Recent arguments between both houses of Congress and the Bush administration over the future of U.S. policy in Iraq struck a raw yet historically deep-seated nerve in executive-legislative relations. It reopened the long-standing discussion over what role Congress plays or should play in foreign policy. This confrontation expanded even further during House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to the Middle East during the congressional Easter break.

In a strict constitutional manner, the only explicit power that Congress has over foreign policy is its ability to withhold funds for foreign operations — civilian or military. Nowhere is it suggested that Congress should conduct the international affairs of the U.S. government. On the other hand, politically, practically, and pragmatically, leaders in both the House and the Senate can have a very powerful influence over the public's support for foreign policy as well as the very efficacy of an administration's decisions. This, it seems, is the real impact of the Pelosi trip.

In fact, Pelosi's visit was consistent with a tradition established decades ago by U.S. politicians. While she clearly had a significant political agenda in mind and a desire to intensify the Democrats' confrontation with the Bush administration, her delegation's meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was totally consistent with past action by U.S. legislators. Never wanting to be reliant on any administration's analysis of U.S. foreign policy ventures and obligations, members of Congress have devoted themselves to very serious fact-finding trips. The fact that Pelosi (D-Calif.) was accompanied by, among others, House International Relations Committee chair Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) undoubtedly lends credibility to Congress' serious participation in the foreign policy process, and its review and engagement in administration decision-making.

From the Bush administration's perspective, Pelosi's visit to Syria contradicts and undermines its commitment to isolate the countries it sees as complicit in the spread of terror. While there well may be substantive differences between Republican and Democrats on America's Syria policy, the president's attack on the Pelosi mission was politically transparent. Considering that only several days earlier a group of Republican members of Congress had met with Assad, President Bush's attack on the Pelosi meeting with Assad was absurd.

Clearly U.S. policy in the Middle East is at a more dynamic place than it has been in recent years. U.S. efforts in Iraq appear to be collapsing as the casualty rate among coalition forces appears once again to be growing, with or without any troop surge. Shi'ite-Sunni tensions appear to be mounting both within Iraq and among their various supporters. As if this were not enough, there appears to be a dramatically renewed Al Qaida presence and terrorist recruitment in Iraq, and both Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories seem only to be biding their time.

As if this were not enough, the growing Iranian nuclear threat is becoming more than merely a distraction for U.S. defense planners. Iran's capture of British sailors — which became as much a showdown between Iranian moderates and radicals as it did between Tony Blair and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — demonstrated an intensified conventional aggressiveness developing in Tehran, as well as a looming political-military leadership struggle. In addition, the Saudis have taken on an increasingly public role in Middle East affairs, at the same time that they are seeking a dramatic military weapons package from the United States of between $5 billion to $10 billion. The latter has sent shivers of dread through Israeli strategic planners.

The November elections affected the Bush administration in numerous ways, no more so than in foreign affairs. The confrontation with the Democratic Congress is a reality not only in foreign policy. Beyond Iraq, there is far more pressure from Congress, reflecting and feeding demands from the American people, for the administration to develop a sustainable strategy for the looming regional crises. Playing politics with the Democratic leadership over Syria does not facilitate such problem solving. Sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on monthly visits to the region without developing a real agenda will continue to be useless. Holding multilateral meetings with Syria to discuss indirect issues and avoiding addressing the bilateral relationship is foolhardy and dangerous.

It is time for the Bush administration to stop denying the legitimacy of the defined congressional role in international affairs and to develop its own comprehensive Middle East policy.