Three main factors have caused America to lose its political capital: first, disregard for the dignity of the Middle East's people; second, losing sight of democratic values; and third, overlooking the complexity of international politics.

The world has always admired American values such as individual rights, transparency, freedom, and equality under the law. This has slipped away over the last 6 years. Absurdity has crawled in its place. Iraqis, and many of Iraq's neighbors, appreciate the removal of a brutal dictator. However, prejudicing one side over another and overlooking the dignity of all Iraqis comes at great cost. A safe walk down the street and control of resources and finances of one's own country are keys to dignity, and America's actions, such as nominating a pro consul, remind one of the British viceroy in India back in 19th century.)

No one can object to the grand values behind regime change in Iraq. All want democratic values and the self-determination of Iraqis. And it certainly drew the results intended: democratic behavior of Shiites and Kurds (some 80% of Iraqis) and predictable support from a mix of Sunni Baathist rebels and foreign Jihadis with roots back in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Middle East countries where elections are rare.

Shiites in the region (in Iran, Lebanon, and most recently in Bahrain, and the Al-Dawa and SCIRI in Iraq) have embraced elections and respected its results long before the invasion of Iraq. Save for Turkey, can any Muslim country in the region match Iran's track record of 9 presidential and 7 parliamentary election cycles?

American sports must always have a winner. I cannot help but see parallels between sports and America's adventure in Iraq. Washington must realize, however, that international politics is a process and not a project. Unlike an American sporting event, it is not bound to yield winners and losers. Thus, a return to a multilateral approach and close international cooperation could bode well for Americans as well as others in the region. This back-to-basics approach must first honor democracy and self-determination of the people in the region as its primary objective. The outcome may be prickly and abrasive. However, the American president must remind himself of his own statements that "democratic nations are peaceful and do not attack their neighbors". This certainly requires a leap of faith in American politics and a jump from the punch-drunk era of 1950s (and the era of Eisenhower and Dulles) to the 21st century with globalization.

Finally, we should all remind ourselves that the negative image of Iran in Washington is mostly of Washington's own making. In fact, there is no blood between Iranians and Americans. The most notable events of the last 30 years (the seizure of American Embassy in Tehran and the shooting down of an Iranian Airbus by U.S. Navy) have been negotiated, litigated, and finally settled through diplomatic and legal forums at The Hague. That is to say, the atmosphere has always been subject to the rule of law and international conventions. In contrast with such emotionally chargeable issues, it is noteworthy to observe that the violence of Al Qaeda and the attacks of September 11 have been carried out by Sunnis from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Is such dangerous militancy against America's support for undemocratic Sunni regimes, or out of frustration for not having democracy back at home?

A win-win atmosphere ought to be the outcome of any reformulation of American policy in the region. However, it will take a lot more than yet another visit to the Middle East by Britain's lame duck prime minister. It must start with a deep realization in Washington of prior mistakes. That is indeed a tall order. However, work can be done rapidly to correct errors. In the long-run, democracy and the values of self-determination can win. That may well be the best product that America can leave behind in the Middle East.

If you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question, please click here and press send.