But Rich, there is an argument for talking as a good in itself. We’ll only know where it leads when it’s tried, and, with a bit of subtlety, there are ways of doing it so that if the discussions go nowhere (as they may well) the US can reduce the extent to which it is pinned with the blame. Are there risks to this? Sure, but what we do know is that the alternative isn’t working. As for what my “or else” is, I guess my general approach would be the usual combination of carrot and stick (and remember that it is a measure of the Alawite Assad’s underlying predicament that he has agreed to help Shiite Iran run amok in his neighborhood), and, if you’re worried about inflaming that infamous Arab Street, there’s a limit as to how much you would have to make public. Would it work? I have no idea but it is unlikely to fare worse than the current approach. Besides, when you come to think of it, what credible ”or else” does the administration currently have on the table? Less than it had six weeks ago, I reckon.