As I was saying...
Is tonight the night when Tony Blair will finally change course on Iraq in response to the shifting sands in Washington? If that's your hope, you're in for a disappointment.
The prime minister's speech is set to be an echo of the speech he delivered in Los Angeles in August. If you don't remember that speech it's probably because its message was drowned out by the fallout from the war in Lebanon. At the time, though, it was sold as a bold call on the US to change course. What's changed since then is not the message but the influence of those in Washington who agree with the analysis.
The PM spoke then on a need to "re-appraise our strategy". Tonight he'll speak in similar terms. He spoke then and no doubt will again of the need to "bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Israel and Palestine." In that speech he mentioned Iran eight times and Syria five, declaring that, "we need to make clear to Syria and Iran that there is a choice - come in to the international community and play by the same rules as the rest of us, or be confronted". Tonight I'm sure that message will be repeated.
He continues to believe that Syria and Iran are malign influences in Iraq, in Lebanon and beyond. Where he differs from George Bush is in his willingness to hold out the prospect of engagement with them instead of ostracising them as members of the "axis of evil". Britain - along with France & Germany - has negotiated with Iran over its nuclear programme. Last month, his foreign affairs adviser travelled to Syria.
Re-reading my blog about the LA speech I see that I was a little sceptical. I wrote...
- "So where then was the reappraisal? Where the re-think? Not on the war on terror itself but on the need to have a 'hearts and minds' strategy to match the military one... He argued that only an alliance of moderation could take on what he has dubbed the "arc of extremism". And that alliance would only emerge IF moderate Muslims saw that America believed in the need to create a Palestinian state. Nothing else, he said, was more important to the success of our foreign policy. In truth this is not a re-think at all."
How time and context change your perspective. I still believe that that speech did not represent a re-think from Tony Blair. However, if - as seemed unthinkable then - George Bush adopted it, that would represent a massive re-think by the president. The chairman of the Iraq Study Group, James Baker, shares the Blair view. As, we're told, does Bob Gates - the man nominated to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Defence Secretary.
Yesterday the White House chief-of-staff, Josh Bolton, was asked if he favoured the idea of including Iraq's neighbours, Iran and Syria, in discussions. He replied that all options would be considered. We'll see...
PS: reports that senior Israeli officials are kicking around the idea of opening a dialogue with Syria. "The idea" - writes Jackson Diehl - "is to flip Syrian President Bashar al-Assad; to induce him to drop his alliance with Iran and join the moderate Sunni alliance that is quietly lining up against Tehran." This fits with Shimon Peres' talk recently of President Assad coming to Jerusalem. Of course, Bush could always take the road to Damascus which would certainly be a match for Nixon going to China.
I'm 
Comments
Unfortunately all this was just as true before the invasion and if Blair really believed it why go along with the invasion? What has been changed is not just the regime in Washington but the belief that Syria, Iran, Al Qaeeda and perhaps North Korea now have that destabilisation and terrorism works, persuing a Nuclear strategy works and that the west, especially the USA don't have the fortitude, ability or patience to carry through on their rhetoric. This plus the reversals in Afghanistan, the relative fiasco of the Lebanese war and the current Gaza situation is convincing many in the region that many of their aims re Israel can eventually be realised.
Blair may now be saying what has been obvious for 20 years or more but does anyone in the Middle East or wider see him as credible or relevant? What does he think he/Bush are going to confront Syria and Iran with beyond what has happened so far? The common view in the region is that within a couple of years US troops will go home and no-one will dare send them to the area again in our lifetimes. What have Bush and Blair got to negotiate with that the other side wants or fears? They are a busted flush and so is UK/US credibility and influence in the region and probably much wider.
I think it's all over for the neocon experiment save for the fingerpointing. Pretty much everything that happens with respect to the occupation of Iraq from this point onwards is largely an excersize of saving face.
Who cares what Mr Blair says anymore? No-one is paying him the slightest attention. He is working out his notice, shuffling around trying to look busy, making helpful suggestions about how his colleagues might attempt to fill the yawning chasm he will leave behind him, tidying up his desk and filling in time before his farewell presentation with the ritual, half-felt speeches of appreciation for all his hard work and all he has done. And hey, he really must come back and see them all sometime to let them know how he is getting on. Promise?
His legacy is secure enough, no question.
