still in there, given that they’ve already taken over the homes of other pro-government MPs.

Also, the Port of Beirut is apparently in Army hands. There’s light traffic around the port, but it’s calm there.

I’m starting to think this is a calibrated show of strength by Hezbollah. Based on the neighborhoods they’re going into — mainly Sunni and mixed ‘hoods in West Beirut, along with symbolic attacks on Hariri landmarks — his home, his TV station — it appears Hezbollah is showing that it can take over if it wants to. This, in fact, was a threat made by Hassan Nasrallah yesterday when he said if the group wanted to stage a coup, government leaders would be in prison or the sea by dawn. Likewise, Hezbollah is organized enough that if it wanted to take West Beirut completely, they could. (East Beirut is another story. That’s an express trip to Civil Warville, and Hezbollah doesn’t want to be the one to fire the first shot on that conflict.)

I could be very wrong, but I predict the fighting will be over later today or tomorrow and Hezbollah will begin turning the areas its taken over to the Lebanese Army. People taken will be released — most of them. Hezbollah won’t pass up the opportunity to take care of some political enemies and people it considers traitors.

UPDATE 1234 +4 GMT: This isn’t a war, this a bitch-slap. Judging from reports, the only March 14 faction targeted by Hezbollah seems to be the Future Movement, a primarily Sunni group. It’s also the militarily weakest of the March 14 factions. The PSP and Christian parts of March 14 have stayed out of the fighting for the most part. These past two days have been a public humiliation of Saad Hariri.

Already, civilians are walking the streets normally, based on Al Jazeera video. (Most of them have suitcases, indicating a desire to flee.) Most — perhaps even all? — of the press outlets associated with Hariri have been closed down. Fighting is dying down all across the city as the army and militias take control of security in their various sectors.

This wasn’t a war… This was a warning.

UPDATE 1804 +4 GMT: Actually, I take that back. This may well be a coup. It looks like most of the government may well be capitulating to Hezbollah’s actions. We’re waiting to see what Hariri, Siniora and others will do. They’re all in a big meeting at Geagea’s place. Like that won’t throw gasoline on the fire.

UPDATE 2037 +4 GMT: Well, leader of the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea came out and pledged defiance to Hezbollah, saying Lebanon and Beirut would not fall. By using their weapons, he said, they have lost their right to them. Does that mean the LF is going to get into the fight and disarm Hezbollah? Not likely. Amin Gemayel spoke earlier, and mouthed similar platitudes, but based on their demeanor and lack of any offered solutions or compromise, they seemed beaten to me. Where is Saad Hariri and Fuad Siniora?

ABU DHABI — Well, I was going to blog the slaying of Imad Mughniyah earlier, but a combination of surprising barriers to getting online in Abu Dhabi, a crashed laptop and just arriving here to live put me in the slow lane on this one. I have a column coming in Spot-on.com, but I have to wait 24 hours to post that. (Contracts…) Anyway, in the meantime, check out Laura Rozen’s piece and be informed. The CIA is seriously denying this, but I for one think the agency is a bit more competent than it’s usually given credit for. Yeah, it was probably the Israelis, but hell… the CIA would love to have gotten this guy.

BEIRUT — Anyone paying any attention to al-wada (the situation) in Lebanon knows things ain’t good. The weather is affecting everything, from food deliveries to electricity. Skiing’s good up in Faraya, I hear, though.

Last weekend’s unrest was extremely unsettling. Seven people were killed and now Hezbollah and Amal are calling for revenge against the Army. March 8 — the Hezbollah-led opposition — is looking more and more intransigent, and unwilling to come to any solution other than a complete caving of the government to their demands: veto power in the cabinet, picking the president and a lock-in to the Syrian orbit.

Of course, the pro-Western government of Fuad Siniora is unwilling to do that, creating a situation that is ripe for explosion. The atmosphere is tense, and Lebanese are jumpy. Already there are small daily clashes and assaults on Army positions. Lebanese media are rife with reports that Syria now opposes Army Chief Michel Sleiman for president (not sure why, really; perhaps he’s not so in their camp as they thought he was?) and prefers former Foreign Minister Fares Boueiz for the post.

Mrs. Back to Iraq, a better observer of Lebanese politics than I am, doesn’t think last week’s protest-turned-street-battle was spontaneous. The dahiyeh, she said, is like Syria. Not much happens there without Hezbollah’s notice and approval. They’re trying to discredit the proto-presidency of Sleiman before it even happens. I agree with her, but I wonder if the protests really did start spontaneously and Hezbollah, recognizing an opportunity, allowed them to balloon into a confrontation with the state. At any rate, “Black Sunday” has led to a predictable amount of finger-pointing and blame-shifting.

My friend, Mitch Prothero, has a good piece in Slate on last weekend’s violence.

Most people I talk to think the al-wada will go on until 2009, when there are parliamentary elections. Then Hezbollah and the rest of the March 8 folks will likely win these and that will be the end of the so-called Cedar Revolution. Lebanon will return to the Syrian fold and politicians like Walid Jumblatt and Saad Hariri will be spending a lot of time in Paris and Riyadh.

That’s Hezbollah’s real goals, I think. Not to take over the country and install an Islamic state. Hezbollah is at heart a revolutionary movement and they’re smart enough to know that their popularity comes from that mystique as well as their social services that operate separately from the woefully inefficient Lebanese services.

If they “took over” and became the government, they would lose the revolutionary aura. From Hezbollah’s point of view, It’s much better to be a network of guerilla commanders in southern Lebanon fighting Zionist occupiers than to be in charge of fixing potholes and making sure the electricity is on. Because they don’t get blamed for the screw-ups then. (And Lebanon is nothing but one big screw-up when it comes to basic infrastructure.)

