Despite recent assurances by senior officials in Iran that the country will weather sanctions targeting the country's petroleum and financial sectors, the international effort is having a noticeable impact on the Iranian economy. And the situation may well figure into talks scheduled for Wednesday in Baghdad over the Islamic Republic's disputed nuclear program, U.S. officials say.

Iranian exports of crude oil fell sharply in April, and could be down by as much as 1 million barrels a day, as many countries seek to reduce their imports of Iranian oil ahead of sanctions set to come into full effect later this summer, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in a report released earlier this month.

President Barack Obama has until June 28 to decide whether countries that purchase Iranian oil have significantly reduced their purchases, or face a cutoff in access to the U.S. financial system under legislation signed in December.

Separately, the European Union is set to enter into a complete embargo of Iranian oil on July 1. As countries diversify their purchases ahead of both sets of sanctions, U.S. officials say Iran's declining customer base for oil, as well as prohibitions on Iran's central bank, are having a broad impact on the overall Iranian economy.

"The value of their currency has dropped like a rock and that has a significant impact on Iran's ability to pay for the material it needs for its nuclear program," David Cohen, Treasury under-secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, told an audience in Washington earlier this month.

"They are increasingly isolated - diplomatically, financially and economically," he said. "I don't think there is any question that the impact of this pressure played a role in Iran's decision to come to the table," for talks with the United States and its allies about the nuclear program.

As the sanctions deadlines draw nearer, Iran is losing oil revenue because of both declining sales volume, and declining prices as countries that still purchase the crude see it as a distressed asset, and seek to negotiate steep price discounts on every barrel purchased.

To be sure, Iran is still producing a great deal of oil. In its report, the IEA said Iran was pumping about 3.3 million barrels day. But as most of Iran's customers reduce their purchases, the agency said much of Iran's excess production is being diverted to storage both onshore, and aboard floating tankers at sea. Estimates of Iranian oil added to floating storage since March range from 450,000 to 800,000 barrels a day, while an additional 20 million to 25 million barrels have been added to onshore facilities, the IEA said.

Once on floating storage, Iranian tankers have been turning off ship transponders so their movements are more difficult to track. Analysts who follow the Iranian program say the elusive tactic serves two purposes: It allows Iran to ply the seas and engage in covert sales of the crude, often at greatly discounted prices. Also, Iran is loathe to signal to the world a high volume of floating storage, as that would be an acknowledgment that the sanctions are having an impact.

The tracking systems are required by international law on seagoing tankers as a means to protect against accidents and spills.

Even more financially detrimental to Iranian oil exports is the prospect of shutting down any of the country's oil fields should onshore domestic storage build up as more buyers go elsewhere to avoid being targeted by sanctions.

"It's not just at your tap, or at the faucet where you just turn it off and turn it on," Jamie Webster, a Middle East oil analyst at PFC Energy, said. "When you turn it back on, 10 to 40% of that oil will not be there again, and you're going to have to essentially build new pipes, do some more drilling."

Japan and 10 countries from the European Union have already secured waivers from U.S. sanctions as they have significantly reduced their purchase of Iranian oil.

Supporters of the U.S. legislation on Capitol Hill are pointing to Japan as a prime example of how far they are looking for countries to go in their reductions of Iranian oil.

Already in a precarious position with its energy security following last years earthquake and tsunami that also triggered a nuclear crisis, Japan's early commitment to reduce it's purchases of Iranian crude by 15% to 20% should serve as an example to other countries, congressional aides say.

Sens. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey; and Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, who both authored the legislation targeting oil purchases through Iran's central bank, jointly endorsed a proposal recommending an approximately 18% reduction of Iranian oil purchases by all countries across the board in a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner earlier this year.

"Congress is not going to be very happy about it," if other large importers of Iranian oil don't reduce to near the levels of Japan, a congressional aide told CNN while declining to be identified due to the sensitivity of the situation. The administration has "done a really good job of implementing the sanctions, better than any Republican I think expected, but if they don't fully implement, they are going to take a lot of heat up here," the aide said.

India, one of the biggest importers of Iranian crude, said last week that it would cut imports by 11% in the coming year as it has faced enormous pressure from Washington to reduce its purchases. While the announcement was welcomed by the administration, it was not clear whether an even greater reduction would be necessary to get a waiver.