So, are you saying that Tony Blair has always had peace in Palestine as the keystone of his approach?
Forgive me, but I have to say 'well duh!'
Conditions have not allowed him to be succesful...yet. However, if the change in both houses and the bizarre sight of a contrite Bush will finally allow a solution, it will be the culmination of Blair's life's work - at least on foreign policy.
The great irony, as I've said before, is that he comes off as anti-peace in the middle east. Still, I'm glad to see that time and context are having an effect :-)
Nick,
If I were a Muslim citizen in one of these countries I wonder who I might call the aggressor and the warmonger. We have a singular and typical view that we obviously might be trying to do the right thing. If I were a Muslim, of whatever affiliation, how might I see the problem of Iraq and the attitude of our Government and the USA?
As a non practicing C of E type and being British, I find it hard enough to justify our UK Foreign Policy and where it has led these past few years.
Just considering what we did in Northern Ireland and what has happened there. We know we have the capacity to develop some form of mutuality. And yet here we are stuck in the same pickle all over again by intransigence and a Bogeyman conjured up by an Axis of Evil. A Scimitar if you will resembling a crescent no doubt. Spin it how we will, we are so far off course any change to our purpose and some form of reconciliation is urgent.
We might wonder at where the perfect outcome might be, its better surely to get on with a progression to an outcome rather than an end. We are truly stuck by very old and prejudicial thinking. As has been proved and intimated by Churchill, when war starts no one controls the outcome, least of all two nations trying to control everything and without the power or will to carry it out.
I feel let down by Blair and Bush. It was a tragic blunder and one we will pay for in years to come. This was never the will of the people in the UK or USA for that matter. It was intemperate and intransigent will of two leaders who might now know better. Maybe they will catch up with the rest of us?
Where is Hell and where is the Ice!
It seems obvious that, like America, Grate Britain will require a change in leadership to bring about a change in policy. It will have little to do with the desires or wishes of either Bush or Blair whose policies (if they can be labelled so) thus far has been intransigent to put it mildy.
No doubt we will have to suffer the spinning of so called influence on America from our dead duck PM who still appears more concerned with the historians view rather than the realists or the widows. When TB states that we will 'confront' Iran if it does not come to the table, does TB actually think that; given the state of afairs in Iraq, Iran would be in the slightest bit concerned by such bluster? Will he be so foolish as to follow one disaster with another?
It is easy to talk about negotiating with the Assad regime in Syria, but this is a mafia-style gangster family dictatorship. Their big demand will be to have the investigation into their murder of Hariri cancelled. They will also say anything that appears to keep Blair's representative happy for the moment, with no intention of sticking to any promises. Is there any point in talking to people who will never give a straight answer?
The road to Demascus is an easier concept right now for the West than the real road of change, that to Tehran. Syria may be enticed, but it has a strong relationships with neighbour Iran, so changing course for Syria is not an easy sell for Bashar to his government.
The Arab governments, Israel and ne-cons all agree, always have about isolating Iran. But these are the leaders who got us here.
The problem is the intense hostility that western governments hold towards Iran, 'cooperate or else' or else what?
Current strategy to entice Syria, seems smart, but the bitter pill to swallow is that denial of regional realities will make things worse not better.
Nixon went to China, not its neighbour. Try and focus.
I'm afraid that you've been spun, Nick. Blair was right behind Bush in his LA speech both on the "axis/arc of evil" and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. He's being forced to change the UK position now because he can't afford to be left alone saying we must "stay the course" - sticking with a military solution - when the US has moved on. Of course he will express things in vague terms so that he can deny that his policy has changed. He lacks the courage to admit that he was wrong.
I wonder if Blair will choose to bring back Jack Straw at Foreign Secretary? Straw bravely engaged in a dialogue with Syria and Iran which appeared to contravene the then requirements of Washington DC. Now with a realisation that "jaw-jaw" is better than "war-war" the relationships built up by him could finally be put to use. And Margeret's caravan could silently move on its way to oblivion.
It does seem that there is a growing view in Israel that a "do nothing" approach to regional foreign policy will not work. Israel achieved stable relations with Egypt and Jordan as a result of individual deals, so an approach to Syria may work.
I see, so now that the American electorate has kicked Bush in the teeth and forced him to choke on his own words, Blair is to get credit for "influencing" American thinking? Hilarious.