It works like this: If Hezbollah gives up its weapons — as every other militia in Lebanon did at the end of the 1975-1990 Civil War — they lose their value to Iran and Syria as a force on the northern flank of Israel. They would be just another political party in Lebanon. Without that firepower, what reason is there for Syria and Iran to continue funneling money and matériel to the group? And without the money, those much-admired social services will come to an end. Lebanese are easily bought, frankly, and their loyalties are not usually so ideological. They follow leaders who deliver on patronage, jobs and services. Without the loyalty of the Shi’ites, primarily bought and paid for with those services — not, as is claimed, because of an inborn revolutionary mindset — Hezbollah would quickly fall apart.

That’s what’s at stake here. That’s why Hezbollah must have veto power and control the presidency — to prevent any decision regarding its weapons; to remove UNIFIL as an irritant in the south; to prevent the Lebanese government from extending authority to south Beirut and other areas of Hezbollahstan.

Samir Geagea, a March 14 leader, said the goal is to so paralyze Lebanon that Syria will be asked to intervene again, as it did in 1975, but he inflates the issue, I think. I think Syria very much wants a return to preeminence in its tiny neighbor, but troops are not in the cards. The plan is to return to the 2004 status quo ante, as Condoleezza Rice intoned so often during the Israel-Hezbollah war. They want to get back to a protected status in the south, being a free-range guerilla movement. They want to preserve their weapons, which is their real constituency.

Hezbollah’s plan, when it comes to Syria and its weapons, is to paralyze and protect.

OK. Having watched the video of the Iranian speed boats “swarming” the U.S. naval vessels, I’m left with a strong sense of being underwhelmed. That’s it? Something out of “Miami Vice”? Where are the white boxes that were spoken of in the initial reports? What’s the deal with the weird robotic monotone? And again, why was this put out when it was, on the eve of President Bush’s trip to the Middle East in a bid to round up opposition to Iran?

Mind you, I am not questioning the performance or patriotism of the sailors involved. They performed exactly as they’re supposed to. What I am saying is that something’s off about this on the Pentagon’s end.

Hey everybody! I’m back after a long hiatus, honeymoon and oodles of time with the in-laws. But I’m back in Beirut now and ready for action.

And what a day to come back to work. In a very disturbing development, five Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats harassed three big U.S. naval vessels in the Arabian Gulf, nearly sparking a sea battle, according to the Pentagon. Over the weekend, the five smaller vessels threatened an American frigate, destroyer and cruiser in the Strait of Hormuz.

“Five small boats were acting in a very aggressive way, charging the ships, dropping boxes in the water in front of the ships and causing our ships to take evasive maneuvers,” a Pentagon official said. There was also communications between the Americans and the Iranians, which the Pentagon described to the effect of, “we’re coming at you and you’ll explode in a couple minutes.”

The story doesn’t describe them beyond “small boats,” so they could be patrol boats or the Iranian equivalent of the American RHIBs (Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats), but even so, they could do some real damage. The U.S.S. Cole and the UK 15 are high on everyone’s mind in the Gulf, as is the attack on the U.S.S. Firebolt).

And from my time with the American, British and Australian forces in the Gulf, I can tell you the Iranians are considered the foremost threat. As I wrote back in July last year:

The Iranians are a constant presence in the Gulf, which is natural considering its long coastline on the Gulf. And not far from KAAOT, they’ve made a naval base on a crane that sunk during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. (Part of it still sticks up out of the water.) You can see it with the naked eye and American commanders say the Iranians are conducting recon ops on the Coalition forces.

The Iranian Navy gets some respect from [Cmdr. Jim Aiken, 40, who captains the American guided missile destroyer Chung-Hoon] and other commanders, who told me that when passing through the bottleneck to the Gulf called the Strait of Hormuz, a passing Iranian Navy ship presented colors and her sailors saluted, holding fast to naval traditions the world over. But the IRGC Navy is a different story. The Coalition sailors I spoke with called them thugs and accused them of basically running a protection racket on dhows that venture into their part of the Gulf.

What does this mean? I’m not sure yet; it could be just one of those things but it’s interesting that the IRGC took over Iran’s naval command in the Gulf back in November, according to the U.S. Navy. It could be a probe, a provocation or some yahoos out of control. The IRGC isn’t the most unified or disciplined of armed forces. But no matter what, the Iranians have given President Bush some fresh PR to use against them when he comes calling on the region this week to shore up an anti-Iran coalition among Arab states.

UPDATE 1/8/08 10:36:24 AM: Folks more knowledgeable than me are chewing this over, and they’re smelling a rat. It is awfully convenient that an incident happens on the even of Bush’s visit to the region where containing Iranian aggression is high on the president’s agenda. And the Navy claims the IRGC-N is running protection rackets and smuggling. Could the dumped white boxes have been Iranian attempts to dump contraband? On the other hand, the U.S.S. Cole incident has made the Navy understandably twitchy. Those guys out there are switched on, big time. And Iranian explanation that they didn’t recognize the ships is implausible at best. A cruiser, destroyer and frigate aren’t small ships, and the only naval power of force in the Gulf’s international waters are going to be either American, British or Australian. The Iranians knew with whom they were playing chicken. Perhaps this was an indication from Iran that it can cause trouble on multiple fronts for the U.S. and its allies?

There’s also a history of Iranian aggression in the Gulf during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and the war of the tankers. The Iranians laid mines in international waters that led to the U.S.S. Samuel B. Roberts incident.

So, in short, there are good reasons for both sides to provoke the other, and it remains to be seen what — if anything — will come of this. In all honesty, probably nothing, but we’ll have to wait and see.