HOPEFUL SIGNS THAT REALISTS NOW IN CHARGE OF BUSH FOREIGN POLICIES

Analysis by Jim Lobe

(IPS) WASHINGTON -- It was just nine months ago when Newsweek spoke for the conventional wisdom at that moment when it pronounced "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy."

The phrase signaled the apparent victory -- at last -- of the State Department-led "realist" wing over hawks led by Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld in gaining control over the Bush foreign policy.

One month later, however, war broke out between Lebanon's Hezbollah and Israel, and the hawks, particularly neo-conservatives around Cheney and Rumsfeld, enjoyed a strong resurgence.

Bush not only spurned the pleas of Washington's European and Arab allies to press the Jewish state for a ceasefire, but his top Middle East aide, Elliott Abrams, reportedly encouraged it, to the horror of both his State Department colleagues and his Israeli interlocutors, to expand the war into Syria.

Now, one Democratic election landslide later, Rumsfeld's departure, and the longest-running record of sustained low public approval ratings for any U.S. president in more than 50 years, conventional wisdom has again concluded that the realists have indeed taken the reins of power.

That such an assessment coincided with Tuesday's felony conviction by a jury of Cheney's former chief of staff and the most powerful neo-conservative in Bush's first term, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for lying to federal investigators was probably not entirely coincidental given the "shadow," as chief prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald described it, that it cast once again over the vice president's office.

That the case -- which, at its heart, involved the lengths to which Cheney's office and the White House went to discredit critics who charged that the administration's hawks had manipulated intelligence to rally the country behind the 2003 Iraq invasion -- seems likely to soon become the subject of Congressional hearings will almost certainly deepen that shadow.

Even before Libby's conviction, however, the notion that the realists had finally triumphed was growing here.

"Diplomacy Could Define End of Bush's Terms: Pragmatism Colors Policy, Experts Say," headlined a story last week in 'USA Today,' while on the same day, the New York Times ran an analysis titled "Pragmatism in Diplomacy" about recent moves by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to engage North Korea, Iran and Syria.

"White House Foreign Policy Has Shifted," noted a front-page 'Los Angeles Times' article this week which asserted that recent moves reflect "...the ascendancy of Rice and her State Department team over hawks once led by (Cheney and Rumsfeld)."

"Bush Shows New Willingness to Reverse Course" ran another headline earlier this week in the Washington Post, while one of the newspaper's columnists, David Ignatius, argued that Bush has apparently embraced the recommendations of the bipartisan, realist-led Iraq Study Group (ISG) in a piece titled "After the Rock, Diplomacy." In another, Jim Hoagland, in a column called "'What Has Happened to Dick Cheney?"' suggested that the vice president has been effectively marginalized by Rice who "has won full agreement and support from the president on strategic goals and methods she and her diplomats are pursuing."

While Hoagland himself indicated that view remains to be confirmed by events, the evidence that power has shifted in the realists' favor has indeed increasingly persuasive in just the last month, if only because the hawks, such as Cheney favorite and former UN Amb. John Bolton and his colleagues at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), have become increasingly distressed by changing balance of power.

The most dramatic sign of the realist ascendancy to date was last month's accord between North Korea and the U.S. by which Washington agreed to begin normalizing relations and resume the supply of fuel oil in exchange for Pyongyang's shutting down of its plutonium processing plant and the admission of international inspectors.

The deal, which resembles a 1994 bilateral accord repudiated by Bush early in his term -- albeit within the framework of a regional agreement involving South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia -- marked a sharp reversal of the administration's stance and was cleared by Bush after a direct appeal from Rice, who reportedly circumvented the normal inter-agency process that would have guaranteed a stronger voice for Cheney and the hawks.

At the same time, the State Department's persistent if mostly tacit support for Saudi Arabia's efforts to midwife a Palestinian government of national unity in which both Hamas and President Abu Mazen's Fatah would participate last month in Mecca -- in defiance of the hawks, in this case led by Abrams -- has been seen by some analysts here as demonstrating a new flexibility that would have been inconceivable just a few months ago and that was consistent with the ISG's recommendations.

What has gotten the most attention to date, however, was Rice's announcement at the end of last month that the Washington will participate in at least two regional meetings convened by the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The first takes place this weekend in Baghdad, and the second, at the ministerial level early next month in which Rice herself would take part -- that will also include Syria and Iran.

Her announcement confirmed the growing impression that Rice was indeed trying move the administration toward implementation of the recommendations of the ISG, which was chaired by former secretary of state and neo-conservative nemesis James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, which called explicitly for Washington to engage Tehran and Damascus as part of a larger regional strategy.

