Baker and Hamilton already have indicated they favor talking to Iran and Syria, as has Gates, who was a member of the panel before his nomination to the Pentagon post. (He was replaced on Friday by former Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger, another Republican centrist who has privately been fiercely critical of some Bush policies.) Sen. Richard Lugar, R- Ind., who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., another committee member, have indicated they are open to talks with Iran and Syria. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., who becomes the new chairman of the committee when Democrats take over the Senate, also supports the idea of talks.

The proposal for shifting more power out of Baghdad and toward Iraq's Shiite, Sunnis and Kurdish regions has been most visibly championed by Biden. But it also has won at least general support from lawmakers of both parties, including Lugar, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

But the idea of breaking the country into three fully independent parts, which Biden has not proposed, has little support, because of fears that it would lead to "ethnic cleansing" and could draw the neighbors into a protracted regional war.

Lawmakers of both parties pressed during the election campaign for an increase in pressure on the Iraqis to reach a new power-sharing deal, or "compact." Yet there is no agreement on how to apply pressure on the Iraqis sects to make concessions.

Many Democratic lawmakers support a plan by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the incoming Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, and Jack Reed, D-R.I., a committee member to begin a "phased redeployment" to force Iraqis to reach an agreement. But the Bush administration and its supporters strongly oppose redeployment.

Since winning control of Congress this week, Democratic leaders have not declared that they will push for an immediate troop reduction, and have indicated that they would resist efforts by any of their members to try to end the mission by cutting off funding.

Some Iraq Study Group members have appeared interested in at least temporarily increasing U.S. troop strength to see if it would suppress sectarian violence, said people close to the panel. Some insiders referred to the option as "one last chance" when it was raised earlier this fall.

Reed, who has been one of the Democrats' point men on the issue, has signaled that he would not dismiss the idea of a temporary troop increase — as long as the Iraqis were moving toward a political deal.

Still, U.S. military officers are increasingly skeptical that adding more troops to Baghdad would help significantly, because the addition of 4,000 American troops has shown few results. Officers said they believe it would be more useful to add Iraqi military units.

Some U.S. military officers say they sense a growing consensus in Washington for imposing firmer deadlines and reducing the U.S. troop presence. Some said they believe that would be the right move.

Bush has invited suggestions, but has not signaled a shift in his Iraq policy. The president "keeps talking about victory," said David Gergen, an aide to Democratic and Republican presidents. "It may be that he plans to define 'victory' down. Or it may be that he hasn't decided to change the policy very much." One U.S. official said that the administration has entered a more pragmatic phase and will "look again at what's workable." Officials "were going to go this way, no matter who won, once the glare of the political campaign was over," said the official, who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak on the policy.

Other options that seem appealing "may have too high a price," he added, referring to the idea of negotiating with Syria and Iran. Iran, for example, could demand that the United States drop its effort to halt the Iranian nuclear program, he said.

---

Contributing: Julian E. Barnes