The United States was right to begin public face-to-face nuclear talks with Iran. President Bush also was correct to start talking about "a general time horizon" for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

The third-ranking officer of the State Department, Under Secretary for Political Affairs William J. Burns, met in a seven-nation group Saturday with Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, in Geneva. Public accounts of the meeting indicate that it didn't come to much substantively.

At the same time, it was a "first" in public, face-to-face U.S.-Iran meetings on nuclear matters at a senior level and could lead to something. The Bush administration also showed some flexibility in agreeing to the meeting without insisting that Iran agree to end its nuclear enrichment program as a pre-condition to talks.

U.S. dialogue with Iran was long overdue.

The second watershed was an announcement by the White House last week that Mr. Bush is now looking at "a general time horizon" for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. This, too, is so far overdue -- five years plus 4,125 U.S. deaths and $540 billion spent on the Iraq war -- that "overdue" doesn't cover it.

In discussing the subject, Mr. Bush is, of course, miles behind the American people, not to mention probable Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama. His administration also has found itself opposed on that subject by the Iraqi occupation government of Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki, with whom the United States is trying to negotiate an agreement for U.S. forces to stay in Iraq.

The likely Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain, is now in the position of lagging behind even Mr. Bush on this subject, still trying to paint a U.S. decision to withdraw as surrender.

So, in a sense, Mr. Bush is to be commended for his new openness to Iran and more open-minded approach to withdrawal from Iraq.

At the same time, it is important to note that both shifts of position come in the final five months of his administration, far too late to come to any kind of useful fruition during his time. The Iraqis are running out the clock now, waiting for the end of the year when the U.N. mandate under which U.S. forces are present in Iraq will expire.

In judging any possible Iranian response to the new U.S. willingness to at least sit down with Iran in a group setting, it is important to remember that Iran did not release the American Embassy hostages in Tehran until the Reagan administration had taken office. It will reserve any concessions for a new American government after Mr. Bush is gone.

There is also no question but that Mr. Bush's new postures on talks with Iran and withdrawal from Iraq are calculated to try to reduce the damage to Republican candidates that these two issues could otherwise do in the November elections.

Mr. Bush did the right thing in both cases, but late and with little likely effect, and in part for party political reasons. But both actions should be welcomed nonetheless as steps in the right direction.