Blair is redundant on both sides of the Atlantic - and always was redundant to American policy other than to sprinkle a little of that "blood price" into the brew to further inflate his own self-righteousness and support Bush's PR drive.
"Yo Blair" is reduced to talking to Baker and the ISG in the hope that THEY might actually have some influence with the American Government. Blair is a bombastic, self-righteous moral coward. The archetypal armchair warrior who is willing to shed blood so long as it's not his own or that of those close to him.
I happen to think current events in Iraq are allowing Blair to adopt a stance more suited to his natural disposition - ie - we shouldnt be in Iraq at all, so lets find a way to get out as quickly as possible.
Im personally convinced he went along with the whole shebang in the first place to honor the old alliance with America (are we paid up yet?) and also under pressure from the foreign office to make sure we remain friends with the biggest bully in the playground.
So Blair wants out ASAP, and in light of an incresingly gloomy situation, can now exert real pressure in Washington on the basis that the coalition troops are having a negative effect on the situation on the ground. The country looks destined to slip into some sort of civil war regardless of whoever announce themselves to be holding power.
re: Blair, "we need to make clear to Syria and Iran that there is a choice - come in to the international community and play by the same rules as the rest of us, or be confronted".
When translated from diplomatic speech into real-politik, "We've screwed up badly. You (Syria and Iran) have to help us (US and UK) get out of the Iraq hell-hole. Name your price, we'll pay it!"
On this matter now Blair will only be Bush's message boy and no more.
>> He spoke then and no doubt will again of the need to "bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Israel and Palestine."
And yet the way he does that is by refusing to call for a ceasefire in Lebanon, and then this week abstaining when USA once again isolated itself (and us) - and infuriated Moslems - by vetoing the Security Council resolution condemning the slaughter in Gaza. How onearth could Palestinians believe UK has anything worthwhile to contribute to the problem?
Blair is entirely hot air on this issue. He needs to be replaced by someone serious.
Hi Nick,
If Tony Blair previously and truly said we should dialogue with Syria and Iran over Iraq, fantastic. The question is why now? Has the civil way in Iraq got so bad and coincidentally coincided with the defeat of the republicans in the US?
One good thing that has come out of this is, shows the power of democracy in America. It is weaker than 5 years ago, but still active. It is a pity that Tony Blair changes his view with the view of the American voter only and not those closer to home.
Iraq will now suffer the faith of another failed state and shows that too much power in one's hands is a dangerous thing.
I have relatives in America who where becoming afraid to speak out against the war and Bush, now they feel there is a breath of fresh air again. I am sure some of that clean alantic air has here the UK too.
Blair talks a fine peace but all his actions are in favour of war. Just like he talks of abolishing poverty but presides over a widening of the gap between rich and poor. Just like he talks about global warming but does nothing.
Still, at least he is not a hypocrite - a hypocrite says what he does not believe and Blair's problem is that he can make himself believe absolutely anything at all.
It is about time George Bush listened to Tony Blair for once and under the circumstances now, this is going t have to be the case, and I think Blair will be happy about that. What choices has Bush got now- listen to Blair and Baker or face a thorugh and what will be a very damaging report if congress so wish- and I am sure they will if the fiasco we like to call (or the govt does) bringing about stability to Iraq continues for much longer, or go forbid gets any worse. However I would like both to happen- a change of direction on the Iraq strategy as well as a damning report on the handling of the whole disaster may bring about some justice and may begin to make an hurrendous situation relatively bearable.
You were right to be sceptical, but you were nowhere near sceptical enough.
The unhelpful actions of Iran and Syria were perfectly predictable. Indeed, in view of their attitude towards western invasions (to which they are entitled), their support for groups that are after all part of the democratically-elected Iraqi government is not even particularly ‘evil’. That Arab neighbours need to be consulted about and involved in any eventual ‘solution’ to the disastrous mess that Bush/Blair have created is blindingly obvious. It has been all along, but they couldn’t see it until now. Instead they persisted in blaming everybody but themselves for the failure of a strategy that never had a chance of success, as it was fundamentally misconceived in the first place (if they had a post-war strategy at all).
If Blair wants to salvage something of his reputation and legacy as PM from this catastrophe, he needs to start by doing something he is not at all good at – admitting that he has been wrong all along. That in itself wouldn’t be news to anybody, we all know he’s been wrong all along, but the fact that he had the moral courage to admit it would give him some initiative which he will otherwise entirely lack.
