There's a reason the Middle East is on fire

There's an interesting article in the NYTimes on Condi Rice's "public tutorial" being conducted by James Baker through and around the ISG report release. (Best quote "She has not responded to Mr. Baker’s argument, delivered in a tone that drips with isn’t-this-obvious.....")

But, what I found more interesting was her own staff's outlining of her regional "plan," which seems solely based upon stoking division and fear in the region.

She has advocated “deepening the isolation of Syria,” because she believes much of the rest of the Arab world condemns its efforts to topple Lebanon’s government, they said; and in seeking to isolate Iran, they said, she hopes to capitalize on the fears of nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan that Iran seeks to dominate the region, with the option of wielding a nuclear weapon.

If the majority of conduct is designed to isolate the players, stoke their fears, and prompt a "conflict" which can then be "resolved," is it any surprise we are looking at the possibility of a regional war?

Perhaps, this is an offshoot of the "transformational" philosophy most publicly discussed around democracy promotion, but it seems to rest upon the supposition that conflicts can be raised and resolved in a controlled manner. History both generally, and specific to this administration, seems to suggest that controlling and shaping crises is far more difficult once you're in them.

(For some reason I find myself paraphrasing a quote from that mediocre 1980 movie Simon. "Happy scientists don't conceptualize black holes."

I would argue that healthy Sec States don't construct their foreign policy on increasing conflicts.)

On "the tutorial," the USA Today has this flash graphic with each of the regional players outlining specifically item by item what the ISG says regarding negotiations. It is a very clear step by step "Middle East for Dummies" kind of negotiating strategy Baker has passed to this administration.