"As (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) said when she (was in India recently), we are making progress," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters after India's announcement. "There's more progress to be made."

The administration is also looking to South Korea and China to make significant reductions in their purchases of Iranian oil. Earlier this year, China reduced its purchases by as much as 50%, but that decision was driven mostly by a pricing dispute over existing contracts China had with Iran.

And as the deadline on sanctions enforcement nears, analysts who follow the situation say China is taking advantage of the situation by buying Iranian oil covertly, but gaining significant discounts - as much as $20 a barrel - as a condition to keep purchasing.

Diplomacy and international relations are likely to play a role in the administration's determinations with China especially so long as there is some form of reductions to go along with the significant price squeezing by the Chinese.

"I think the administration is really trying to thread this needle delicately," said Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who has followed the sanctions program closely. "Between on one hand really forcing Iranian oil off the market and forcing significant discounts on the oil that's being sold, but on the other hand not doing it too aggressively, because in doing so, it would face the possibility of returning to high oil prices we saw a month or two ago."

Both China and India have said they do not support either the EU or U.S. sanctions, and have not asked for a waiver.

For its part, Turkey, which along with South Africa, had recently ramped up its imports of Iranian oil in advance of the looming sanctions, is aware of the coming deadline.

TUPRAS, a private enterprise and Turkey's sole importer of Iranian crude, recently announced it would cut Iranian imports by 20% from the previous year's quantities. Presently, the crude imports from Iran account for 30% of Turkey's total imports, or just over 200,000 barrels a day, a Turkish official told CNN.

The company intends to replace that lost volume with Iran with additional purchases from Libya, the official said.

And because U.S. sanctions target any transactions of Iranian oil processed through Iran's central bank, Iran is facing a hard currency squeeze as more international banks refuse to repatriate any profits of oil sales back to Iran in their national currency, the rial. Iran is essentially being forced to barter and take profits in the form of the currency of the country purchasing the oil.

"Iran can't do anything with (Indian) rupees or (Chinese) yuan except buy Chinese and Indian goods and services that it really doesn't need," Dubowitz said. Without the ability to convert their sales into Iranian currency, and repatriate their profits, "all the oil they sell is going to be useless to them," he said.

Complicating matters even greater for those countries that are permitted to continue their purchases of Iranian oil at reduced rates is the increased difficulty in acquiring maritime insurance because of the sanctions.

With nearly 95% of all maritime insurance being underwritten in Europe, many of those insurers are denying coverage for anything that involves Iranian transactions.

In the absence of insurance, governments themselves would have to step in and guarantee liability on the event of a spill or some other catastrophe. Many Iran watchers expect the insurance sanctions to become particularly troublesome to Iran.

Whether the increasing pressure on Iran has brought about a willingness on its part to consider significant concessions on its nuclear program remains to be seen.

The so-called P5+1 group of the United States, Russia, China, France, Great Britain and Germany will discuss the issue with Iran in the Iraqi capital Wednesday. Most who follow the situation closely are skeptical about any significant announcements by Iran about its nuclear program in the near-term.

But regardless of whatever progress is made, some analysts say the United States should not be hasty in its response.

"I think the temptation which needs to be resisted is not to offer too much sanctions relief too fast," Dubowitz said. "Because this whole system which is being held together by the fear of U.S. penalties is going to quickly unravel, and I think the administration will lose all of the leverage that it so diligently assemble over the past few years."

The high-powered U.S. aerial delivery system of Hellfire missiles to suspected terrorist targets overseas has to be the worst kept secret in Washington. Better known as the "drone program," there are lingering questions over whether the program that is no longer secret remains "classified."

The president's assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism, John Brennan, publicly acknowledged the program last month, and offered more detail than anyone previously regarding the administration's rationale for the use of drones.

"Yes, in full accordance with the law - and in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and to save American lives - the United States government conducts targeted strikes against specific al Qaeda terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones," Brennan told a crowd at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a prestigious think tank in Washington.

But the drone program, despite being a horribly-kept secret, is a classified program. So the question is, by publicly acknowledging the use of drones, even going into detail about why the United States uses them, was Brennan also delivering a message from the president that the program had been declassified?

