Iraq has to be restored to the international community, and other countries must be prepared to share responsibilities for regional peace. Some of America's allies and other affected countries seek to escape the upheavals all around them by disassociating from the United States. But just as it is impossible for America to deal with these trends unilaterally, sooner or later a common effort to rebuild the international order will be imposed on all the potential targets.
When I was reading around Blog world this am, I came across Steve Clemons saying here that Kissinger believes America should engage in discussions with Syria and Iran
After reading the article, I am not so sure that is what Kissinger is saying, because of his conclusion above. And because of the Iran must pay a "Non-rhetorical" price if an international conference body feels it is being militant, and not compliant, commentary following his 2 diplomatic points.
Two levels of diplomatic effort are necessary:
(1) The creation of a contact group, assembling neighboring countries whose interests are directly affected and which rely on American support. This group should include Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Its function should be to advise on ending the internal conflict and to create a united front against outside domination.
(2) Parallel negotiations should be conducted with Syria and Iran, which now appear as adversaries, to give them an opportunity to participate in a peaceful regional order. Both categories of consultations should lead to an international conference including all countries that will have to play a stabilizing role in the eventual outcome, specifically the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council as well as such countries as Indonesia, India and Pakistan.
Too much of the current discussion focuses on the procedural aspect of starting a dialogue with adversaries. In fact, a balance of risks and opportunities needs to be created so that Iran is obliged to choose between a significant but not dominant role or riding the crest of Shia fundamentalism. In the latter case, it must pay a serious, not a rhetorical, price for choosing the militant option. An outcome in which Iran is approaching nuclear status, because of hesitant and timid non-proliferation policies in the U.N. Security Council, coupled with a political vacuum in front of it in the region must lead to catastrophic consequences.
This feels more like a reference article that can be used to say Iran did not follow diplomatic solutions presented. Moreover, Kissinger draws Israel into this why?
Similar principles apply to the prospects for settlement in Palestine. Moderates in both the Arab countries neighboring Israel and in Israel are evolving compromises unimaginable a decade ago. But if the necessary outcomes are perceived as the result of panic by moderates and an exit from the region by the United States, radicals could raise unfulfillable demands and turn the peace process against the moderates.
What are these necessary results being the results of moderates to which he speaks?