I simply don't understand this administration's theory of dealing with bad actors on the international stage. Negotiations, as they seem to see them, are a reward for good behavior. Leaving aside the question of what negotiations are required among allies (and 'good' actors), it seems to reflect a theory of International Relations drawn from high school popularity hierarchies. It's as if the US is the head cheerleader and Syria is the souzaphone player in the marching band and simply paying attention to him should make his heart go all a-flutter.
That said, there are situations in which opening negotiations with a party does validate that party's status. Such situations, however, are more along the lines of choosing sides between parties to a contestation over legitimate internal authority, or the recognition of sovereignty. Bashar Assad's regime may be illegitimate by liberal democratic standards, but I doubt anyone would erneastly contest the sovereignty of the nation of Syria, nor Assad's control over vital state resources such as its military.
It's an old saw, really, but you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