After all, here was the president's top counterterrorism adviser saying, in effect, "Yeah, we do that."

The question is whether such a public acknowledgment about a program that was classified thereby makes the program "declassified."

There is a formal, technical process for declassifying information, but the president isn't obligated to follow a paper trail, according to Washington lawyer Jeffrey Smith, who currently sits on the external advisory board for the director of Central Intelligence, and is former general counsel for the CIA.

According to Smith, the president can simply declare that something is declassified and, poof, it is declassified. The hard part is understanding whether there has been a "poof."

"The classification system is based entirely on an executive order from the president; there is no statutory authority for this. The president sets the criteria for classification and for declassification," says Smith.

So if the president's chief counterterorrism adviser gives a public speech explaining why the United States chooses to engage in a targeted drone program overseas, and even talks about the internal debate over the use of such program, that acknowledgment alone sends a very confusing message to others in the intelligence world, not to mention the rest of the world.

"There can be confusion, and this is part of the insidious nature of this business," says Smith, who added that, generally speaking, "Once something has been officially declassified and put into the public record by a speech, then whatever is in the four corners of that speech is declassified, but there is no notice that goes around to the government that says, 'This has been declassified.' It is just understood."

A senior congressional official sees it the same way, saying he believes the drone program has been declassified because of the public nature of Brennan's speech.

"I would assume that John Brennan is not just winging it, and that his comments reflected a decision by the president to say what he said," said the official, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity around the issue.

"To the degree that he discussed drone programs, I would consider that to be declassified."

"There is confusion outside the government, there is confusion inside the government," says Steven Aftergood, director of the government secrecy program with the Federation of American Scientists. "This is (a) very bureaucratized system which means it follows set rules, but it doesn't necessarily follow what you and I would call common sense."

So common sense might be that a prepared speech, delivered publicly because the administration wants to provide more "transparency" into such program, might mean that the program is no longer classified.

"This was not a surreptitious encounter with a journalist at a remote location, this was not Scooter Libby meeting with somebody and whispering to them," said Aftergood. He was referring to former Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was convicted in 2007 in connection with the leaking of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity - information that was technically classified, though Cheney later implied that information had been declassified.

"This was a public event and to the extent that this was published, presumably it had been vetted, so I guess I would say the contents of the speech are declassified and any official is now authorized to repeat the words that Brennan stated," said Aftergood.

What if the president himself talks about the program publicly? Would that be enough to consider the information declassified?
That's exactly what happened in January during a YouTube-Google forum.

"I think we have to be judicious in how we use drones," said President Obama.

"But understand that probably our ability to respect the sovereignty of other countries and to limit our incursions into somebody else's territory is enhanced by the fact that we are able to (execute a) pinpoint strike on al Qaeda operatives in a place where the capacities of that military in that country may not be able to get them."

Common sense would dictate that might be enough of a reason to consider the information declassified, right?

"There is a formal declassification process" says Fran Townsend, CNN contributor and former homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush. "When Brennan said it, he presumably had vetted his remarks through the White House." That would imply that the president himself had given Brennan permission to speak about the program.

But this is Washington, and just because something makes sense doesn't mean it's right.

"I will tell you, if it were me, I would not talk about it, unless it was formally declassified." says Townsend. "I would quote Brennan on the program, but I wouldn't say it myself, unless the president actually said it to me."

And that seems to be more the path that administration officials have taken since Brennan made the comments last month.

Pentagon spokesman George Little was asked recently about the program and wouldn't comment directly, but chose more general terms instead.

"There is a natural tension between secrecy and openness," said Little. "Those are twin imperatives sometimes in our nation. And so from time to time, on various issues, and I'm not commenting on any particular one issue, we do have those discussions about transparency, and the need to balance transparency against the need or secrecy. I think we've all agreed that there is a need for secrecy on some matters, but to the extent that over time circumstances change - and I'm not predicting anything on a particular issue - we can open the door to more information."

It seems that might be a safer route. When pressed on the question of whether the president intended for the program to be declassified by sending Brennan to explain it publicly, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said "J(ohn) B(rennan) didn't declassify anything."

"I'm not going to get into internal deliberations, but as a general matter we obviously push to be as transparent as we can while being mindful of our national security equities," said Vietor.

