Does it really matter whether the US feels that Iran’s presence is “appropriate” at the Syrian negotiations? I mean, they are, in actuality contributing significantly to the current Syrian government’s efforts to clamp down on people. If you’re able to get them to agree to something that Bashar al-Assad wouldn’t agree to, you could get significant leverage over Assad and tip the negotiations towards the side of peace.
This is, once again, a prime example of American leadership burying its head in the sand, with regards to international issues and trying to contrive realities that simply don’t have a basis in the factual world.
Without Iran at the negotiations, you’re not going to have an effective resolution to this conflict, because they are the ones who can pull Assad’s strings and make him dance in favor of ending the conflict.
This would also be an excellent opportunity to allow the Iranians and the Arab states to talk things out with regard to Syria (unless, of course, the Arab republics are as in the sand about this issue as the American leadership is).
Ultimately, excluding the relevant parties from negotiations is never a good idea, because not only will they be able to track the negotiations anyway through back door channels, but will also, continue to play a role in the situation around which the negotiations are forming.
I don’t get how this is being left as a matter of “opinion” or principle when there are very real benefits from including a party that’s involved in a conflict as opposed to the consequences to not including them.
Do we really need to commission a study to show this in action in order to convey that which comes intuitively to some and not intuitively to many who currently occupy our government’s highest offices?
Think about it.