Putting the Rock Down

There's an interesting op-ed piece by David Ignatius in today's Washington Post. The key part of his argument is contained in the first few paragraphs.

A caustic former U.S. ambassador named Chas Freeman compiled a volume he called "The Diplomat's Dictionary." It included several memorable definitions, including "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' till you can find a rock," and "Diplomacy is letting someone else have your way."

The Bush administration, which has generally favored the "find a rock" strategy, seems to be bending toward the subtler "have your way" approach. This conversion is long overdue. But it will require the administration to do what it has sometimes found hardest, which is to prioritize its foreign policy goals and go all-out on the ones it decides are most important.

The clearest example of the administration's new outreach is its turnabout on discussions with Iran and Syria about how to stabilize Iraq. A year ago, the Iranians (responding to what they thought was an American overture) announced that they were ready for such talks -- whereupon the administration pulled back. That was a mistake that made the Iraq mess even worse.

Now, Bush is altering course slightly, with last week's announcement that the United States will join a regional conference in Baghdad. But the administration shouldn't go into these talks holding its nose. If the administration is serious, it should use the initial meeting to set up regular U.S.-Iranian discussions about Iraq. The administration should also start a real dialogue with Syria -- and in the process shelve any half-baked ideas about regime change that may be lurking in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. The Syrians pose a deadly threat in Lebanon, which is all the more reason to be talking with them. The obvious person to begin this conversation is James A. Baker III, who knows the Syrians well from his days as secretary of state. [Emphasis added]

Ignatius points back to the Iraq Study Group report which chastised the current administration for not engaging in any meaningful diplomacy with the countries in the region. As Ignatius points out later in the article, the President decided his masterful "surge" plan was a better way to go, and the recommendations made by the study group were pretty much ignored by the White House.

Is the President now going back to the report in order to open a diplomatic front to the war? Ignatius seems to be suggesting that he is. I, on the other hand, am not so sure. The US has had several chances in the past to open a meaningful dialogue with Iran in the past, but has blown each and every one of them.

While screaming loudly about the Iranian nuclear weapon program and demanding sanctions for that program (all the while sending additional carrier fleets into the Middle East in a brazen show of cowboy diplomacy), the US has ignored the signals sent by Iran (the latest of which was last week, as I noted here).

While there is absolutely no way to discern just what this most secretive of White House has in mind, I can't help but feel that any such conference with Iran and Syria is nothing more than a dog-and-pony show designed to distract attention from the worsening conditions in Iraq.

This is one of those occasions when I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not optimistic.