I guess that clears it up.

When you're a spy, you have to accept the fact that everything you do will go unnoticed by most people during your life. Sometimes that secrecy even follows you in death, with a simple star carved into a marble wall at Langley being the only memorial to your service.

Sometimes though, in death, the names come out, along with just enough information to piece together a glimpse of what life - and death - have been like for CIA spies over the past three decades.

This past Monday, 15 names were added to what's known by insiders as the "Book of Honor." When a name is inscribed in the book, it allows family and friends of the fallen to publicly acknowledge in general terms, how their loved ones spent their lives, and how they died.

The names and brief stories shared with a crowd said to number in the hundreds gathered in the CIA lobby, told a story of an Agency spread far and wide; the story of an Agency not only consumed with tracking down terrorists, but sometimes becoming victims of the hunted.

Jeffrey R. Patneau, described by CIA Director David Petraeus as a "young can-do officer," was killed in Yemen in September 2008. Yemen has become a hotbed of al Qaeda activity and is where a recent al Qaeda in the Arabian Pensinsula (AQAP) plot to bring down an airliner with a difficult-to-detect new explosive material, was recently foiled by undercover operatives.

Five of those honored this year died on April 18, 1983, when terrorists targeted the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people. Phyliss Nancy Faraci had also been one of the last four Americans evacuated from the Mekong Delta when Saigon fell, according to an Agency spokesman. She died in Beirut along with Deborah M. Hixson, Frank J. Johnston, and a married couple, James F. and Monique N. Lewis. Petraeus noted the Embassy bombing as the place where the Agency "first caught sight of the adversary we face today."

To get a sense of just how widespread the CIA presence has been over the years, Matthew K. Gannon was killed in the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland; Molly N. Hardy was killed in the 1998 suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi; Leslianne Shedd died when hijackers downed the plane she was on over the Indian Ocean in November 1996; Jacqueline K. Van Landingham was killed in Pakistan in March 1995; Barry S. Castiglione died during the ocean rescue of a colleague in 1992 in the waters off El Salvador; Lawrence N. Freedman was killed in Somalia in December 1992; Thomas M. Jennings, Jr. died in Bosnia in 1997; Freddie R. Woodruff was killed in Georgia in 1993; and Robert W. Woods died in a plane crash during a humanitarian mission to Ethiopia in 1989.

Petraeus told the group of gathered mourners and friends that the officers who have died for the mission "all heard the same call to duty and answered it without hesitation - never for acclaim, always for country."

One more star has been carved into that wall so far this year, bringing the number of stars representing fallen officers to 103. We don't know who the latest person was, or how they died, but maybe someday, we will.

The results of a more-than-year-long Senate investigation into counterfeit parts being used in U.S. military equipment were released Monday and - as they had from the start - investigators are putting most of the blame on China.

"Our report outlines how this flood of counterfeit parts, overwhelmingly from China, threatens national security, the safety of our troops and American jobs," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which launched the investigation.

The probe began in March of 2011. But it was not easy for the committee staffers to conduct because the Chinese government refused to grant visas to committee staff to travel to mainland China as part of the investigation.

Last year, as the committee was still pushing for the visas, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, the committee's rankling Republican, said, "It should be in Chinese interest not to have counterfeiting of these electronic parts going on because it would harm legitimate Chinese companies as well."

The committee reviewed in detail approximately 1,800 cases of suspect counterfeit parts. All told, the 1,800 cases involved more than 1 million counterfeit parts.

The investigators dug through the supply chain for three types of suspected counterfeit parts on U.S. military aircraft:

• The SH-60B is a Navy helicopter that hunts for enemy submarines and assists with surface warfare. The investigation found that a part that compromised the copter's night-vision system contained counterfeit parts that investigators traced back to China.
• The probe found counterfeit parts in the systems that tell pilots of the C-130 and C-27 cargo planes about the aircraft's performances. The part could have caused those systems to go blank. Again the part in question was traced back to China.
• The P8-A is a Navy version of the Boeing 737 used for anti-submarine warfare and other duties. The Navy is testing the aircraft now and intends to buy more than 100 of them. But the test planes contained a reworked part that never should have been on the airplane. The part was used but made to look new. The part, investigators found, originally came from China.

