The collapse of Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime brought about by the US-led allied forces has disturbed the fragile political architecture of the West Asian region that has been characterized by foreign occupation, outside meddling, brutal dictatorships and minority rule ever since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Prolonged and continuing sectarian strife and the continued affiliations of the different regimes in the region to sectarian identities have rendered the state system largely divided within and without.

Iraq is today, the worst affected and is witnessing unprecedented sectarian and insurgency violence. The Iraqi population comprising largely of the Shias, Sunnis, Kurds and Turkmens are divided on the possible political solutions to the present crisis. These groups have been under the influence of their respective ethnic or sectarian connections outside Iraq which has made the problem appear even more complex. Therefore despite various efforts by the US to stabilize Iraq, the situation continues to deteriorate and there seems no possibility of any solution in the near future.

It is now being increasingly felt that the US alone does not have the solution to the problem and that if any solution can be reached it could come by engaging other stakeholders in the region. American compulsions arising from the increasing number of causalities, the Iraq Study Group's (ISG) recommendations and elections in 2008 would certainly pressurize the US government to look for an alternate strategy.

Due to geographical, religious, sectarian and historical reasons Iran has an overwhelming influence on Iraq's polity, society and economy. Its connections within Iraq are deep-rooted and it is claimed that of all Iraq's neighbors, Iran is the most influential and could prove the most effective in arriving at any kind of solution to the present crisis. The Shia connection underlines social (cultural, religious and sectarian) and political affiliations. Most Shiite political leaders and clerics in Iraq have either lived in Iran as exiles during the Baathist regime or have been known to be pro-Iran. Therefore, despite differences in their aims and methods they are influenced by Iran in varying degrees. It has also been established that Iran has intelligence operatives deeply embedded within the newly appointed security forces and within the militias. Also, the fact that Iran had made investments in Shia-dominated South Iraq it may be presumed that, to some extent, it also has control over economic resources in Iraq. All these factors make Iran an indispensable player to engage with while working out any solution in Iraq.

The prevailing chaos and civil war situation is not conducive to Iran's interests as well. The Shia-Sunni strife could lead to Saudi Arabia intervening in the conflict which Iran would never be comfortable with. Also, there is a probability that Sunni insurgents might turn against Iran after the withdrawal of the US forces. Against this context, Iran would be probably be in favour of a limited presence of US troops in Iraq.

Neither Iran nor the US seems to have solutions for the extremely complex situation in Iraq as of now but have been exploring options. Though the US had made attempts to engage Iran in the recent past, the latter's clubbing the talks on Iraq with its nuclear enrichment issue led to the abrupt halt to the process. On the one hand, Iran fears that keeping away from the crisis could lead to the creation of a pro-western and secular democracy in Iraq that could have good relations with the US, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and even Israel. However, Iran is also inclined to strike the best bargain out of the present crisis even though it has expressed reservations on the preconditions that the US has imposed on it for any kind of engagement. As both Iran and the US have direct stakes in the resolution of the crisis, the two need to shed their adamant attitudes and come to the negotiating table. For this, the possibility of the involvement of a third country such as Saudi Arabia, Algeria or India as an interlocutor could be explored.

Rather then sending additional troops to Iraq, the US needs to allow multilateral regional and global forums to play a greater role in Iraq in particular and in the region in general, so that the solutions reached have greater legitimacy and acceptability. As rightly pointed out by the ISG a comprehensive solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict should also be worked out to ensure perpetual peace. The role of the US could probably be limited to the prevention of any widespread conflagration and allowing greater room to regional players to arrive at solutions.