Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Syria, due to take place today, raises the question of whether the Democrats are prepared to seek a separate peace. When America was serious about war such a trip would have been seen as a scandal. At Casablanca, say, Roosevelt and Churchill decided, as one U.S. government Web site recounts, “that no peace would be concluded except on the basis of ‘unconditional surrender.'” Roosevelt wanted “to assure the people of all the fighting nations that no separate peace negotiations would be carried on with representatives of Fascism and Nazism and there would be no compromise of the war’s idealistic objectives.”

No doubt Ms. Pelosi and her camarilla — including, of all people, Congressman Thomas Lantos — will deny that they had anything like a separate peace, or even peace negotiations, in mind when they set out for Damascus. They’ll make much of the fact that prior to departing for the enemy capital they visited Jerusalem, where the speaker told a dinner party in her honor at the Knesset that American support for Israel was unwavering and bipartisan.

Prime Minister Olmert asked her to tell President al-Assad that Israel would be willing to reenter negotiations only after Syria ceased support for terrorism in Lebanon and the Palestinian Arab areas. Ms. Pelosi’s own trek to Damascus was preceded by a group of Republican House members, including Frank Wolf of Virginia, Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania, and Robert Aderholt of Alabama, proving that the Democrats hold no monopoly on undertaking fool’s errands. The three said they discussed with Syrian officials the flow of terrorists eastward from Syria into Iraq; the flow of weapons westward from Syria into Lebanon; and support for Hamas.

Both congressional visits seek cover in recommendations made by the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. The next logical step will be to undertake a pilgrimage to Tehran, to open a dialogue with President Ahmadinejad. Senator Clinton, on the campaign trail, has been calling for negotiations with Iran, though she seems to have muted the call since the Iranians seized 15 royal marines. In December, 2006, Mr. al-Assad was paid a yet another visit by a particularly craven senator, Arlen Specter, who has long labored under the illusion that the Syrian Baathists could be brought around. None of this lightens the burden of proof that will be on Ms. Pelosi to demonstrate how her visit has improved our position.

As the speaker was preparing to leave Jerusalem for Damascus, the chief of Israel’s military intelligence, Major General Yadlin, told the Cabinet that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah are making defensive preparations for war this summer. The Iranian staff chief, Hassan Fayrouz, is warning the Arab leaders that Israel intends to start a war. If, or when, fighting is renewed, the anti-American alliance will count on Hamas to open another front.

If Ms. Pelosi believes, as she told the Knesset, that Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons, she must explain how that is to be done without at least the possibility of recourse to military action. This she cannot do, because of the anti-Iraq war sentiment that has swept her own party’s precincts. Instead she plays domestic politics at Israel’s expense, despite warnings from our own state department that visiting Syria is a recipe for trouble. Ms. Pelosi will be fortunate if she, unlike the royal marines, is allowed to return home to America, though it is an open question where she can do more damage, over there or over here.

***

While our own leaders are making mischief overseas, foreign leaders are making mischief here at home, one can judge by President Lula’s visit with President Bush at Camp David. Mr. Bush skipped the Gridiron Dinner to confer with the Brazilian braggart, who, when asked about the hostage crisis, proceeded to insult his host. “Petrobas will continue to invest in oil prospecting in Iran. Iran has been an important trade partner for Brazil. They buy from us more than $1 billion, and they almost sell anything to us,” Mr. Lula said. “I know that there’s political divergence on this between Iran and other countries, but with Brazil, we have no political divergence with them, so we will continue to work together with Iran on what is of the interest of Brazil.” An all-too-gracious Mr. Bush responded by noting that America had just sent a wrestling team to Iran.

No doubt he comprehends that it’s going to take more than a wrestling team to pin the mullahs — or, for that matter, the Brazilians. But we’d rather be in Mr. Bush’s shoes than Mr. Lula’s, particularly on the day when the reckoning comes in respect of Iran. Meantime a certain diversity of views among elected leaders, and the freedom to express those views, is one of the ways the West differs from its enemies. It is a strength unless our enemies interpret it for weakness, in which case it poses genuine risks of the sort Roosevelt against back in the day when we took our wars more seriously.