Second: whether they admit it in public or not, both Iran and Syria know for a fact that we CAN nuke them and we CAN turn them to slag without needing nukes. Diplomacy isn't just for appeasement any more (or shouldn't be).
Third: announce very clearly that Palestine and the WOT are not linked in US eyes. That we will deal with all terrorists forcefully and regardless of their stated intent. That Israel / palestine / Lebanon are issues that will not be manipulated to justify any overlap. I believe that the power elites in the area, as well as Baker, know this and use 'the Palestinian issue' as a means to their own ends. The morons on the street might be another matter because I hear 'palestine' from otherwise rational immigrants daily.
Finally, it is absolutely imperative that Iraq enjoys some level of success that does not involve voting for terrorism rather than having it imposed from the top.
Regardless of how 'bad' some of us might believe Iraq to be today (& I think it's improved) someone IS fighting against the islamists, on or near their own soil, and entirely unlike what went before 9/11. They can posture and plot, and they can make hits outside the ME; but they are not free today to do it without losses. Arafat is dead and his heirs are fighting each other. Iran just might be showing signs of a coup or some pull back from Nutjob's ranting. Syria has shown its hand in Lebanon, for better or for worse?
Further afield, Castro is dead or in transit, Chavez knows his big ticket AKs and MIGs would be good for two or three hours. This is not the time to either go ballistic (literally) or to back off and out - and that might be precisely why the Dems are on a rant to do one or the other.
Footnote: partition of Iraq is not an option. The Kurds have been screwed once already and without federation they'd be Turkish toast very shortly.
Your ideas on the "sticks" we could apply to Syria and Iran (open season on the borders, reminding all concerned that we have nuclear weapons) are just not realistic to the political situation. Engaging Syria and Iran on both borders would be a major change in policy that would have been possible three years ago, but today would raise howls of protest from Democrats. Our President is giving ground, and is as weaker than he has ever been. Weak Presidents don't threaten nuclear holocaust on our enemies. Even strong Presidents have a hard time with that.
Refusing to link the WOT and Palestine might be tough, but frankly I don't know how much progress we would make on that score. Refusing to link the two might even make it more difficult for us to guarantee Israeli security with troops, should it come to that.
The partition of Iraq is an unattractive option. It eventually may come to that though, whether we like it or not. No one can know which way this war will go once we end offensive combat operations.