Several sources close to Obama’s transition team told Britain’s most left-wing newspaper, the Guardian, that the incoming administration taking steps to break with Bush’s policy of isolating Hamas. The up and coming administration, these sources say, believes that lasting peace can only be achieved by reaching out to Hamas and by establishing a channel to the Palestinian terrorist organization.

The Guardian adds in its report that ‘[t]here is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on, but he is being urged by advisers to initiate low-level or clandestine approaches, and there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive. A tested course would be to start ­contacts through Hamas and the US intelligence services, similar to the secret process through which the US engaged with the PLO in the 1970s. Israel did not become aware of the contacts until much later.’

Richard Haass, a diplomat under both Bush 41 and 43, was reported earlier this week to be Obama’s choice for Middle East envoy. He too supports low-level contacts, ‘provided there is a ceasefire in place and a Hamas-Fatah reconciliation emerges.’

“This is going to be an administration that is committed to negotiating with ­critical parties on critical issues,” one source allegedly told the British newspaper.

There are several aspects to this report and development that have to be examined:

1. Obama said as recently as in April 2008 that he would not speak with Hamas unless the organization would “renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements.” Although one can argue that low-level contacts automatically imply that Obama himself will not speak with Hamas but, rather, lower-ranking government officials, that merry interpretation of Obama’s remarks makes little to no sense; Obama was talking about his administration, not just him personally. As such, if the report is true, it would mean a major break with what he promised during the campaign.

2. Obama made clear during the campaign that he would not hold direct talks with Hamas without precondition, while talking to Iran without similar pre-conditions was one of his foreign policy’s cornerstones. Some remarked a year ago or so already that the distinction between Hamas and Iran was artificial; the only difference between the two is that Iran is a terror state whereas Hamas is a terror group, ruling over part of a people and territory. If the report is true, their view will have proved correct.

3. Hillary Clinton was far more hawkish than Barack Obama, arguing that speaking to Iran without preconditions, and Hamas for that matter, would be unwise, even dangerous. As Obama’s secretary of state, however, Clinton will have to talk to whomever he tells her to. This means that Clinton, the tough, hawkish and pro-Israel candidate of one year ago, may be willing to break with her earlier promises as well.

4. Little to nothing has changed regarding Hamas compared to one year ago except for the present war in the Middle East. Reaching out to Hamas now would encourage the terrorist group and confirm its long held belief that terrorism works. It caused a war which caused tremendous suffering for its own people, but the result of it – or so Hamas will think – will be that it can finally sit at the adult-table, where it all happens.

5. If Israel is successful in the present war, Hamas will be weakened severely. If that is the case, talking to Hamas and therefore legitimizing it, would boost the group instantly. It has seldom been that a Palestinian organization becomes that successful in such a short amount of time (successful as in being accepted by the U.S. and the international community as a whole as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people). One reason many Palestinians turned against Fatah was because they felt the mostly secular group did not achieve anything; Hamas’ rise to power and influence will be unprecedented thereby confirming its main argument that it, not Fatah, can change the situation on the ground.

6. Since Hamas is a tool of Iran and to a lesser extent of Syria, reaching out to Hamas requires talking to both Syria and Iran as well. Obama and Clinton cannot possibly expect Hamas to agree to anything without consent from its allies in the region. This means that Obama plans to start a bigger than most expected diplomatic effort in the Middle East. It also means that it will give Iran some influence in possible future negotiations about its nuclear program – the U.S. wants something from Iran with regards to Iran now.

7. Not only will Iran have more influence and more leverage in future talks, it will also become an even more influential and powerful player in the region. If Iran is actively involved in peace talks between Israel and Hamas, as it has to be, every single Arab country too may have to be forced to adopt a less hostile foreign policy towards the Shiite extremist country, realizing that if it angers Iran, the U.S. could blame it for obstructing peace talks. Additionally, U.S. policy towards the Middle East has consisted of isolating Iran and Iranian (supported) terrorist groups, thereby keeping the balance of power in the region reasonably in tact. If Iran and Hamas are no longer isolated, the balance will move in a direction beneficial to Iran and to the disadvantage of Arab countries.

8. Israel will not accept more influence from Iran in the region, let alone it going nuclear. If talks between Hamas and the U.S. and between Iran and Israel result in more influence for Tehran, as they will, the relationship between Israel and the United States could suffer.

Talking to Hamas has far-reaching consequences; consequences missed by most observers, even by those who consider themselves ‘experts.’ One hopes that the Obama administration does realize just how big the impact of such talks will be.