The explosion most likely to shake up America’s foreign policy isn’t the one coming from the North Korean nuclear blast. It’s the one coming from the silky-smooth voice of James Baker.

The former secretary of state is playing the role of architect and salesman on a new Iraq policy. And not just between the United States and other nations. Even more important is Baker’s goal of building a consensus in Washington over what to do next.

Forget our enemies: I say he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize if he can get Democrats and Republicans to agree.

Baker’s off to a bold start, saying “there are alternatives between … stay the course and cut and run.” That’s a no-brainer in the real world, but in Washington, it amounts to a bombshell. With the polarization over Iraq hardened into stone as the midterm elections near, Baker’s rejection of both rigid positions has the ring of common sense as well as political appeal.

He further showed his pragmatic side by taking a page from the playbook of President Bush in ruling out an immediate withdrawal of our troops, saying it would lead to a vacuum, while also advocating a move many Democrats favor – talking directly to Iran and Syria. Bush and his team of neocons, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, have rejected such talks, but Baker said he has already met with representatives from both countries.

“I believe in talking to your enemies,” Baker said on television Sunday. “It’s got to be hard-nosed, it’s got to be determined. You don’t give away anything, but in my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”

Baker’s honest broker role is official as co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group. The group has prominent members of both parties, including Rudy Giuliani, former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who is co-chairman, and William Cohen, a Republican who was Bill Clinton’s secretary of defense.

Baker’s appeal is that he has credibility among Democrats and is close to Bush without being a member of the administration, and thus free to speak his mind. Although he represented Bush during the disputed 2000 election, he is closer to the president’s father, whose team has been critical of the Iraq mess. Against the backdrop of that family drama, Baker’s main job is clearly to help guide the president out of his Iraq straitjacket.

That’s not to say Bush is going to flip-flop on his belief that Iraq is central to the war on terror. It’s just that the political divisions at home, coupled with the mayhem in Iraq, have made changes necessary. Bet your last dollar that Baker will have Bush’s approval for his recommendations even before he makes them public.

He allowed as much in an interview Monday with PBS’ Charlie Rose. Baker insisted he told a White House emissary he would take the Iraq assignment only if Bush “looks me in the eye and says he wants me to do this.” And that, Baker said, is exactly what Bush did.

If the approach produces a consensus policy, it would open the door for Donald Rumsfeld to leave as secretary of defense. Another possible change involves the broader approach to rogue nations like North Korea. Its nuclear blast and the dithering of the Security Council over sanctions are putting pressure on Bush to come up with a new policy there. If Baker can help break the Iraq stalemate, that could be his next assignment.

America should be so lucky.