Not surprisingly, but foolishly in our view, the Bush administration continues to criticise House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the Syrian leg of her Middle East trip, which they believe has wrongfully pulled agape a diplomatic window for the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

The administration believes that the way to deal with Syria is via isolation, leading to its weakening, thereby forcing Damascus' recant on support for Lebanon's Shi'ite Hezbollah party, the Palestinian group Hamas, as well as those insurgents in Iraq who the Americans say are supported by the Assad regime. Indeed, the Bush administration, Washington's neo-conservatives and Israel insist that Syria, along with Iran, represent part of a so-called axis of evil that has to be kept at bay and brought to heel.

The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was not so long ago firmly of that camp, being part of the coalition that 'sexed-up' the intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq and the ousting of Saddam Hussein. It was not very long ago that there was absolute certitude about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his ability to rain deadly chemical bombs down on London within 45 minutes.

As President Bush, Cheney, the Pentagon and the State Department maintain their relentless barrage against Speaker Pelosi, it would be perhaps useful if they reflect on the events of the past fortnight that culminated in Thursday's release by Iran of 15 British naval personnel by the Iranian authorities. They had been arrested in the disputed area of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway, with the Iranians insisting that the capture was on their side of the sea. The British were adamant that its sailors were taken in the Iraqi side of the waters. International experts say that it is hard to tell: a 1975 delimitation agreement was torn-up by Saddam, and in any event, shifting mudflats makes it difficult to determine clear lines.

Initially, the Iranians demanded an apology from the British and hinted at the possibility of putting the sailors on trial, with the possibility of conviction leading to terms of up to seven years in jail. London took the matter to the United Nations and the European Union, raising threats to deepen sanctions against the Iranian regime, already raising sanctions because of its nuclear programme.

But significantly, both sides continued to talk, at first using their embassies in either capital, and subsequently, resorting to back-room channels. Personalities and personal diplomacy played a role. So last week, the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced with dramatic flourish that the Britons would be freed; he made it sound like a magnanimous gesture on the part of Tehran. Mr. Blair insisted that he had made no concessions. What was clear was that the diplomacy increased and the rhetoric on either side was ratcheted down. Significantly, too, is Mr. Blair's statement about "new and interesting lines of communication" being opened between London and Tehran that would be "sensible to pursue". The point is that diplomacy works and works best in an atmosphere of pragmatism rather than ideological rigidity.

It has to be recognised that Syria and Iran have emerged as influential regional players. The Syrians were forced to retreat from Lebanon in the face of the Cedar Revolution, but Hezbollah's heroics against Israel's army during last summer's war strengthened Damascus' hand. At the same time, like it or not, Iran, the Shia theocracy, provides spiritual and other leadership to Iraq's Shi'ite majority. The West, particularly the United States, dismisses these realities at their potential peril.

Ms. Pelosi understands that rather than undermining U.S. foreign policy, she is sowing realism and creating an environment for engagement. That is courageous.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.