Instead, the number of terror indictments is actually dropping, to the point where they are nearly non-existent: 20 in 2011. Perhaps the most high profile domestic terrorism case of 2011 was a man making an online threat against the creators of South Park. The rest are even less impressive.

Click here to read more on terror hysteria at Christian Science Monitor

Many types of weapons went missing. The Tuareg mercenaries showed up in northern Mali sporting shiny new assault rifles for their insurgency. For the US, however, the focus has been on the SA-24 shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles.

The SA-24s are portable and designed to target aircraft. This has made them a much desired commodity for the various militant groups in the region. Experts say that Libya had enough of these weapons to turn the northern half of Africa into one big no-fly zone.

The US scrambled, getting officials on the ground to try to find the weapons. But the short answer is they never did find them, and claims that it was “mostly secured” appear not to have been true.

And while the US will probably keep looking just for lack of anything better to do, State Department officials are now conceding that they “probably never will” know how many missiles went missing or where they ended up. At least until those weapons start being used against aircraft in the area.

The argument has some validity. Indeed, most indications are that the Iranian government has been able to find workarounds on many of the sanctions, and the desperate efforts to halt the flow of crude oil from the country seem to be doomed to failure.

Nevertheless, every new round of sanctions takes a toll on the civilian economy of Iran and cripples private industries that don’t have access to the loopholes that state industry does. This has fueled inflation, unemployment, and, increasingly, soaring food prices.

Iran’s state oil company is still shipping crude, but the cooking oil that Iranian companies buy from abroad isn’t getting in so easily. Corn and rice shipments are down, payments to suppliers are defaulting, and once again the US sanctions have made Iran’s civilian population even more desperate, with no one to turn to but the government.

Reports of human rights violations in Pakistani Balochistan are nothing new within the Pakistani press, but the sudden interest among US officials, coupled with eager condemnations from human rights groups, comes with serious undertones.

That is because last month, Rep. Rohrabacher and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R – TX), in a policy paper condemning the Obama Administration, proposed that the US pursue an independent Baloch state “carved out of Pakistan,” nominally to defeat the Taliban.

Gohmert has been keen on this plan for some time, insisting that an independent Balochistan would stop the flow of arms into Afghanistan and be a far better US ally than Pakistan has ever been.

Rohrabacher’s endorsement of it is somewhat more strange, given his history as an outspoken supporter of the Taliban during the Clinton years. Somehow this has morphed into being willing to slice Pakistan down the middle on the off chance it actually harms the Taliban.

The proposal is not new. Indeed, the Pakistani media was all over the story in 2006 when Lt. Col. Ralph Peters began pushing for the creation of “Greater Balochistan” as an independent nation carved out of Pakistan’s Balochistan Province and Iran’s Sistan-Balochistan Province. He also called for Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Khyber-Pakhtoonwhah Province to be ceded to Afghanistan. Pakistan would be left only as a narrow nation along the Indian border.

Peters’ plan was rather ambitious — he further proposed carving up Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey, totally redesigning the map of the Middle East. The plan may never have been given serious consideration, but shows that the notion of splitting up Pakistan is not a new one, and is now being given serious consideration in Washington.

Ganzouri insisted the treatment of the NGOs and their employees was the “legal right” of the junta, which “can’t back down or won’t change course because of some aid.” The US aid amounts to about $1.5 billion annually.

Ganzouri also said various Arab governments have not followed through on their pledges of aid in the wake of Mubarak’s ouster, suggesting the US and its allies were punishing Egypt for “more independent policies.”

The NGO row is somewhat complex. In December, the junta raided US government-funded NGOs backing certain pro-US parties in the election. The NGOs were accused of dodging taxes as well as receiving foreign funding illegally.

At the center of these assorted NGOs’ efforts were two US organizations, the International Republican Institute (IRI, headed by Sen. John McCain) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI, headed by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright). These two groups wield significant political clout in the US and aim to ensure their freedom to peddle influence in Egypt.

