One of the most controversial issues is undoubtedly going to be the push for us to "engage" the Middle East's two biggest troublemakers. A number of political and foreign-policy luminaries say that we should be talking directly with both Iran and Syria regarding Iraq.

The suggestion has some merit, but it's also fraught with potential downsides.

Advocates of direct talks say that you have to talk to your enemies. (Call it the Don Corleone School of Diplomacy: Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.) Fair enough: We talked to the Soviets during the Cold War, agreeing to some arms limits as well as to various ways to prevent accidental outbreaks of war. Such talks probably played a role in maintaining global strategic stability.

But that's not the whole story. While kissing us on both cheeks, the Soviet Union remained an enemy -- maintaining its own empire in Eastern Europe/Asia, pushing to extend it to every continent. It backed our enemies in the Korean and Vietnam wars, and in both arguably kept us from achieving victory. Expect Iran and Syria to take the same two-faced approach in Iraq and elsewhere.

So, while talking with Damascus and Tehran could achieve some results in Iraq, it will most likely come at a very high price.

Neither Iran nor Syria is going to do anything for nothing, after all. They're now trying to co-opt Iraq into their sphere of influence -- witness the recent normalization of ties between Damascus and Baghdad, and last week's Iraqi-Iranian presidential summit.

Of course, the first thing Tehran and Damascus will try to get their new "buds" in Baghdad to do is pull the plug on Uncle Sam. From Iran and Syria's perspective, the fewer American GIs in the region to keep them in check, the better.

The reason Iran and Syria could (conceivably) be part of the solution in Iraq is, of course, that they're now a big part of the problem. Iran is supporting the Shia militias, almost certainly including the death squads behind much of the most recent horrors. The Iranian mullahs' puppet, Hezbollah, is helping with militia training. There's solid evidence that some IEDs used to kill U.S. troops were designed and even produced in Iran

Damascus has been hosting Saddamists, and turning a blind eye to jihadists transiting Syria into Iraq, for years.

These regimes have American blood on their hands.

Still, Iran and Syria might promise "peace and stability" in Iraq -- as a bargaining chip to advance other aspects of their agendas.

The Iranian mullahs would surely insist that we back off on U.N. sanctions over their bid to acquire nuclear weapons.

Syria would certainly ask us to quash the U.N. probe into the murder (probably on Syrian orders) of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. And don't even think about an investigation on Pierre Gemayel . . . It might also demand a green light on getting its hooks back into Lebanon. Maybe, even, the United States could deliver Israeli concessions on the Golan Heights.

Sure, there might be some benefit in engaging Syria-Iran in a regional conference that includes Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. That setup might be able to pressure Damascus into cooperation.

But Iran isn't taking orders from anyone these days.

In fact, it's not even clear that the Iranians are willing to talk to us. They've had plenty of opportunities to engage us, going all the way back to the Clinton administration's bid for a diplomatic opening.

Moreover, some Arab states are leery of bringing Iran-Syria inside the Iraqi tent -- recognizing the trouble the "deadly duo" is causing in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Engaging Iran and Syria could cause a loss of support from key regional partners.

Never mind how Israel might feel . . .

Instead of engaging Iran and Syria, it might be better to build a regional coalition of Arab states to contain them. But if the president decides to engage Iran/Syria, he has to be careful that giving them a say doesn't create a lot more problems for us than it might solve.