The Iraq Study Group under the joint chairmenship of James Baker, secretary of state under President Bush Sr., and Lee Hamilton, the former vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, suggested in their 100-page report that one way to help stabilize Iraq was through political cooperation with countries such as Iran and Syria. British Prime Minister Tony Blair strongly supported them. Challenged over the report’s controversial suggestion, James Baker said last November:

“It is not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”

He reminded his questioner that during the long years of the Cold War America had always been prepared to talk to the Soviet Union. In the end this produced highly favorable results.

When this report was published President George Bush politely but firmly made it clear he would do no such thing. Ignorantly and most foolishly he had assigned both countries, together with North Korea, to his “Axis of Evil”. Perhaps his neoconservative advisers had told him that the United States was a hyperpower and, as such, did not have to talk to the awkward customers; in time the awkward customers would discover they needed to come on bended knee and talk to the United States.

The Daily Telegraph reported that President Bush’s total change of course was a “major climb down”. The paper thought the White House was silly to think Iraq could ever be pacified “without the participation of the two neighboring states from which much of the violence emanates”.

I agree. Iraq has very long borders with Iran and less so with Syria. There is also the fundamental point that at this stage in its history Iraq needs urgent answers to its mainly political problems and both Iran and Syria have responsibilities in that regard.

I am sure President Bush’s U-turn was made with great reluctance; it will much embarrass the White House. I suppose it was thought to be the best way of holding down the mounting criticisms in America of the president’s whole approach to Iraq. The newly elected Congress contains many who regard that country as being beyond repair.

The criticisms are all the stronger because the United Kingdom is planning to withdraw 1,600 troops, at the same time as the United States plans to put some 25,000 troops — more than first announced — into Iraq. The impression is given that America is going to be on its own — which is not entirely correct.

Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government — which has shown some signs of improving — yesterday called a meeting in Baghdad of not only Iraq’s neighbors, but also the Arab League and the five permanent members of the Security Council. There is talk of a further regional summit in April.

I have no illusions that relations between the United States and Iran, and to a lesser extent with Syria, are going to be anything but tense and difficult. As a report on Iran by the London based Royal Institute of International Affairs pointed out last August:

“There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terrorism in the Middle East.”

The White House has added to America’s problems by backing Israel over the top bombing of Lebanon last summer and ignoring the plight of the Palestinians for years. Iran believes its position is now a very strong one and it is America, not Iran, which needs to offer concessions.

The official Iranian point of view, as expressed by Ali Larijani, the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, is that:

“We believe Iraq’s security is related to all its neighboring countries, and they have to help settle the situation.”

Yes, but...! While I doubt Iran wishes Iraq to collapse altogether, the Iranians have good reasons for making life tough for the Americans in Iraq. First, of course, Iran wants to pursue its nuclear ambitions and I have little doubt what they might be. They know America is trying to put on the brake firmly. Second, it deplores the total support by the United States for Israel and considers Hezbollah and Hamas crucial allies in this regard.

Third, and tied to the previous point, there is a big struggle — so far reasonably peacefully — for the future path of Lebanon, and Tehran and Washington are in the opposite corners.

These regional conferences produce a problem we should be watching. Both the Kurds and the Shiites fear attempts will be made to reduce the significant gains they have made since the ousting of Saddam Hussein.

I think both need to make some concessions in the interests of Iraq as a whole, and that will be difficult for them.

It is at times like this that we should take encouragement from Winston Churchill’s famous saying: “Jaw Jaw is better than War War”. It really is — for Iran and America