Watering down terror

This is a really big deal because of the implications of this designation.

The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.

But I think the bigger question is what happens when a terrorist designation is deemed to be political?

Because this takes place within the greater context of the Iran nuclear issue, this application will be viewed as a political act which will have undermining effects in the real efforts against terror.

The US has made clear that the issues of Iranian activities in Iraq are not to be included in the nuclear negotiations leaving the impression that the nuclear program is the larger concern. (Sorry, US soldiers. It's administration policy that you're a lower priority.)

If the US is seen to be using terror designations as a political tool, how much foreign assistance can the US expect in carrying out the implementation?

A Little Later: The NYTimes came in with its version of the story in which this non-terror motivation is made explicit.

According to European diplomats, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned of the move in recent conversations with European counterparts, saying that a delay in efforts to win approval from the United Nations Security Council for further economic sanctions on Iran was leaving the administration with little choice but unilateral action.

In other words, it's all about the nuclear program.