If he could bring himself to admit that they were wrong to do away with the secular state apparatus that had maintained security in the past, that they were wrong to push too soon for ‘democracy’ that was bound to lead to sectarian warfare and that these errors have brought about a situation where the unified Iraqi state may no longer be viable, then it may be possible for the right people to plot a course towards the least-worst outcome.
The west can’t just walk out, having created such a disaster, but without admitting that we’ve been wrong, it may not be possible to establish the goodwill necessary for us to have a constructive role to play from this point on.
Frankly, no-one I know either gives a damn what he says, or indeed, trusts him anyway. What he says should be done was OBVIOUS way back, before 2003, before 9/11. It's just more "me me me I want a legacy".
BTW, doesn't he look sick in current pictures? And so he should ....
So the PM is encouraging change in US policy is he? The funny thing is that it won't matter, at least for him: Its easy to ignore someones influence on a situation, and people will. Enough people have got used to rabidly demonising him over iraq, and its too comfy to stop now!
Yes, yes, he did some stuff wrong, and continues to in certain areas, but can you accept he also has done things right?
Hi NicK,
The idea of seperating Syria from Iran is a joke. The minority of Alawis who governs Syrian is in fact a branch of Islamic Shia.Please, spare us of all the spin, be real. If Tony Blair means well of Palestine and Israel he should by now bring France and Germany to the loop and not acting as an obsessed imperialist. The historians will judge Tony Blair as one of the most biased and despised politicians on the international arena.
It's actually quite a politically astute move to offer Iran and Syria the chance to help out in Iraq. They have strong incentives to accept - namely, a chance to influence Iraqi society and government for years to come, the very chance that we have sought for so long to avoid. But there are good reasons for giving them this chance. Firstly, if they succeed in reducing violence, we can withdraw our troops. This will be immensely popular at home. Secondly, the Iraqi government's authority will be increased sufficiently for it to have its own voice, which Iran and Syria must heed.
If Iran and Syria fail to reduce violence, however, it will make them seem powerless in the Arab world, which is good news for Israel and the West, and could give support to pro-democracy movements within the Islamic states.
My guess is that Iran at least will make their help conditional on their being allowed to keep their nuclear programme, which Israel, and probably the US and Britain, will not accept. The US and Britain may accept it in time, as the war drags on and the Democrats take power. It's hard to predict what Cameron's line will be, should he come to power, probably not much different from Blair's. But if allowing the Iranians nuclear energy is the price of peace in Iraq, it may tempt him.
Message 5 from Don in Chelsea.
"This was never the will of the people in the UK or USA for that matter"
On the contrary. I think the will of the people in the USA was that the destruction of the World Trade Center must be avenged, and that the USA must flex its military muscles in order to do this. The will of the people of the UK was/is that, short of suicide, we should remain supportive of what the USA decides should happen in world affairs. Without the hindsight of what has actually happened there was a clear political majority in both countries in favour of the Iraq adventure.
The underlying difficulty that is exemplified by all this is how much national political decision-making should be driven by the emotion of mass, uninformed public opinion, and how much by the rational and reasoned thinking of an elite put in place for the specific purpose of making these decisions on our behalf.
Good grief Nick....
Does this mean that we can start looking forward to the opera 'Bush in Damascus' ?
Blair's 'strategy' has been forced on him by circumstances. The sunni insurgency , led by former middle ranking baathist army officers is now well beyond the ability of the coalition to put down by force and it now controls most of central Iraq. The only power capable of reining them in is the baathist regime in Damascus.
The south of Iraq is under the uncontestable control of grassroot shia militias and the Ayatollahs who they answer to. The only power capable of controlling them are the clerics in Iran The so called Iraqi army and police in the sunni areas are insurgents in uniform, in the shia areas, militias in uniform. In other words the war is over. It is lost.
Syria and Iran are now the most powerful foreign players in Iraq, not the US and the UK. In politics power cannot be ignored, it must be acknowledged, that, not some profound, well thought out strategy is why Blair and Bush want to talk to Iran and Syria.