But the committee didn't reserve all its blame for China; some of it was directed right at the Pentagon itself.

The report said in each of the three cases that the committee investigated in depth, the Department of Defense was unaware that counterfeit electronic parts had been installed on certain defense systems until the committee's investigation.

Even though the report just came out, the committee has already taken action to deal with the problem. Levin and McCain offered an amendment to the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act to address weaknesses in the defense supply chain and to promote the adoption of aggressive counterfeit avoidance practices by DOD and the defense industry.

The amendment was adopted in the final bill signed by President Barack Obama on December 31, 2011.

Part of that law will mean that when a contractor finds bad parts on a weapons system, the contractor or the parts supplier will pay to fix the problem. In the past, those costs were often borne by the DOD.

Pentagon spokeswoman Col. Melinda Morgan gave CNN this response to the report: "We are aware (the Senate Armed Services Committee) has issued their report on counterfeit parts and look forward to reviewing it. The Department takes very seriously the issue about counterfeit parts. We are working aggressively to address this issue to include implementing section 8.18 of the FY12 NDAA."

Levin and McCain hope this aggressive push against fake electronic parts will help beyond the American military.

According to the committee, the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) says, "counterfeits cost U.S. semiconductor companies more than $7.5 billion annually in lost revenue, a figure SIA says results in the loss of nearly 11,000 American jobs."

CNN reached out to the Chinese embassy in Washington for reaction but did not immediately receive a response.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, will step down this summer after a year on the job due to health reasons, according to State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

A statement by Nuland said Crocker confirmed his plan to the Afghan government and the U.S.-led NATO military mission in the country.

Crocker was named as the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan on July 25, 2011.

This is not Crocker's first stint in Kabul. After the Taliban were forced out of power, Crocker was given the task in 2002 of reopening the U.S. Embassy in the city, according to his State Department biography.

Read the full CNN.com story here.

Activity is ramping up at North Korea's nuclear test site, a sign that the country is preparing for a test, according to analysis of new satellite images by the defense publication IHS Janes.

Mining carts and excavation equipment at Punggye-ri's tunneling area can be seen in satellite images taken by Digital Globe and GeoEye in the past month.

Earth and debris are being removed from the tunnel in the largest quantities seen so far, according to the Janes assesment.

An image from mid-April shows a full mining train, including an engine and several carts, outside of the tunnel. 

And a more recent shot on May 9 reveals new road networks at the site along with carts and a vehicle at the facility.

 

"North Korea tested nuclear devices at Punggye-ni in 2006 and 2009. A third nuclear test by North Korea would be the latest move in restarting its nuclear weapons program, which it agreed to mothball in a 29 February deal with the U.S.," said James Hardy, an Asia-Pacific specialist at IHS Jane's Defence Weekly.

The top U.S. envoy for North Korea warned Pyongyang Monday against a possible third nuclear test.

"I think it would be a serious miscalculation and mistake if North Korea works to engage in a nuclear test," Glyn Davies told reporters following a meeting with his South Korean and Japanese counterparts in Seoul.

Many analysts assume an atomic test by North Korea is just a matter of time following the failure of Pyongyang's rocket launch on April 13. Two previous rocket launches in 2006 and 2009 were followed by a nuclear test.

Davies pointed to the international condemnation following the recent rocket launch, saying Pyongyang knows what kind of response a further provocation would elicit. Pyongyang had agreed a deal with the Washington just weeks before the April launch, with the deal guaranteeing no rocket or missile tests and access for nuclear weapons inspectors in return for food aid.

"They've sent a signal that they can't be trusted to follow through on their own undertaking on their own promises," Davies said.

But Davies did leave the door open for further negotiations, saying the United States has a dual-track policy of engagement on the one hand, pressure on the other. He insisted that the "engagement aspect remains open."

G8 leaders meeting in the United States over the weekend agreed that North Korea faces further isolation if it continues its pursuit of a nuclear program.

CNN's Paula Hancocks contributed to this report.

As NATO leaders discuss the winding down of its 10-year war in Afghanistan and pat themselves on the back for helping in the bloody ouster of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya, there is one increasingly deadly conflict that is taboo for the alliance to even think about wading into: Syria.

