I was studying in the living room the other day and the television was on (as it is all day). I usually don't watch it for two reasons: 1). I can barely understand Arabic, and 2). When the shows are in English, they're usually not worth watching. But this was an exception.

The station was streaming an interview (in English) between Fareed Zakaria, a foreign policy expert, and King Abdullah II. I like listening to King Abdullah, because he speaks very logically and in fluent English. He is truly a partner in America's attempt to provide a more stable, moderate Middle East.

I agreed with essentially all he said in the interview — especially his emphasis on building the Jordanian economy and doing so through education. I also was glad to hear his call for moderate Muslims to take back Islam from "those extremists who have hijacked our religion."

But I found his views on Iran to be quite near-sighted. When asked what he thought about the Iranian nuclear threat, the king responded, "If we solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem, why would Iranians want to spend so much money on a military program? It makes no sense."

Of course Abdullah is going to say that: Approximately half (and probably more than half) of his country is of Palestinian origin. It's a personal battle for him, and it should be. But to tie that to the Iranian nuclear threat makes little sense to me.

When has Iran come out and said, "We're pursuing a nuclear program because of the Israeli-Palestinian issue"? They haven't, because that's not the reason. Again and again, they've claimed it as a national right to have a nuclear program. (They claim it's for civilian purposes, though it's largely assumed that that's a front.)

Settling the Palestinian problem -- however worthy that endeavor is in it's own right, and however effective it may be in deterring certain extremists -- isn't going to appease Iran. Iran has a different agenda, and its animosity toward Israel is only part of its grand narrative (to go along with its quest for regional power, its dreams of Shia supremacy, etc.).

I don't blame King Abdullah for taking such a view. The possibility that Palestinian unrest spills into Jordan is much greater than the chances of an Iranian nuclear warhead landing on Jordanian soil in two years. The Palestinian issue is his chief foreign policy concern, and it should be.

But his views on Iran are soft and, from an Israeli point of view, dangerous. Here's the interview in its entirety:

Facts and Myths in Jordan Chess is the same in every country: MYTH

Chess is one of my favorite games, and in the absence of close friends, I've found it to be a great leisure activity here. I play it often with my host dad, who is pretty good, though I beat him about two out of three games.

The ratio might be a bit more lopsided if we played by "American" rules. But since we're in Jordan, who am I to tell my host what the rules are? For my fellow chess geeks, here are some of the differences:

-I'm required to say "check" (Arabic: qaish) every time I endanger his queen. After swiping his rook, and then several other pieces, this rule was extended to every piece other than pawns.

-There are "mistake" scenarios in which I make a powerful move, but after seeing it he decides to undo his previous move. I've found that these first two rules are only applied by him.

-You can move twice on your first play. There are other rules, as well, including a few regarding pawns, which I've never heard of. I don't think any of his rules have any official legitimacy, but apparently that's how he learned to play.