Not that Iranian help will perform miracles. Even if Tehran were to genuinely assist the U.S. and the government in Baghdad in stabilizing and pacifying Iraq, al Qaeda and former Ba'athist forces could still cause serious trouble.

Iran, on the other hand, has broader interests. It wishes to extend the dialogue with the U.S. to other issues: its nuclear program, Afghanistan, the U.S. presence in the Gulf. And above all, Iran is interested in securing a U.S. guarantee that it will not be attacked. For Iran the talks at the ambassadorial level in Baghdad are only the beginning, the launch of a longer and deeper engagement. If the U.S. believes it can positively engage Iran in Iraq, i.e. stopping Iran from arming Shiite militias and reducing the involvement of Iranian agents in Iraq, without giving anything in return, it is wrong. Iran will not settle for less than a wider agreement in which Iraq is only one part of the equation. In return for helping the U.S. in Iraq, Iran will demand to gain political and economic dividends. The question is: is the Bush administration ready to pay them?

I believe it is in the interest of the U.S. (and of Western Europe as well as the whole Middle East) too to try to reach a larger agreement with Iran. An agreement which will defuse the nuclear crisis (and reduce the risk of war), pave the way for regional security covering Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon and the Gulf, thus isolating radical Islamists. U.S. interests lie in a Shiite-Sunni reconciliation rather than confrontation.