As long as we're looking at this on the national security angle, why is it that this is the first pre-clearance facility proposed (or maybe considered) in the middle east? The greatest limitation of pre-clearance facilities hosted abroad is that US officials don't have the power to make an arrest on foreign soil, so it is up to the host country to enforce their own laws. Theoretically, a potential terrorist could fail the security pre-clearance with nothing to lose but boarding privileges. This could allow them to get through a "learning curve" of what will make it through without the risk of arrest.
Obviously this is a worst-case scenario, but how many attacks happened when worst-case scenarios were both considered and acted upon?
So if we took this thought out to an extreme angle, how about this: If we had to choose what country in the middle east should be the first to have a pre-clearance agreement, why not Israel?
I agree with earlier suggestions that this has more to do with $$$ than anything else - it seems that too many decisions in the interest of either saving or making lots of money in the short term with little consideration of long-term implications get us in so much trouble at so many levels.
Given that many M.E. countries are looking to position themselves for "post-oil" futures, how do we know how much their friendships will last (or be worth) in such a future without guaranteed revenues at little cost?
Seems to me the potential downside far exceeds any benefit. Just my $.02
In any case, my elected representatives (whether I voted for them or not) will be each getting letters soon.