Practically every NATO leader has publicly condemned the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and called for him to step down and make way for a democratic transition in Syria. Yet U.S. ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder said Sunday that not one leader even raised the issue of Syria during the opening day of the summit.

While saying NATO is "very much concerned about the situation of Syria," NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen made clear the alliance has "no intention whatsoever to intervene."

NATO's radio silence has prompted criticism among human rights groups and on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers for question why the alliance supported military intervention in Libya but has ruled out similar action in Syria. One congressional source called the refusal to even talk about the issue "pretty shocking."

Sen. John McCain, an outspoken proponent of U.S.-led intervention on Syria, has called it "shameful" that NATO has stood by while the Syrian people are hammered by the regime's heavily armed forces. McCain lobbied unsuccessfully to get the Syria issue on the formal agenda at the Chicago summit.

"Is it now the policy of NATO that we will stand by as rulers kill their people by the thousands and our alliance won't even discuss what we might do to help stop them?" McCain asked in a recent speech. "Shame on us and shame on the alliance, if we neglect our responsibilities to support brave peoples who are struggling and dying in an unfair fight for the same values that are at the heart of our alliance."

U.S. officials and other NATO diplomats argue that Syria's sectarian make-up and its divided opposition make military intervention a gamble that could lead to further bloodshed and instability, as it did after the U.S.-led invasion of neighboring Iraq in 2003.

"There is a clear difference between Libya and Syria. We took responsibility for the operation in Libya to protect the civilian population because we had a clear mandate from the United Nations, and we got clear support from a number of countries in the region," Rasmussen said Sunday in an interview with CNN's "State of the Union." "None of these conditions are fulfilled when it comes to Syria."

They also point to war-weary populations and slashed defense budgets throughout the alliance, which make another NATO intervention unfeasible.

"Nobody is keen to ask questions that they don't want answered," one senior official said of the lack of discussion on the Syria issue in Chicago. "There is no point of a vigorous plea if you aren't ready to back it up."

NATO leaders have individually backed implementation of the April 11 cease-fire brokered by U.N. special envoy Kofi Annan, but in the same breath have acknowledged the deal has failed to stem the regime's assault. Syrian human rights groups estimate nearly 12,000 people have died since the uprising began, more than 900 since the truce took effect

David Kramer, president of the Freedom House, a pro-democracy group, says the mixed messages on the Annan plan, coupled with an unwillingness to consider more robust action, signal to al-Assad a lack of international resolve that encourages him to continue the crackdown.

"It's incomprehensible to me why NATO officials publicly say they are doing zero planning," Kramer said. "Why telegraph to Assad what our limits are?"

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said U.S. and NATO military leaders in April had explored possible military outcomes in Syria should Western powers decide to remove al-Assad by force.

In Jordan, U.S. Army Green Berets are training Jordanian special forces in a number of "worst-case scenarios," including Syria's chemical and biological weapons falling out of the control of government forces, U.S. sources tell CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.

Turkey's recent threat to invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter further raised hopes among opposition supporters that the alliance could play a role in the conflict. Article 5 claims that an attack against one NATO member can be considered an attack on the entire alliance.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Ankara was considering the move after al-Assad forces fired into Turkish territory in pursuit of rebels who had fled across the border. Some NATO diplomats expected Turkey to at least ask for formal NATO consultations on this issue at the Chicago summit, which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the alliance would be ready to consider.

But in Chicago, Turkish officials remained silent, as did the alliance's 27 other members, including the United States.

In the summit's final declaration, NATO members pledged to strengthen partnerships with non-NATO members to deal with global threats, as it did in Afghanistan and more recently in Libya.

Kurt Volker, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, says NATO should be discussing how to form such a coalition for acting in Syria with countries such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates before the situation becomes more dangerous and al-Assad considers even more brutal action, such as using Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons.

"It is the biggest conflict waging on NATO's border," Volker said. "How many dead Syrians are enough? If he were out there with chemical weapons, would we stand by and do nothing, even if the Security Council was blocked by the Russians? I don't think so. So is there a threshold of human catastrophe? And if you are convinced Assad is going to cross that threshold, isn't it better to do something before he does?"

It's a very profound set of questions, which NATO is not yet ready to answer.

