There is a real opportunity to shift the dominant western policy towards the whole Middle East region in a constructive fashion after last week's congressional elections in the United States. This badly needs to be done if the growing chaos in Iraq and the festering sore of Israeli-Palestinian relations are not to reinforce one another further. Yesterday Iranian President Ahmadinejad said his country is ready to deal directly with the US if certain conditions are met. Tony Blair has called on Iran and Syria to become involved in regional diplomacy by choosing a co-operative path, while President Bush says he has an open mind for new ideas.
If the congressionally-appointed Iraq Study Group currently assessing evidence from the two men and from Middle Eastern leaders can make a convincing case to link these issues in a new initiative it will perform a really valuable function. The elements of a possible package have been made more clear in recent days. Iraq is central to this task, but certainly not the only issue. Its future security and territorial integrity require guarantee by neighbouring states, including Iran, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, if it is not to disintegrate in a civil war which would draw in each of them.
Iran has a particular leverage over Iraq because the US invasion and occupation has empowered pro-Iranian Shias there. The same applies to Syria's role in Lebanon and Palestine.
The Iraqi occupation and the dreadful accompanying violence of resistance to it daily reinforce images of humiliation and socio-economic collapse in the West Bank and Gaza. Israeli military attacks on Gaza have kept them active following the war in Lebanon. It makes little sense to boycott direct contacts with Syria and Iran in these circumstances. Nor is it sensible for the US to take the quiescent and permissive role vis-à-vis Israel which the Bush administration has actually followed.
It is time to break from these policies by offering a package of political, security and economic benefits capable of dealing with these issues in return for changes in behaviour. Mr Blair is on the right track when he links Syria and Iran to Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But it is not sufficient simply to repeat the conditions already set out by Mr Bush in dealing with these states, including the demand that Iran stop its nuclear enrichment programme before negotiations begin. Iran and Syria must rather be engaged directly in talks where their co-operation will be recognised and their interests rewarded as progress is made. This is not capitulation but prudent diplomacy.
If these opportunities are to be taken, it will be necessary also that other European states and the European Union as a whole take a more prominent role. If Mr Blair does not have influence in Europe, it will undermine his effectiveness in Washington. To date, his neglect of the European dimension on Iraq has disabled his policy at EU level. This mistake should not be repeated.