Michael:

[You] “When the Secretary of State must go multiple times to Damascus, it suggests to Syrians and regional players that Washington is the supplicant.”

[Me] Yes. It suggests that we want something from Syria. But that is the case: We do want something from Syria. We want a deal, to our mutual advantage. All the ME players understand that; they all know about deal-making.

They also know that we are the superpower, the one with the carrier groups and cruise missiles. We can afford to lose a little face in pursuit of our interests.

I agree this is a judgment call. A little face, yes; a lot, no. Warren Christopher sitting waiting however many hours it was in Hafez Assad’s outer office was dumb. We should be projecting noblesse oblige, not cringing deference to thugs. But diplomacy is all judgment calls. That’s why we have an expensively-educated, extravagantly-paid diplomatic corps. If they can’t do noblesse oblige, let’s get rid of them and hire some who can.

[You] “Our traditional diplomacy is about coddling our adversaries and neglecting our friends. We shouldn’t incentivize bad behavior. We shouldn’t repeat the mistakes of Clinton’s 1994 deal with North Korea, Europe’s engagement with Iran, and Condoleezza Rice’s May 31 offer to Iran.”

[Me] I completely agree. The remedy for bad diplomacy, however, is not no diplomacy. The remedy is good diplomacy. You are saying: “We’ve made some really dumb deals, and so have the Europeans. So let’s make no more deals.” Huh? How about we try making some good deals? Or do you believe that we are so hopelessly naive, nice, and trusting that we are incapable of making good deals with gangster-dictators? (I’ll confess I sometimes find myself believing this….)

[You] “Better we shower our friends with carrots, and make friendship with Washington mean something; let our adversaries make a realist calculation on their own about whether rogue behavior really pays.”

[Me] Too many questions begged there. What “friendship with Washington” actually “means” for leaders in the Muslim ME is acute danger from their own people, big swathes of whom detest the USA. For ME rulers, “friendship with Washington” is a big fat fizzing stick of dynamite. Similarly with “adversaries.” Who, actually, are our significant adversaries in the ME? I would say: (1) the govt. of Iran, and (2) the transnational Islamist terror gangs, with their infrastructure of madrassas etc. For the rest, I’d be willing to cut deals (as we successfully have with Pakistan and Egypt, neither of which is exactly a poster child for parliamentary democracy). But yes, real deals, carrot-and-stick deals, with guaranteed enforcement, not dumb Clintonian or Euro-weenie paper-tiger deals. No argument from me on that.