Another diplomatic feint, another round of punditry announcing a changed Bush White House.

This time, it's the decision to participate in an Iraq conference with its regional neighbors, including Iran and Syria.

The NY Times headline today proclaims "A New Respect For Pragmatism," and USA Today offers, "Diplomacy Could Define End of Bush's Term."

But as LiberalOasis said back in April '06, and again in June '06:

...it is very possible that Bush may well take intermediate steps before an attack [on Iran], just so he can say he exhausted all other avenues.

He may try economic sanctions. He may even do a round of direct talks at some point. (Remember, for a while they said they wouldn't talk to North Korea.)

But Bush cannot be counted on to take such tacks sincerely, and give them a chance to work.

This must be said now. The skepticism has to be in the media bloodstream ahead of time, or else Bush will succeed again in stringing the media along...

...If you don't challenge Bush's sincerity towards diplomacy, Bush will be able to co-opt our proposals and continue his phony multilateralism unfettered.

Sitting down with Iran was not unexpected.

The question remains: will there be sincere attempts to negotiate?

Or will talks be truncated (all that's planned is a one-day conference of Iraq's neighbors) or sabotaged so the Bushies can say they really really tried but it didn't work?

(If you've read Seymour Hersh's latest in the New Yorker -- reporting that the Bush Administration is engaging in covert ops against Iran and Syria without informing Congress -- that'll help answer the question.)

Until we see how the Bushies actually approach any negotiation, there's no evidence of any substantive change in foreign policy objectives.

Only of a minor change in tactics.