Nearing our fourth year in Iraq, the mission has changed over and over again, from the search for weapons of mass destruction, “liberating” Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, to eliminating the terrorists at the “second front” of the global war on terrorism. Today, it’s no longer any of that. Iraq has now become a part of the classic game of realism in international politics, a clash between the United States and Iran. President Bush’s speech on the “new direction” on Iraq also revealed the new tone of the U.S. attitude toward Iran, one of confrontation that ignored the calls for engagement and dialogue. Neither the United States nor Iran seem willing to approach a middle ground; and this is all due to the game of geopolitics and conflicting national interests, a game that is oftentimes dangerous and leads to unintended consequences.

Iraq is now a flashpoint of U.S.-Iranian tensions, as evident with Washington’s decision to send 21,000 additional troops to Baghdad. Signs also point to the Persian Gulf also becoming a front in U.S.-Iranian tensions, with the deployment of a second carrier battle group to the region. Likewise, Iran had stepped up its own moves, evident in the weakening of the political process, the increase of Shiite militia activity and the deteriorating overall situation there. Despite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fall from standing in recent local elections, Tehran has pressed on with its nuclear enrichment program in defiance of the rest of the world. The competition between the United States and Iran for regional hegemony is creating plenty of collateral damage for ordinary Iraqis and has other Middle Eastern states nervous and already planning to adopt their own nuclear programs, weary of Tehran’s ambitions but unwilling to stay too close to Washington.

Most importantly, neither Iran nor the United States can succeed in its objectives for the Iraq and the region as a whole. Both face a “lose-lose” situation because there is more to lose than gain, and any attempt at success carries a high price to pay. Iran is already undermining efforts to build a stable and united Iraq backed by the “Great Satan,” and the United States is not leaving Iraq anytime soon, for an immediate withdrawal give Iran the role of filling the vacuum and plunging Iraq into further chaos. The White House, the Democratic Congress, the Iraq Study Group and the American people have all conflicting opinions over engagement with Iran and the surge decision. Iran, on the other hand has its own disagreements, thanks to the resurgence of pragmatic voices inside Tehran. While it wants to exploit an advantage in Iraq, they are divided between those favor of forcing a full civil war in Iraq and those who are cautious and see too much danger to increasing its profile inside Iraq, for fear of provoking the United States and jeopardizing the Islamic Republic’s own survival.

In the end, the two competitors are in a dilemma over their own next steps, and it is obvious that any side that chooses to escalate the situation knows that it could be crossing a point of no return. Both Washington and Tehran need to think realistically, understanding that within their borders they cannot sustain domestic support for moves that would tantamount to escalation. One strategic forecast analysis put it as “the common ground between the United States and Iran is that neither is certain it can achieve its real strategic interests (in Iraq),” but one analysis is clear: the need for dialogue and engagement is all too important because we cannot afford another major headache from the Middle East any longer.

Jeff Genota is a sophomore political science major.