Iraq conference promises intrigue but few results

This weekend's "neighbors" meeting in Baghdad is an interesting development, especially for close followers of U.S. policy in the Middle East. American representatives will sit at the same table as officials from a number of regional powers, including Syria and Iran. We have primarily communicated with Iran through emissaries for nearly thirty years, and relations with Syria are not much better, but reports indicate we may communicate directly with representatives from both at the conference. U.S. officials are playing coy (with a particularly ridiculous quote from State Department special advisor David Satterfield, "If we are approached over orange juice by the Syrians or the Iranians to discuss an Iraq-related issue that is germane to this topic — a stable, secure, peaceful, democratic Iraq — we are not going to turn and walk away"), but that likely reflects internal administration divisions more than a unified decision to be coquettish.

The conference itself is unlikely to produce any significant results. There has been little (if any) preparation, and these kinds of meeting usually have tangible results only with significant advance work by all parties. So what's the point? A favorite saying in government is, "The meeting is the message." The point of the meeting is, it seems to me, to show that there can be one.

The NYT article says, "If all goes well on Saturday, a second conference, in early April, will include foreign ministers like Ms. Rice, presumably sitting at a table that includes Foreign Ministers Manouchehr Mottaki of Iran and Walid al-Moallem of Syria." Well, the point of the meeting is . . . to have it. So unless the administration purposely (and in utter bad faith) declares the meeting a failure because it didn't accomplish anything after no real goals were set, we're likely to have higher-level meetings next month, maybe even with an actual agenda. Baby steps.

Supporting engagement with Iran is the overwhelming majority opinion across the political spectrum -- basically everyone to the left of Vice President Cheney favors talks -- and the reality is that Iraq is a huge shared interest between the U.S. and Iran. Without that issue, the U.S. and Iran would have very little motivation to converse. Perhaps this weekend, while hardly being a breakthrough, can be a step in the right direction.