There is a constant tension in international relations between criticizing a country’s internal policies and asking for its cooperation in dealing with other nations. For example, do we rag on Russia for its impending authoritarianism, or do we ask for help on matters like North Korea? It’s pretty tough to do both.

That’s the tradeoff Kissinger doesn’t seem to recognize in this article. He claims that, military victory now being impossible, we should call a conference with Iraq’s neighbors to bring the situation under control.

I would argue this should be carefully weighed against the problems we have with Iran’s nuclear weapons program. If we’re relying on them to fix our mess in Iraq, we can’t very well turn around and try to bully them into shutting down the program. Their only logical response would be, fine, we’ll pull out of Iraq — or even switch sides. It’s an extra bargaining chip.

Hanging around a foreign policy magazine (with which Kissinger is affiliated) has let me listen to a lot of experts talk about diplomacy, and a recurring theme is that working with a country does not equal endorsing the government. True, but going into talks with a country is an admission you’re dependent on their cooperation. Even one advocate of diplomacy put it this way: “From where I sit, it strengthens the case for the United States having a broad dialogue with Iran—not as a favor to Iran, not as a reward, but simply as a strategic recognition that Iran has the capacity to influence the future of the Middle East and American interests in the Middle East.”

Such a recognition is a reward, I would add, if your interests become dependent on said influence. I’m not sure that’s the message we want to send to Iran right now; we have to weigh that against any benefit they could give us in Iraq.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.