Came across this article in the NY Times a few weeks back regarding the different world views of James Baker and Condi Rice and their impact on foreign policy. Here is an excerpt:

“They start from completely different places," said Dennis Ross, the Middle East negotiator who worked for Baker years ago and left the State Department early in the Bush administration. "Baker approaches everything with a negotiator's mind-set. That doesn't mean every negotiation leads to a deal, but you engage your adversaries and use your leverage to change their behavior. This administration has never had a negotiator's mind-set. It divides the world into friends and foes, and the foes are incorrigible and not redeemable. There has been more of an instinct toward regime change than to changing regime behavior."

If you refuse to make a full effort to engage your adversary don't you risk locking yourself into conflict? Not only this, but if it should progress to a military conflict, you would not be able to say that all other possibilities were exhausted before sending troops into harm’s way.

A real tragedy could develop in relations with Iran if a non-pragmatic, non-negotiator’s mindset persists. It is a country that teeters between the extremism of the Mullahs and the moderation of the liberals and newly emerging moderate conservatives. Continuing to apply a stonewall approach to relations with Iran would risk pushing these moderates further to the extreme. In a country where the youth are numerous, strong and largely liberal it would seem that time is on the west’s side. Even many conservatives are beginning to split from the hardliners like President Ahmadinejad as witnessed in Iran 's recent elections. In most cases and particularly this one there would seem a definite advantage in using a negotiator’s approach.

(couldn’t access the NY times link without paying so I linked the IHT version of the article instead)

Hope your holidays have been memorable.

sean