Editorials

We've come a long way from the days of the Axis of Evil.

You'll remember it was back in 2002, during the State of the Union address, when President Bush used those words as a way to pick a fight not only with Iraq, but also with North Korea and Iran.

It made for disastrous foreign policy. While the United States waded into the greatest strategic mistake in recent U.S. history — otherwise known as the Iraq War — the other two partners in the evil axis continued to be more than a threat to world peace.

The Iranians meddled up to their eyeballs in Iraq, while Iran and North Korea hurled collective insults to the world as they both went about their business of enriching uranium.

Still, the administration continued to use threats and talk of war to keep the two rogue states in line, even when it failed to show results.

Recently, when the president was asked about rumors of pending airstrikes on Iran to shut down that nation's nuclear program, he responded simply by saying that all options are on the table.

Of course, that scared the living daylights out of everyone, rocked the already skittish oil markets and caused the Iranians to dig in their heels.

Now, however, at the twilight of this failed presidency, a more reasoned approach to the two naughty states seems to have taken hold.

Recent negotiations with North Korea, which included concessions, seem to have put a lid on that country's drive toward further development of a nuclear-weapons program. Yes, you can't trust the North Korean leadership as far as you can throw them. But this tactic already seems to have gained more ground than anything the Bush administration has done in almost eight years.

It's perhaps more significant that the State Department has dispatched its No. 3 diplomat, William Burns, to participate in international talks in Paris with the Iranians this weekend.

Our European allies have long held that American presence at the talks might achieve a breakthrough. They've also believed that the Iranians were not interested in signing on to any agreement that did not include the Americans.

This emphasis on diplomacy is a welcomed change, but it is a change that could have — and should have — occurred years ago.