One of the most controversial recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) is that the Bush administration should enlist the aid of Iran and Syria to achieve stability in Iraq. The bipartisan commission of nine men and one woman, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, concede that this would be difficult. But they argue that to resolve conflicts a nation must engage with its enemies.

They recommend that the US engage directly with Iran and Syria under the aegis of a yet-to-be formed “Iraq International Support Group” This would involve Iraq and all the states bordering it, including Iran and Syria; key regional states such as Egypt and the Gulf states; the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and the EU.

The proposal that the US should engage with two of its most contentious adversaries has predictably triggered arguments pro and con in the US political and foreign policy communities. Those in favour of such a dialogue argue that neither Iran nor Syria should want a disintegrating Iraq that would destabilise the region, and therefore should be open to new US diplomatic persuasion.

One positive fallout from courting Syria but keeping Iran at a distance might be the driving of a wedge between the two, and disrupting their alliance against Israel, the US, and proponents of democracy. The ISG says Syria could help Iraq by controlling the border between the two nations, over which supplies, money, and reinforcements to the insurgents flow with little hindrance.

If Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad really wanted to warm ties with the US, he could stop the transshipment of Iranian arms across his country to Hizbullah in Lebanon, and support for Hamas in the Palestinian territories. He could cease his attempts to undermine the democratically elected government of Lebanon and cooperate with investigations of political assassinations in Lebanon.

One plum that could be offered to Syria would be US support for the return to Syria of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Israel once came close in earlier negotiations to returning the Golan Heights and conceivably might do so again as part of an overall Syrian-Israeli peace agreement. The ISG concedes that any US engagement with Iran is “problematic.” But it notes that Iran did cooperate with the US in Afghanistan and says the US could explore whether that kind of cooperation could be replicated in Iraq.

The huge issue that currently seems to rule out any bilateral US dialogue with Iran is Iran’s determination to pursue its nuclear programme. The Americans say the Iranians must halt the programme as a precondition for talks.

The Iranians say the Americans must commit to troop withdrawal from Iraq as a precondition to any dialogue. So what are the prospects of US dialogue with Syria and Iran recommended by the Baker-Hamilton group? With Iran: for now, out of the question. With Syria: remote but possible. — The Christian Science Monitor