Should US Foreign Policy Be Compromised?

cozumel · Mar 12, 2007, 08:30 PM

Last weekend saw Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian and US diplomats meet to begin developing a strategy that will provide security and stability for stability and the surrounding region. Ultimately this would pave the way to US (and allied) withdrawal from Iraq without looking like a retreat.

Would this mean a US 'u-turn' on the following two policies?

A UN investigation into the assassination of ex-lebanese premiere Hariri has yet to be completed but progress reports last year implicated Syrian and Lebanese officials. A main sticking point in Lebanon’s political crisis is the establishment of a UN-backed tribunal to try Hariri’s killers. The pro-western Lebanese government is seeking parliamentary approval for the tribunal, but the move is being resisted by the pro-Syrian opposition. Despite US pressure on Syria to accept the tribunal, Walid Muallem, Syrian foreign minister, earlier this week said Damascus wanted any nationals accused of involvement in the killing to be tried in accordance with Syrian law.
The US has been useing increasingly strong rhetoric against Iran following their continued development of the nuclear power plant in Bushehr and Iran has been indentified as a rogue state. Iran is virtually surrounded by American firepower including the US fleet in the Gulf. America wants enrichment cancelled and the facilites that can carry out enrichment to permanently closed.

I believe that the Bush administration would quietly drop these policies to facilitate a solution that allows the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Do you feel that it would be justified if a decision to abandon these policies was made? I do not.