"Imperceptible 180 Degree Turn." Former Iran hand in the Ford, Carter, and Reagan administrations Gary Sick on the latest US Iran developments:

A former boss of mine used to describe a policy reversal, while pretending that nothing had happened, as an attempted "imperceptible 180 degree turn." There is a lot of that going on today in Washington.

I found myself, to my own surprise, on an ultra right-wing radio show this week with a host who was clearly a Bill O'Reilly wannabe. We sparred for about 15 minutes on a variety of issues, but one of our exchanges was very enlightening to me. He commented with a sneer that Sen. Obama, if he became president, would go into unconditional talks with Iran. I reminded him that President Bush is already doing what any political leader would do to prepare for such talks -- feeling out your opponent.

That exchange made me think in a new way about what is going on. The Bush administration is now indicating that it can accept a specific time horizon for withdrawal of US troops in Iraq. They are also getting ready to sit down with Iranian nuclear negotiators without Iran first ceasing all enrichment and are openly promoting the idea of a US interests section in Tehran, the first step toward diplomatic relations. In both cases they insist nothing has changed, but the president's own right wing base makes no bones about the fact that they see these as anything but imperceptible 180 degree turns.

Both positions also happen to be consistent with the policy positions of Barack Obama and apparently contrary to the positions of John McCain. I would hate to be McCain in a policy debate in the next few months trying to pin the label of inexperience or excessive naivete on Obama on either Iraq or Iran, unless he is willing to expand those definitions to include George W. Bush. In fact, if McCain becomes president he will find it very difficult to reverse the course being set by his predecessor.

I happen to believe that the Bush administration shifts in policy, for whatever reason, are correct in terms of US long-term policy goals in the region. Neither of them settles the issue, but both suggest a practical way to get from here to a more favorable future condition. And in both cases, a line has been crossed, even if only symbolically, that will not easily be reestablished.

These were both serious decisions that had to be preceded by intense argument within the administration. Bill Burns, testifying to the Senate only a few days before the announcement that he would be going to meet with the Iranian negotiator (who happens to be the personal appointee of Mr. Ahmadinejad), could only answer in ultra-diplomatese formulas, suggesting that the decision still had not been settled.

We will have to wait for the inside story of what happened, but no one should doubt that this was a close and hard fought policy battle that was particularly painful for President Bush since he knew his own words would be thrown back in his face (as they were on the PBS Newshour report this evening) and, worse, that he might be doing a huge political favor to Sen. Obama just as he heads off to the Middle East. For those who continue to believe that all US foreign policy is in the hands of Dick Cheney, these moves are really difficult to explain.

It is essential to stress that both of these gambits may come to nothing and may represent nothing more than second term "Hail Mary passes," as Michael Rubin put it on the Newshour this evening. I do agree with Michael Rubin's further comment that the unexpectedly positive signals from both Washington and Tehran suggest that "something deeper" is underway.