By Jamie Crawford

If Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, an influential member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is looking for a country to visit as a member of a congressional delegation, he can cross Afghanistan off his list.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Rohrabacher have been at loggerheads over the congressman's push for a more decentralized Afghan government. Asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer about the disagreement, Karzai said he is against letting Rohrabacher into the country.

"Until he changes his tongue, until he shows respect to the Afghan people, to our way of life and to our constitution ... No foreigner has a place asking another people, another country to change their constitution. Have we ever asked the United States to change its constitution?" Karzai said in an exclusive interview that aired Monday on "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."

Both Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Rohrabacher it was not a good idea to travel to Afghanistan based on their own conversations with Karzai. Rohrabacher agreed, and did not travel on with the delegation from its previous stop in Dubai.

As chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, Rohrabacher said his past scrutiny of the Afghan government and examination of how U.S. funds are spent in the war-torn nation likely played a role in Karzai's displeasure.

Coming on the heels of revelations of U.S. soldiers burning Qurans, and the alleged killing of Afghan civilians at the hands of a U.S. soldier, Clinton told Rohrabacher the timing of the visit was not right

"She felt that another mini-crisis might erupt," Rohrabacher told Blitzer last month, "because Karzai hated me so much that he would create a crisis, and she just thought it would be disruptive to our ability to get her job done."

Rohrabacher went on to call the mercurial Afghan leader a "corrupt prima donna" in the same interview.

In the interview that aired Monday, Karzai said he is firm on his position on Rohrabacher not because the congressman is "dangerous," but as a "matter of principle."

"Freedom of speech is good, we respect that, but the freedom of speech with regard to other countries is another issue," Karzai told Blitzer.

Rohrabacher later released a statement through his office saying he would not "apologize to Karzai or any other corrupt leader.

"Afghanistan is failing because Karzai and his corrupt clique are incompetent leaders, not because the U.S. hasn't pumped enough money or blood to help the brave people of Afghanistan ... Right now, I'm more concerned with getting American troops out of that country so they won't continue to needlessly die than I am getting myself into Afghanistan to meet with officials like Karzai," Rohrabacher said in the statement.

By Barbara Starr

Syria's president is quickly spending through his cash reserves as sanctions choke off many sources of funding, but the regime is getting help from Iran in bolstering finances, CNN has learned.

In Jordan, the government is accepting the reality that Bashar al-Assad may remain in power in Syria for months to come, aided by Iran.

According to intelligence assessment shared with CNN, al-Assad likely had about $30 billion in cash reserves to spend when unrest and bloodshed began in March 2011. He's about down to $6 billion to $9 billion.

And with the war against his own people costing him about $1 billion a month, he should have been out of business by the end of the year, according to officials in the region.

But sources are also telling CNN that al-Assad is getting a cash infusion from Iran, funneled in through banks in Lebanon, and Iran's support combined with Russia's political and economic support could keep al-Assad going for months to come.

The assistance is just part of how Iran is helping Syria.

As CNN reported earlier this year, Iran has provided further aid as part of what the officials described as "all-in" support for al-Assad, including small arms and assistance in helping the Syrian government use computer monitoring to rout out opposition using social media and other Internet tools.

While troops from 19 countries, including the United States, have converged in Jordan for the Eager Lion military exercise, U.S. and Jordanian elite forces are doing additional training to prepare for potential fallout should Syria's government collapse.

U.S. Army Green Berets are training Jordanian special forces in a number of so called "worst-case scenarios" including Syria's chemical and biological weapons falling out of the control of government forces, U.S. sources tell CNN.

The U.S., Jordan and other allies are worried that opposition forces or groups like al Qaeda could seize some partial control of 20 key chemical and biological sites inside Syria.

U.S. intelligence officials have long said they believe Syria's chemical and biological weapons remain under the control of al-Assad's forces and there is little need to worry.

Securing the sites would demand that outside ground forces land in Syria within 18 hours of any collapse to try to regain control, according to an assessment shared with CNN.

The Jordanians believe that with al-Assad remaining in power, Jordan must plan and train its forces for any potential option. But the introduction of American special operations forces such as the Green Berets is seen as an indicator that the United States is prepared to help defend Jordan if it came to that.