Is the U.S. about to issue parameters?

Much of the attention garnered from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech in Bahrain at the International Institute for Strategic Studies event centered on how she sat just five seats away from the Iranian foreign minister and addressed him directly, calling for this weeks talks in Geneva and the major powers to, well, go somewhere.

Also interesting was this little rattle out of the box: Clinton’s promise to issue a "very formal set of remarks" this week on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, in an interview with Al Hurra, followed by a promise in her speech to address "this critical issue in greater depth" at the Saban Forum next weekend.

There has been much recent speculation from thinktank types suggesting that the United States is set to lay down the law: Outline what a final status agreement looks like, and get the parties working on it.

The positives: You break the impasse, and get the sides talking.

The negatives: If the talks fail, the United States is more invested than ever in the failure. Not only that, but the parameters — whatever they are — become a new default benchmark. That means each side uses them to its advantage and resents the United States when the other side does.

Let’s unpack that sentence with hypotheticals: Say, according to the parameters, the Palestinians relinquish the right of return. No way will any Israeli government allow this to come back as a Palestinian negotiating tactic ("We give up the refugees issue in exchange for…."). The Palestinians then resent the Americans, and future talks have another obstacle to overcome.

Conversely, let’s say the parameters include a Palestinian capital in eastern Jerusalem. Same again: For the Palestinians it’s written in stone, non-negotiable, and the Israelis resent the Obama administration for it.

There’s also a timing issue: Will Israel even be paying attention as it attends to the fallout from the worst fire in its history?