The junta’s crackdown broke with a long-standing tradition of giving US workers a wide berth, and the Egyptian regime has now filed charges against 19 Americans, including local IRI leader Sam LaHood, the son of a US cabinet member, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Normally a minor slight could be handled behind the scenes by political leaders, but this time matters appear to have gotten away from them. The US will likely not relent in its demands, but it will be hard for the Egypt junta to back down now that so much has been made of the matter.

In Iraq, which US troops have already left, the massive CIA presence in Baghdad has been re-purposed. Once focused chiefly on tackling al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and other insurgents, the spies are now “monitoring developments in the increasingly antagonistic government.”

In many ways thing have come full circle for the CIA, which had a presence on the ground spying on the Saddam Hussein regime before the 2003 US invasion. Now, having spent the last eight years helping the military prop up the Maliki regime, the agency again finds itself there spying.

In Afghanistan — though exactly what sort of government the occupation will leave behind remains up in the air — the expectation is much the same as with Iraq, only moreso. The deployment will be even bigger, characterized by more aggressive operations and constant drone strikes.

Hadi is heavily backed by the US government and is also the candidate of choice for the ruling party, which would have virtually assured his election even if there had been somebody running against him. In this case, however, there is not.

The Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) negotiated an agreement with the political opposition designed to end their participation in pro-democracy protests, giving them the prime ministership on the condition that they promise unanimously  to nominate Hadi, making this a one candidate race.

Hadi said his election will be a “message of hope” and voters will send a strong message that they reject “terrorism” by voting for him. He termed the single-candidate election a “noble task” for those running the election.

Though the election would appear to be a mere formality, Hadi also has a serious interest in getting out the vote to give his reign, the result of a backroom deal under intense US and Saudi pressure, at least some modicum of legitimacy. The Houthi secessionist movement in the far north has already vowed to boycott the election, as have the southern secessionists. With much of the pro-democracy movement also unimpressed by the deal, a low turnout could leave Hadi in an extremely weak position.

The move orders US banks, including their foreign subsidiaries, to block and freeze all transactions coming out of Iran, and also gives them the power to seize any assets to which they are given access in relation to those transactions.

The official statement from the White House said the order was aimed at punishing Iran for “serious human rights abuses” and was targeted at keeping Iran from “development of petroleum resources.”

The move will make it even more difficult for those involved in the Iranian oil market to use US dollars. Some nations, including India and China, have been rumored to be in the early stages of negotiating gold-for-oil transactions with Iran, which would bypass the international banking system entirely.

The closure, which seems to be permanent (or as permanent as these things ever are), puts an end to Ambassador Robert Ford’s tenure, less than two years after the administration put him forward as a candidate for the first ambassador to Syria since 2005, when President Bush had likewise issued an angry public condemnation of the Assad government and closed the embassy.

Ford’s brief term will be memorable primarily for his decision to attend public protests against the government to which he was supposed to be the ambassador, as well as the time pro-Assad protesters threw tomatoes at him. Perhaps his most impactful moment was a Facebook post in which he insisted that the official US position was that the Syrian government couldn’t theoretically reform, setting the stage for increased US hostility and the embassy’s eventual closure.

Whereas opening the embassy was presented as a moment of hope, in retrospect there appears to have been no effort by Ambassador Ford to improve US ties with Syria. To skeptics it would seem that the only reason the Obama Administration even went to the trouble and expense of reopening the embassy was so it could issue a high profile condemnation and leave dramatically.

The US soldier is said to have killed the man thinking that the 22-year-old Afghan guard was about to attack him. NATO declined comment but the US said it was “aware” of the incident and investigations are apparently underway.

The guard was one of several contractors hired to guard the exterior of the base. He asked to be let inside the base for some reason, starting an argument with the US soldier, which ended in the shooting. Afghan police say the US soldier, who was not named, “thought he was acting in self defense.”

Between Taliban infiltrators launching attacks in the uniforms of allied security forces and incidents like these, the distrust between Afghan troops and NATO occupation forces appears to be increasing, and could lead to more itchy trigger fingers on both sides.