After more than six decades of strife, a senior adviser to Iran's leadership has signaled the country's openness to a profound and historic strategic change in Iran's relations with the West. A brief letter from US President Obama offering potential relief from international sanctions in return for a swift agreement regarding Iran's controversial nuclear program has been reportedly answered by an equally brief and amicable note from Iran's moderate new president, Hassan Rouhani.

Many accounts of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff’s decision this week to cancel next month's state visit to the U.S. put it down to simmering outrage over revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency has been tapping the communication channels of top Brazilian officials, starting with hers. In truth, the decision probably has as much to do with politics.

It started as “a new beginning” and ended as “America is not the world’s policeman.” Between President Barack Obama’s historic 2009 address to the Islamic world in Cairo to his address to the American people on Syria last week, Obama has zigged and zagged on Mideast policy, angering supporters and detractors alike. But he has stuck to a clear pattern: reduce American engagement, defer to regional players and rely on covert operations to counter terrorism.

For the past month at least, the world seems to have been discussing nothing but whether, how and when the United States will engage in a punitive air strike of some sort against the Syrian regime of Bashir al-Assad. Three things stand out about this discussion.

Over the past two years, many thoughtful pieces have advocated for U.S. military intervention in Syria's civil war. A review of such pieces reveals three core justifications: protecting civilians; altering the battlefield to help topple Assad or facilitate a diplomatic solution; and countering Iranian influence in the region. Very few have emphasized the need for the U.S. military to uphold international norms.

Foreign governments began a new round of diplomatic shuffling following President Barack Obama’s announcement on Tuesday night that U.S.-led military strikes against the Assad regime were on hold. During a televised address, the commander in chief said intervention had been temporarily shelved as U.S. officials prepare to enter negotiations regarding the handover of chemical weapons.

The U.S. got into its confrontation with Syria over an allegedly unscripted statement from President Obama, and may now get out of it thanks to an off-the-cuff remark from Secretary of State John Kerry. Obama set the stage for military intervention in the Syrian civil war last year with two words: "red line." If we see "a whole bunch of [chemical] weapons moving around or being utilized," that would be a "red line" that would "change my calculus," Obama famously said.

Were Marshall McLuhan advising Bashar al-Assad, he would have told him the same thing the Syrian President’s counsellors did: Go on television and take your case directly to the American people. And that’s exactly what the man accused of using chemical weapons on his own people did, courtesy of Charlie Rose, the popular 71-year-old interviewer of the U.S. Public Broadcasting Service.