First there was Nixon: A man who saw the value to the US by talking with our perceived enemies.
“Improved relations with the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China are often cited as the most successful diplomatic achievements of Nixon’s presidency.[1] After World War II, Americans saw relations between the United States and the Soviet Union deteriorating, Russians consolidating communist puppet states over much of Eastern Europe, and China teetering on the edge of communism. Many Americans felt concern communists might cause the downfall of schools or labor unions. One of the main reasons Richard Nixon became the 1952 Vice-president candidate on the Eisenhower ticket was his strong anti-communism stance. Despite this, in 1972 Nixon became the first U.S. president to visit China.[2]
Later The bush administration was set to send Condoleeza Rice to Iran for “direct” talks (What would Beck say about that) in hopes of resolving the nuclear issue with Iran. After several attempts the Bush administration elected to use the “containment” policy as a way to deal with Iran:
http://themoderatevoice.com/6447/us-shifts-to-containment-strategy-on-iran/Undoubtedly Iran is the single most serious threat to the United States and world peace. Containment is still the most viable option in dealing with this rogue nation. So let’s see, Afghanistan is to the east of Iran, Iraq to the west and Russia to the north. Should we try to encourage Russia to be a stronger ally and contain Iran or should we follow the lead of men like Glenn Beck and John Bolton?
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909180041