Informed Speculation

Has Tony Blair gone wobbly in calling for dialogue with Syria and Iran (in a prelude to what is widely expected to be a similar call in the Iraq Study Group report)?  It’s not as bad as you think…and it’s worse than you think.

The overall approach is entirely sensible.  Said Blair:

“It is a perfectly straightforward and clear strategy. It will only be defeated by an equally clear one: to relieve these pressure points one by one and then, from a position of strength, to talk.

“Offer Iran a clear strategic choice: they help the Middle East peace process, not hinder it; they stop supporting terrorism in Lebanon or Iraq; and they abide by, not flout, their international obligations.

“In that case, a new partnership is possible. Or alternatively they face the consequences of not doing so: isolation.”

“A major part of the answer to Iraq lies not in Iraq itself but outside it, in the whole of the region where the same forces are at work, where the roots of this global terrorism are to be found, where the extremism flourishes, with a propaganda that may be totally false; but is, nonetheless, attractive to much of the Arab street.

“That is what I call a ‘whole Middle East’ strategy.”

But Blair has made a blunder in the ‘order’ he sees events unfolding:

Such a strategy should start with efforts to resolve tensions between Israel and Palestine, which are “the core” of the troubles afflicting the whole region, he said. “We should then make progress on Lebanon. We should unite all moderate Arab and Muslim voices behind a push for peace.”

In the first place, waiting on progress between Israel and the Palestinians (particular given the complete hopelessness of trying to negotiate with a Hamas that will not even recognize Israel’s right to exist in the face of a complete collapse of its government) is a recipe for inaction.

And Iraq won’t wait…yes, we need to pressure Iran and Syria on Israel and Lebanon, and sooner rather than later…and Iran must give up its nuclear program…but to allow movement on Iraq to be beholden to these other issues is to engage in the sort of ‘linkage’ that makes the UN so completely ineffective.

Truth be told, I think this whole angle is pretty futile.  I share the skepticism of the President:

It is not clear how willing Tehran and Damascus are to step into the turmoil of Iraq to aid Washington.

Iran and Syria’s possible role was one of the ideas also thought to be under discussion in the Iraq Study Group led by former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican with close ties to the Bush family, and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Bush remained cool to such a move, saying Syria needed to get out of Lebanon and Iran needed to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

He pointed out that the US had offered direct talks with Iran about its nuclear ambitions if Teheran would agree to stop uranium enrichment, which Iran has refused.

Am I opposed to such talks, then? I guess I am, unless and until I am convinced that any realistic hope of achieving anything worthwhile would result…