Indeed the US is in a week position but it is of their making. Irregardless of the reasons for invading Iraq, the occupation has been botched leaving the US very little room to move. Giving Iran a little room move may be what is needed. To just sit their muttering stay the course whenever someone ask what should be done only exacerbates the problem.

The seemingly insurmountable problem is Palestine and be buggered if I know what to do about that one. Removing Palestine as a rallying point would help. Even though I disagree with their policy towards Israel, it was a mistake to totally shut out Hamas. Attempts should have been made to see if they could be tempted in moderation.

With regards to Iran, if the reformists can gain some ground then it may be the opening that the US needs for a dialogue and hope that the reformists will soften Iran’s stance. However if Ahmadinejad’s mob increase their representation then Iran is likely to move even further towards extremism.

Even though opening dialogue with Syria and Iran may seem politically unpalatable. But it is time for a new approach. Hell, it may not work but I don’t see any better policies coming out from the US.

It is hard to conceive that Iran is equipping these groups for a purpose other than the one they themselves loudly advertise — the destruction of the Jewish state.

While this is in itself correct, it tells only part of the story. I wish to return briefly to my theme of Iranian subtlety and their view of a “long war”.

In Shaun’s link Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel’s days are numbered. The interesting, indeed truly fascinating, thing is how he said they were numbered:

I want to tell the western countries just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out.

I don’t need to remind you that the Soviet Union fell without a shot being fired:

1. Economic failure brought on by the struggle to match US military spending. (Self-inflicted unnecessarily in my opinion.)

2. A large proprtion of the Soviet population ceasing to believe in the Soviet project, rising up in a great gesture of people power to paralyse the state.

This is what Ahmadinejad sees:

1. An Israeli population overburdened by the demands of self-defence.

2. An apartheid de facto state, the result of rejectionism of a two-state settlement becoming ungovernable.

He may be correct. Ergo his reference to the end of the Soviet Union.

Perhaps, Shaun, but it seems to me to completely unrealistic. Baker himself has conceded that Iran would be unlikely to negotiate along the lines recommended in his report, and Iran has since said it would not. Baker has taken the ‘it can’t do any harm’ line, but with all due respect to him and his experts I don’t see that it is so.

Consider, for example, the impact on the moderate Muslim states, mainly at least notionally US allies. They fear Iran’s expansion of influence (see Katz’ excellent post above) more than anything. Any overture to Iran, particularly from a self-confessed position of weakness (‘we are not winning in Iraq, please help’) will look like an abandonment of the US’ allies.

Also, think of Lebanon’s Siniora, desperately trying to hold his government in place in the face of a putsch by Hizbollah. Syria and Iran are behind that coup-in-progress. What does it say to moderate Lebanon that the US goes cap in hand to the very powers that are destabilising Lebanon and seeking the ovethrow of the Cedar Revolution? Nothing but bad.

Bernard Lewis commented recently that in the Middle East today ‘the US is seen as harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend’. That’s a bad position for both the US and the region to find themselves in.

But the West Bank is very different. It’s only about 10 km from the West Bank to Tel Aviv, easily within range of rockets and missiles. Israel could not permit the kind of continual barrage into its major city that Sderot has endured for a year.

As for Gaza, well, yes, there are severe restrictions on movement. That’s because of the need to interdict terrorist operations and incursions into Israel. The solution to that problem lies with the Gazans themselves. As Israel’s PR at the UN said during last month’s emergency session:

This bloodshed can stop in one second. If terror stops, there will not be one single victim, Israeli or Palestinian. End the violence, and Israel never again needs not engage in self-defense.

My other comment, and this is a quick one because I have to go out in a sec, is that the economic position of Gaza and the West Bank is what it is largely because of the restrictions imposed on cross border movements and even movements within the territory. Of course corrupt and maladministration by the PA is also a factor.

Iran does not have the means to destroy Israel itself, not least because they are not contiguous states. When Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would have the technical means to do so, but whether it would risk nuclear reprisals is a question no-one can answer at this stage. Rafsanjani has publicly boasted that a first strike against Israel would reduce it to smoking rubble, which may be true, given it is a tiny state.

And I agree that Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric is a rallying cry for Muslims in the region — rallying around Iran, as you suggest — rather than a concrete, present intention.

However, Iran does not need to do the deed itself. In Hizbollah it has a unique instrument: a fully trained, equipped and perpetually mobilsed terrorist army. By all accounts, Iran is now engaged with Hamas to turn it into another such. Both organsations — not just Hamas — reject the two state solution.

It is hard to conceive that Iran is equipping these groups for a purpose other than the one they themselves loudly advertise — the destruction of the Jewish state.

As for withdrawal to the pre-’67 boundaries, that’s off the table for now.

Gaza is not occupied any more, neither is southern Lebanon. Yet both, since Israel’s withdrawal, have become terrorist strongholds. The dream of Gaza becoming a Palestinian Singapore, based on the infrastructure the Israeli settlers left behind, are long dead. It is merely a terrorists’ kitchen. And south Lebanon is their subterranean fortress.

As Mark notes, Sharon was prepared to withdraw. But that was before Gaza became what it is now, and before Israel discovered the extent to Hizbollah’s entrenchment along its northern border (Israel has acknowledged its intelligence failed in Lebanon).

With existential threats to the north and south, it’s hard to see how Israel could allow the West Bank to go the same way.

A few quick points.

The argument is not whether Israel where justified in defending themselves (I agree they where and the attacks had to stop). As I said back in July:

Israel’s use of force may be a heavy-handed effort to force a divide between Hezbollah and the rest of Lebanon. However it is possible that any political or religious divisions could be put aside to unite Lebanon against Israel. Unfortunately this question cannot be answered for now. If Israel is correct then Hezbollah may lose though the price may be terrible for Lebanon. If Israel has miscalculated then the situation has the potential to be a disaster for all involved.

I’d day the question has been answer and that Israel miscalculated. Hezbollah have been strengthened and Lebanon has been plunged 30 years into the past which is a tragedy.

As for the Iranian 2003 overture, you disingenuous dismissal doesn’t acknowledge that the letter has been verified by US and Iranian officials and that given no official diplomatic ties existed and to save face, Iran had to use a backdoor. At that time Khatami was president and such an overture was in line with his notions of dialogue. Iran was also worried that they were next after Iraq so were quite interested in talking. The US in their instransigent hubris missed a possible, incredibly valuable opportunity for change. Of course, the disaster in Iraq has made the US less of a threat hence the current Iranian position.

The points listed by wbb are important. Your childish caricature of the argument as “US bad other Good” misses the point. The Bush Adminstration’s approach to Middle East policy has been a disaster. I don’t see Iran and Syria as being particularly trustworthy nor without blood on their hands. But if they can be persuaded to temper Hezbollah and the US in turn influence Israel into a little more flexibility and a gradual approach to some sort of peace then it is worth a try.