Significantly, her announcement came while Cheney was out of the country, and, on the day after his return, the White House spokesman Tony Snow denied that Rice's announcement did not constitute a change of policy and said that, in any event, "there will not be bilateral talks between the United States and Iran, or the United States and Syria, within the context of these meetings."

But in another demonstration of the State Department's confidence, its spokesmen have been less categorical. While insisting that U.S. officials participating in the meetings will be focused on the main issue -- stabilizing Iraq -- they have also repeatedly refused to rule out talking directly with their Syrian and Iranian counterparts about "related" issues.

Moreover, the presence of senior diplomats from the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council -- to be augmented by the Group of Eight foreign ministers in the second round -- increases the likelihood of broader discussions of the kind advocated by the ISG.

Meanwhile, realists have made other gains, beginning with the replacement of Rumsfeld by Robert Gates, who, until his nomination as defense secretary last November, served on the ISG and is believed to share its conclusions.

Gates and Rice -- and for that matter, the new directors of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Adm. John McConnell and Gen. Michael Hayden, respectively -- served on the National Security Council together under former President George H.W. Bush and his national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who, even more than Baker, is considered anathema to the neo-conservatives, particularly with respect to Middle East policy.

It has been Gates who, in contrast to Cheney's persistent mutterings that "all options are on the table," has been most insistent in recent weeks that Washington has no plans to attack Iran despite its big military build-up in the Gulf. In taking this stance, Gates is reportedly reflecting the views of the military brass. Freed from Rumsfeld's bullying and contempt, they have become far more outspoken in internal discussions about their own opposition to new military actions so long as U.S. forces remain bogged down in Iraq.

A report in the National Journal Friday that Gates is also moving to curb the ability of U.S. Special Forces to conduct covert operations in foreign countries, such as Iran, without Congressional oversight or CIA direction and "dismantle" some of the intelligence programs that helped pave the way to war in Iraq suggests that he is taking independent action to roll back some of Rumsfeld's most controversial innovations. "Bob Gates is about to shut down a significant chunk of Vice President Cheney's intelligence eyes and ears -- and to some degree, an inappropriate ability to help drive covert actions," according to Steven Clemons, director of the American Strategy program at the New America Foundation (NAF) here. But while the realists are clearly ascendant, they are not yet dominant, particularly with respect to Middle East policy where they remain hostage to events in Iraq, Iran, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and the occupied territories -- and potential provocateurs -- that in many ways are increasingly beyond their control.

Cheney, whose office remains a neo-conservative stronghold, retains considerable influence, particularly in its coordination with like-minded colleagues in the White House on the National Security Council staff, notably Abrams and others in the Middle East bureau, and deputy national security adviser J.D. Crouch.

And a big question lingers over Rice's own willingness to take risks in pursuing the realist or ISG agenda, in particular. Some observers note that she has been very careful to permit other actors -- Saudi Arabia and the Europeans in the case of both the Palestinians and Syria, the Iraqi government in the case of Iran -- to take the diplomatic lead, leaving her less vulnerable to attacks by the hawks.

"She understands that she has a very short leash," said Joshua Landis, a Levant expert at Oklahoma University. "She knows she can't get too far off the reservation."

Thus, while she replaced a neo-conservative hawk, Robert Joseph, with a realist in the key position of Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, she also appointed Eliot Cohen, a dyed-in-the-wool neo-conservative who is considered close to both Abrams and Cheney, to a top advisory post, State Department Counselor. "It's always two steps forward, one step back with her," said one observer.

An even bigger question lingers over Bush himself. While he has clearly given Rice a lot more room to maneuver than her predecessor Colin Powell could ever have imagined, particularly with respect to North Korea, his own views, especially on the Middle East, remain a subject of unceasing speculation among the capital's cogniscenti, hawks and realists alike.

Just last week, for example, he hosted a "literary luncheon" in honor of Andrew Roberts, author of "History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900." In a recent interview, Roberts called on Bush to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan "for as long as it takes to achieve complete and final victory over Radical Islam... (and) not be afraid of threatening to widen the struggle to include foreign countries that aid and abet the insurgents (there)."

Other guests included some of the country's most hawkish neo-conservatives, including Norman Podhoretz; Paul Gigot, the editor of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page; and AEI fellow Michael Novak.

"Roberts said that history would judge the president on whether he had prevented the nuclearization of the Middle East," wrote one of the guests.

As noted by the Financial Times in an article entitled "Four Years of Turmoil Put Pragmatists in Driving Seat" this week, the Eurasia Group, a consultancy firm, has advized its clients that it rates the chances of a U.S. and/or Israeli military attack on Iran before September 2008 at 60 percent.