One of the most important things Mr. Obama is asking us to be hopeful about is that he can resolve the crisis in the Middle East brought on by the Bush administration's failed adventure in Iraq by meeting personally with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.

In spite of the fact that the Petraeus strategy and the surge have tamped down violence in Southern Iraq, Iran owns Southern Iraq and continues to supply weapons and training to the Shiite insurgents fighting there. The Shiite resistance began when, after crushing the Iraqi military, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were no weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons program in Iraq, and capturing Saddam Hussein, the United States failed to withdraw from Iraq. It turns out we had no plan for an exit from Iraq, because staying in Iraq indefinitely was part of the neo-con strategy for establishing a kind of Pax Americana in the Middle East.

Now, Mr. Obama is proposing a summit meeting with Iran. He is not proposing low level talks and progress on issues as a pre-condition to a meeting between heads of state as Mrs. Clinton is. He is not proposing to conduct secret negotiations with Iran to sell them weapons -- one of President Reagan's more innovative ideas -- or to negotiate the end of the occupation in secret as President Nixon did in Paris as the Vietnam war wound down. Let's be clear about it. He is proposing a face to face meeting with Ahmadinejad, while Iran continues to supply weapons and training to insurgents who are killing American troops and while Iran continues to pursue a nuclear weapons program. That's the equivalent of Richard Nixon proposing to end the Vietnam war by meeting with Ho Chi Mihn, or President George H.W. Bush proposing to end Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait by meeting him face to face to negotiate a withdrawal. A summit meeting with Iran is a truly radical idea. And one of the reasons Mr. Obama is asking us to elect him is so he can hold such a meeting.

I think it's fair that before we send Mr. Obama to meet with Mr. Amadinejad, we ask Mr. Obama what he plans to say to the President of Iran personally that he can't say through intermediates. Shouldn't we have some idea what our President is likely to say? Will he tell Mr. Amadinejad that our commitment to the safety of Israel is absolute? Will he tell him that we are sorry we invaded Iraq? Will he tell him we're leaving Iraq as fast as we can? Will he tell him that we wish he wouldn't continue to develop nuclear weapons, because, if he does, Israel will have to attack his country and we will have no alternative to supporting Israel? Will he tell him that our Sunni allies in the Middle East will not tolerate the persecution of Sunnis in Iraq and that we will have no alternative to supporting them? Mr. Amadinejad knows all that. What new information can Mr. Obama give him? The fact is, of course, that there is nothing Mr. Obama can say to Mr. Amadinejad face to face at a summit meeting that can't be said through intermediaries or that Mr. Amadinejad doesn't already know. In the case of a US-Iran Summit, the meeting itself is the message. In fact, since our allies in the Middle East will never allow that meeting without pre-conditions to occur, proposing the summit, not holding it, is the real message.

I have no doubt that Mr. Obama views reaching out to Mr. Amadinejad as a gesture that will signal America's desire to make a new start in the Middle East. That's a gesture that is completely consistent with Mr. Obama's message of hope. But, if Mr. Obama is the Democratic candidate this year, he will have to walk out on a stage and face John McCain. Mr. McCain has taken the position that America will not leave Iraq until we have prevailed, and that, with the Petraeus strategy, we are prevailing. Mr. McCain has said that the American people will support the occupation and other interventions and invasions as long as our casualties are low. That view is the backbone of Mr. McCain's Middle Eastern policy, and it is in stark contrast to Mr. Obama's appeal.

John McCain is an authentic war hero. And he's a hero, not because of his valor in combat, but because, languishing for years in a North Vietnamese prison as an unpopular war ground slowly to an end, he never lost hope. The North Vietnamese broke his body, but they did not break his spirit.

So, when John McCain leans toward Mr. Obama and says: "Let me tell you something about hope, my friend," Mr. Obama had better have an answer.