The report issued yesterday by the Iraq Study Group did not disappoint. Those expecting, hopefully or fearfully, an aggressive, comprehensive approach to resolving the Iraq problem got what they were waiting for. About half the report covered something allegedly unrelated to the matter at hand a comprehensive solution to the Middle East problem centered on an old idea that never loses its vitality: Resolving the Arab-Israeli problem is the key to stabilizing the entire region. U.S. administrations from Eisenhower to Clinton have thought so, James Baker apparently thinks so, having proven it throughout his term as secretary of state.

The report could be seen as a policy proposal, but no less as the chair's ego trip as well. Baker proposes a summit "like Madrid" and refers positively to the measures of the early '90s.

The Baker Report undermines everything Bush and his aides have believed,
ev

	Advertisement

everything they have declared in recent years. The question is how they will neutralize the clauses that bother them without angering a public thirsty for new solutions.

James Baker and former representative Lee Hamilton were careful to say
yesterday that it is a complete package and adopting just some components will not succeed. But that is exactly what the president said he plans to do. If he opts to pick and choose, he will have to maneuver carefully to convince the public he has chosen wisely. So far, the committee has done far better than Bush in garnering public support.

The Israeli government faced a problem not unlike the Bush administration. In his Washington speech Tuesday, Sallai Meridor avoided commenting directly on the then-unpublished report, but offered a peek at Israeli policy on it. Israel, said the new ambassador, believes that the path to peace is in direct, bi-lateral negotiations, which is certainly not the committee's approach.

Resigning a post in the Foreign Ministry a week ago, Philip Zelikow said, "The aide has left, the linkage has remained." Zelikow said two months ago that the solution to the Iran problem required progress in the Israeli-Palestinian arena  provoking denials from a government that refuses to acknowledge that linkage. But that connection is a substantial element to the Baker-Hamilton worldview, and they don't beat around the bush in explaining: "To put it simply, all key issues in the Middle East the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, Iran, the need for political and economic reforms, and extremism and terrorism are inextricably linked."

As far as Iraq goes, the committee offered up old, slightly hollow headlines. Everyone knew the situation was bad before the panel said so. And the recipe for resolving it  training Iraqi forces, reducing the U.S. military presence, a gradual troop withdrawal  doesn't add much. This leaves the clauses relating to Israel as the most momentous. If they are accepted, this will be a broad revolution; if they are rejected, the administration, and possibly Israel, will face a barrage of criticism.

In any case, one of the most worrisome matters for Israeli decision-makers is Iran. The committee recommends that the U.S. administration talk to Tehran. The committee says the UN Security Council must continue to handle stopping Iranian uranium enrichment, and doesn't say how the administration should proceed should the Security Council measures fail.