Something doesn't sound right here. Are we really expected to believe that Bliar is having an independent thought on this rather than just doing what Bush tells him? Doesn't sound very likely to me. My guess is that either Bush told him to say this or that he'll quickly abandon the idea when he finds out Bush doesn't approve.
And if you are still thinking that our policy on Iraq isn't completely dicated by Bush, consider this: why was the government so enthusiastic about welcoming last week's verdict on Saddam when we are so firmly against the death penalty anywhere else on the planet?
... a bit rich coming from a war criminal :~
...650000 dead Iraqi civilians, due to making war of aggression that did not get UN approval/sanction. A totally disgracful bullying and circumvention of world insituations and international law by this criminally insane sociopath.
This is perhaps, the last chance for the UN, for the world community, to show that the UN can atain its highest visonary objectives, and really be a forum and enacter of world peace - and not a token body that always cow tows to the stongman type thing...Bush and blair are war criminals and justice needs to be seen to be done against these criminals.
I know it is a little early for Christmas Nick! But... Ho Ho! come on... Blair is influencing American policy in Iraq? Sorry, the Democrats victory is 100% the reason for the change and Blair is in a hole. Maybe now we will see some movement on investigating the truth of 9/11. After all, Mr Rumsfeld looks like he could be in for some real Justice in Germany. Here's hoping. *;o)
"Yes, yes, he did some stuff wrong, and continues to in certain areas, but can you accept he also has done things right?"
Like he lied and took us into an unnecessary war that has cost many lives starting with the scientist that Blair and his pals pilloried.
By contrast, the 25th anniversary of the Falklands war is near. We won that decisively and fought it for genuine reasons.
I hope that history will place Blair and his hijacking of the Labour party correctly: shallow, self serving, greedy and completely without principle.
Yes, his view of how to deal with Iraq will be taking pride of place in Washington DC. It will be because his views are closer to the Democrats than the Republicans, or certainly the far right Republicans like George W Bush. We need to sort the situation out, but why should we let more innocent people in Iraq die: civillians and troops and let him waste even more time trying to sort it out. Him and Bush have had nearly four years to sort the country out and stop the suffering. Bush and Blair should go and we should get Brown in and Nancy Pelosi and let them sort it out.
It’s very difficult to make people do things if they don’t want to. You can have all the arguments, science, and popularity behind you but it counts for nothing if someone can’t or won’t get on the Cluetrain. Sometimes it take a mistake or two before people come to realise they’re barking up the wrong tree. America can be too aggressive, Eurasians can be too passive, and the Middle-East is a non-stop squabble. To that extent, this war has been useful in illuminating that and may help create the framework that enables a positive consensus to emerge.
I remain convinced that the WTC incident did no more than accelerate existing pressures in the global system. As the hopes and fears of leaders and people crashed together in a more obviously globalised world, it lit the fuse to a rocket that brought us to this place. If people can negotiate in a smart way with their eye on the long-term, I’m equally convinced this difficulty can be over sooner rather than later. The mutual opportunities for trade and cultural exchange are quite considerable if short-term fears can be kept in check.
Domestically, programmes like Super Nanny and Dragon’s Den have been very popular. In their own way, they help inform and popularise dealmaking and strategic skills among the humble public and esteemed leaders. I’m all for this as it’s a great leveller of opportunity. Sadly, the core skills of the most successful leaders haven’t been given a tight focus. Here, I believe, there’s some scope for the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ to produce a programme that may assist this. Indeed, with changes in local government and attitudes to crime, it may be quite useful.
Further Reading:
Harvard Business School
People have to be really VERY stupid to pay any attention to what Blair say`s after his record of getting things so very WRONG. Come to think of it has he ever got anything right?.
Billy No: 30 wrote about the 25th anniversary of the Gulf War. I read that Simon Weston has not been invited to the celebrations. He has a high profile from that time and works hard for charity. Why the Government pique?
Big threats, denial and miraculous visions
Blair’s Mansion House speech was belligerent. Not so much isolation as desolation. For the Iranian government it’s nothing new to be threatened, isolated, attacked; over 25 years of this kind of rhetoric has led us here.
Might is right as a policy leaves no winners.
So the policy is to be of isolating Iran and pulling in all those Arab governments around to hug Syria into the fold. Will that persuade Israel to shift entrenched policies?
It’s big ask for a century of regional upheaval, colonial, imperial, despotic bad blood and paranoia to be miraculously set aside in good speed.
