One path to greater stability and harmony in the world lies through Europe and the Middle East. Thus, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has chosen wisely in launching her first major diplomatic mission.

Will she succeed?

If she can overcome the negative rhetoric, dismissiveness and arrogance that often characterized the Bush administration’s first term, yes. I, for one, am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt — for a time. At least some of Rice’s rhetoric, which once sought to punish and ignore errant allies, sounds better now.

Fortunately for Rice and the United States, the door to Europe and the Middle East remains open. That’s because, as much as some pundits enjoyed hyping the “rift” in trans-Atlantic relations over Iraq, mutual interests and close cooperation on major issues such as terrorism have endured. In addition, the Iraq dispute was never over how disruptive, despotic and dangerous Saddam Hussein’s regime was, but over the better strategy to deal with him.

The most recent development – a widely celebrated national election in Iraq – encourages hope. Europe has much to gain from and every reason to support ongoing efforts to steer Iraq to normalcy. Indeed, Europeans belong in the midst of the reconstruction.

The situation demands NATO’s expanded involvement, not only to train Iraqis but to bolster U.S.-led forces. Further, it would make sense for European contractors to return to their pre-war projects, provided they create opportunities for Iraqis.

In Iran, Europe has taken the lead to wean Tehran from a dangerous confrontation on nuclear energy/weapons. The Bush administration has supported those discussions, although some U.S. officials have made uncomfortable noises about potential military solutions.

Frankly, I’m tired of speculation about when and if the Bush administration might use military force against Iran. Should the post-election situation in Iraq continue to fare well, some believe, a foray into Iran could happen as early as summer. If the Iraqis take more time to sort things out, a U.S. military move in Iran could wait until 2006. In either case, only more death, chaos, straining of U.S. resources and anti-Americanism would result. Perhaps the Europeans will impart some of their deeper understanding of the Iran conundrum to Rice. Furthermore, it would be a travesty for the Bush administration to ignore or minimize a key detail – that the Iranians, themselves, have lost faith in their leaders and could prompt their own regime change.

Europe’s help also is needed to handle the most significant challenge to long-term peace and stability in the Middle East: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Despite her position as America’s face to the world, Rice is not the best person to champion peace. Surely she knows that, although she may feel circumstances – especially President Bush’s deep desire to transform the region – require her personal touch.

Instead, she should counsel the president to select a special envoy. I will repeat my recommendation of someone who has the commitment, interest, brashness, drive, savvy and ability to draw global attention to the issue: businessman Donald Trump. Has Rice ever met Trump? I don’t know, but he pays far more attention to issues in the region than she may realize. Upon her return to the United States, I would recommend a rendezvous with Trump.

To assist in drawing Europe more closely into the traditional trans-Atlantic fold, Rice should propose another international summit on the Middle East. In the past, Madrid pulled off some high-level, successful summitry. This time, though, I would lean toward Paris as the host site. That idea holds appeal on many levels, not the least of which is that it might prompt an end to Franco-American quibbling.

There will always be issues that divide even the best of allies. At the end of the day, however, trans-Atlantic dissent, punishment and cold shoulders over the Middle East have inspired no one but troublemakers who seek the demise of America and Europe. All the more reason to repair the rift.