I welcome with reservations the self-generated overtures by Iran to formally have a "consultive voice" in Iraqi affairs, as they now stand in tatters, and perhaps to draw Syria into a new tripartitee regional alliance. While this would be a terrible "loss of face" for the Bush Administration -- a consequence of invasion anathema to neocons when war is all about consequences -- it COULD be a boon to world peace.
I have been laboring for some time under the untested notion that a consolidation of power in the Muslim world may actually serve our interests, if those interests are defined as a more peaceful world with a wider opportunity for national and personal "fulfillment" according to civilized standards. My notion is that -- even to the point of appproaching a new Cold War -- it is better to have stae "adversaries," broadly defined, than nonstate renegades bent on violence and destruction based on the will of a vanguard powerful only because there is a vacuum of real leadership. Additionally, in a world defined by nation-states and their alliances, almost certainly there will a "return address" for any violent outbursts, enabling deterrencee where it does not now exist with clandestine foes.
Another aspect of the problem divorced from wishful ideology of neocons, which can't be allowed to guide a matter like this, is the raw humanitarian benefits a cessation of hostilities in Iraq would have, even, perhaps, in a worst case scenario, in a divided country or a strong-arm caliphate. I emphasize again that the model of the Cold War is there for us to follow, should it come to that, and the end of that conflict was bloodless. To state it differently, with wise leadership and populaces devoted to the principles of life, mostly, there will be a wide range of "points of engagement" we can join with our "adversaries," yielding, perhaps, a refinement of views and a comparative synthesis of positions allowing us all to advance peaceably, if competitively.