Solving Israel-Palestine and Lebanon and not creating yet further mayhem is a miracle we should all pray for. But prayer is for holy days, God and government, in all guises lean too hard on miracles and by-pass the all too difficult choices that mere mortals make everyday.
Blair’s ideas require deep thought, charity and above all patience, yet it altogether conveniently avoids the reality of the challenges of current crises on the ground, which demand urgency, intelligence and pragmatism.
Blair, Washington and allies prefer yet another detour to avoid the inevitable bitter pill that engaging Iran, without prejudice, urgently requires. Each time we avoid this, things just get worse and more complicated as pieces shift in a power play that we need to be much smarter at handling for the sake of the world.
Be tough but be smart, there are no easy ways out.
...yep...go along with many points above... To be positive, Blair will really show his worth now if he can,along with Baker, it seems , lead a credible engagement with Iran and Syria...i remember Jack Straw talking to the Syrians a few years back?We do have channels open with them and the Iranians ...It's Blair's chance for redemption if you like..it's no good just despairing...these are the people who have got to make things happen...Even Bush has a chance to show some real Statesmanship...sorry i'm a bit tired and am Daydreaming....
At 11:56 AM on 14 Nov 2006,
jonty wrote:
I read that Simon Weston has not been invited to the celebrations. He has a high profile from that time and works hard for charity. Why the Government pique?
Fought under the wrong Prime Minister perhaps, or is it that Simon Weston is demonstrably brave and caring unlike any of our current government?
Just maybe, we in Britain have had some influence with the US in all this. It was a pincer movement. On the one hand, Tony Blair and the British Government, by seemingly backing the Bush administration to the hilt and keeping it sweet, held that door of influence open – had they opposed the White House openly, the door would have been slammed shut in our faces. At the same time, the British public remained vociferous in its criticism of both its own Government’s and the US Government’s involvement in Iraq, almost driving them closer together. But perhaps that steadfast public opposition provided a foundation, upon which US popular opposition to the war in Iraq could gradually build, leading ultimately to the recent mid-term election results.
If the Israel – Palestine question is indeed the keystone to the Middle East, what will now be important is how conventional Democrat support for the Israeli cause differs from the more evangelistic Neo-con approach. If the newly empowered Democrats can induce the US Administration to be broad minded and even handed with Israel and Palestine, there could be progress. If, as they might, they allow the Administration to adopt a more traditional blinkered, unquestioningly pro-Israeli stance, then the chances of progress are slim indeed.
If Britain does retain some influence in Washington (actually, I think it might), then to exert some pressure around this critical point could prove crucial in the months to come.
I wonder if Nick is updating himself on what some leading Israeli intellectuals are saying lately.
David Grossman being one criticises Israel's present leaders for being "unable to connect Israelis with... those constitutive parts of identity and memory... that can give us strength and hope," as if "the sound box... of their historical memory... fills only the tiny space between two newspaper headlines." Grossman clearly believes that such "identity" and "historical memory" remains functionally selective and so is Nick's take on the situation.
George Bush has to reinvent himself if he wants biographers to be kind to him. He does not have much time but he could make efforts to reinvigorate his flagging leadership in the waning period of his Presidency. Tony Blair has hard decisions to make: whether to be pragmatic and find real solutions on the ground when it comes to Syria or Iran or whether to allow America to dictate the pace. Unfortunately America is by no means in the driving seat. There is real vacuum at the top!!
We're all so lucky. Now that TB's got this country running perfectly - except for a few minor niggles that his repressive dictatorship will sort out - he'll hop over to the middle east, fix that, a quick trip to China to fix the Tibet problem, track down the Fifth Beatle and then get ready to aid the G-kZakr of Proxima Centauri in their centuries-long war with their mortal foes.
Where else in the world could we find a Prime Minister who is SO TALENTED he has achieved perfection in his won country?
I'm interested to read what Ajala writes in Message 26. If what is written is simplistic gobbledigook then we should ignore it and look again at the USA/UK attempt to broaden the discussions to include Syria and Iran. If, on the other hand, what Ajala writes is substantially true, we should be utterly appalled at any attempts by the USA/UK Governments to claim credit for bringing this "initiative" about.
Thank God they are talking about talking to Iran, to Syria. Hopefully to all the other Countries of the Middle East.