OH, DRAT -- I ACTUALLY WANTED THE FIRST DEBATE QUESTION TOMORROW NIGHT TO BE ON LIBYA

A leak published in The New York Times changes the question order for tomorrow's debate -- as a result of the leak, the first question will now be about Iran, not Libya. I'm not sure this is good news for President Obama:

The United States and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.

Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

News of the agreement -- a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama's term -- comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and the weekend before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.

It has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world's major powers to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but it could pose a risk if Iran is seen as using the prospect of the direct talks to buy time....

I'm not sure how this plays, but I worry that having a negotiated settlement potentially within reach doesn't really help Obama -- just the opposite, in fact. On the one hand, America is sick of war in the Middle East. On the other hand, Americans are always susceptible to the notion that foreign policy problems can be solved much more quickly and easily by a tough guy who's just going to kick ass rather than talk -- as if there's some way of kicking ass that has no real costs, that doesn't involve a lot of time and blood and treasure.

I'm afraid Mitt Romney may have found a sweet spot in his rhetoric -- not actually rattling sabers while implying that the Obama administration dithers and vacillates and whimpers. I think the anonymous GOP spin doctor quoted by BuzzFeed may be on to something:

"This whole thing should be a gift for Mitt," said a Republican operative who works on foreign policy. "It's an embarrassing reminder of how little progress they've made on Iran and it comes on the eve of the foreign policy debate."

I assume that the leak was, in part, intended to tee up Obama's approach to the debate. I just hope the Obama folks know what they're doing.

This (from the Times article) is the sort of thing Obama needs to emphasize in the debate:

... pain from the sanctions has deepened. Iran's currency, the rial, plummeted 40 percent in early October.

He needs to tell the American people that he's hurting Iran. That's what has the potential to blunt Romney's tough talk. Saying that he's engaging in a patient, thoughtful, adult process that can protect America while avoiding war isn't good enough.

****

I wanted the first question to be on Libya because I think it's quite possible that Romney would have responded by literally attacking Candy Crowley and trying to re-litigating the last debate. It could have been an ugly moment: Romney, right at the outset, not even offering us a few seconds of civility. Now if that moment comes, it'll come after the Iran discussion. And maybe it doesn't matter -- Romney was obnoxious in the last debate, but it hasn't hurt him in the polls. The public seems to have decided that he's passed a threshold test in these debates, even if he's often come off as a prissy, self-important rules fascist.