The news that Iranian television is broadcasting government-approved demands that US troops STAY in Iraq until the situation is stabilized offers an extraordinary opportunity.
Not, as Tony Blair has suggested for direct talks between the US and Iran about the future of Iraq - a proposal the White House has already frowned on - but for a way of disengaging ourselves from the region without it looking like a defeat.
What I am proposing is that we outflank the false dichotomy between "cutting and running" and "staying the course" by convening a Middle East Peace Conference.
The logic behind this idea has three main elements: the first is the obvious one that much of the violence in Iraq comes from conflict between the Sunnis and Shi'ites, divisions of Islam which spread across international boundaries and involve significant proportions of the populations of such neighbours as Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran. Each of these nations has an interest in the fate of their co-religionists in Iraq - and faces significant dangers depending on the outcome of the struggle.
Second, although we have been repeatedly told of the importance of maintaining the "integrity" of Iraq, that country is in fact an artificial construct. It was stitched together out of three provinces of the Turkish Empire which fell into the hands of the Allies as a result of World War One. Its boundaries were drawn up and its first ruler put in place by a British adventuress named Gertrude Bell, a friend and sponsor of Lawrence of Arabia. Returning it to its past condition as three separate entities, Kurdish, Sunni and Shi'ite would simply put an end to a historic anomaly.
It's not a question of whether that would be a "good idea" - Iraq is disintegrating before our eyes. Nor is it a question of whether we should "permit it": we simply don't have the resources to prevent it. What it does boil down to is this: how the division can be achieved with the minimum human suffering and without creating dysfunctional states which become terrorist havens?
This is where the idea of the Middle East Peace Conference comes in, because only by involving all the nations with an interest in the outcome can there be any hope of a solution. American troops, even assisted - perhaps even especially assisted - by Iraqi forces - cannot do it alone.
A Peace Conference is also the best way to reduce the chances of Iran simply stepping into the vacuum left by America's departure. If the Iranians can be given the opportunity, along with other Middle Eastern nations, to take a leading role in the process of forging a settlement, they become effectively committed to a peaceful outcome.
Indeed, if ever there was a moment to encourage Iran to become a Middle Eastern peacemaker it is now, before it has armed itself with nuclear weapons. What it seeks is influence commensurate with its size, wealth and historical importance. Nuclear weapons are not, as nuclear weapons states can attest, actually a good way to achieve either respect or diplomatic success. Helping to become peace brokers at a Middle East Peace Conference would be much more effective both for their national interests and for the stability of the region.
Recognizing the importance of Iran in any settlement of the Iraq crisis, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has called for involving them, and Syria, in talks if they fulfil various conditions. President Bush has already rejected even that option. He is doubtless concerned that direct talks would look too much like a climb-down - and would certainly be seen as such in the region if not the world. But convening a conference of all the Middle Eastern nations could be presented as an act of statesmanship.
I believe a peace conference would offer another important opportunity for the United States, because it could be the perfect forum to break the stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians. At present extremists on either side can derail efforts to reach a solution by acts of violence which make it impossible for leaders to go on talking. But if negotiations were taking place in a context where countries Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia were also involved, the chances of success would be that much higher - if only because some of those countries finance and control the extremist groups who would otherwise be trying to derail things.
And if that conflict could be solved, it goes without saying that a major cause of the antipathy towards the U.S. in the Middle East would be removed - and with it one of the inciting factors for terrorists. Dealing with whom, it may be remembered, was one of the stated reasons for going in to Iraq in the first place.
Some of you may by now be saying "A peace conference? We're being asked to pin our hopes on another talk fest?" and the skepticism is understandable. It may well be that the conference bogs itself down in irreconcilable conflicts, that nothing gets resolved.
I hope not, but even if it did it could still provide the United States with a way out of Iraq. By handing the problem of its future back to the people of the Middle East, we place it where it rightly belongs and give ourselves a chance to step back from the morass.
It would help concentrate the minds of all concerned if, when the conference was convened (ideally under the auspices of the United Nations) the United States made it clear that by the end of the discussions it was our intention to begin a major draw-down of troops. Such a deadline given now might be said to encourage violence. But in the context of an international gathering of all interested parties it would give the participants every reason to come to an agreement between themselves while we are still holding the ring.
Our intervention in Iraq has been a disaster. Our attempts to shape the Middle East in our own image have proved impossible - and not surprisingly. Attempts by the Middle East to shape America in their image would be equally fiercely resisted. Convening an international conference as a way of handing the issues back to them would allow us draw a line under what will otherwise be an endless drain on our blood and treasure.
Let us hope that President Bush and the newly empowered Democrats take the opportunity while it's still open to us.
Advertisement