Joel Himelfarb points out that we are talking to Iran and Syria, and have been throughout. We're just not doing it the way they want us to:

The real issue today is that the Bush administration, which has been repeatedly burned in recent years when it tried to engage these governments, prefers discretion and holding lower-level talks. These regimes insist on holding well-publicized summits that yield them P.R. windfalls without forcing them to substantively change their policies.

They've got the speaking softly part down, but I don't know if they have a stick of any size. And I agree with this wholeheartedly:

Based on the historical record, the advocates of U.S. engagement with these regimes are delusional. The record, from Carter to Bush II, strongly suggests that neither regime has any interest in cooperating with us in Iraq, and are more likely than not to view the Carter-Brzezinski-Hagel approach as a demonstration of American weakness.

Richard Perle, via InstaPundit

Link

Richard Perle makes an excellent espresso for PJM Washington Editor Richard Miniter at his home. Perle: “The seminal mistake was getting into an occupation… We sent in 8,000 Americans to administer Iraq like you’d administer Montgomery county…. It was an absurd transplantation, and the body of Iraq rejected it.”