Court Syria, but keep Iran at distance

One of the most controversial recommendations of the Iraq Study Group is that the Bush administration should enlist the aid of Iran and Syria to achieve stability in Iraq.

The bipartisan commission of nine men and one woman, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, concedes that this would be difficult. But it argues that to resolve conflicts a nation must engage with its enemies.

It recommends that the United States engage directly with Iran and Syria under the aegis of a yet-to-be formed "Iraq International Support Group." This would involve all the states bordering Iraq, including Iran and Syria; key regional states like Egypt and the Gulf states; the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the European Union.

The proposal that the United States should engage with two of its most contentious adversaries has predictably triggered arguments pro and con in the U.S. political and foreign policy communities.

Those in favor of such a dialogue argue that neither Iran nor Syria should want a disintegrating Iraq that would destabilize the region and, therefore, should be open to new U.S. diplomatic persuasion.

Those opposed argue that the United States should not negotiate with two nations that are actively promoting violence in Iraq, that support and supply terrorists, have a long history of discord with the United States, militancy toward Israel, and one of which (Iran) is presumed working to create nuclear weapons.

There is, however, a third option. It is for the United States to engage with Syria but not Iran. Syria is meddling in Lebanon, is hostile to Israel, but has occasionally shown itself open to constructive discussion. By contrast Iran is in the grip of extremist mullahs who are apparently permitting production of an atomic bomb and supporting Iranian President Ahmadinejad when he declares the Holocaust a myth and threatens the obliteration of Israel.

In a sense the United States would be differentiating between two egregious levels of behavior. One, in Syria's case, might be open to some moderating. The other, in the case of Iran, shows little prospect of improvement. Indeed, when ISG co-chairman James Baker met, in the course of the group's analysis, with a senior Iranian official to discuss Iraq, he was told that Iran had no interest in helping the United States out of its problems there.

One positive fallout from courting Syria but keeping Iran at a distance might be the driving of a wedge between the two and disrupting their alliance against Israel, the United States and proponents of democracy.