There is a great imbalance in the politics and diplomacy of the intensifying conflict in the Middle East. The longer the war launched by Israel against Lebanon continues, the more Iran is blamed by Israeli and United States leaders for controlling Hizbullah and determining its actions. Yet Iran remains marginal to political efforts to resolve the conflict.
The US does not have direct relations with Tehran, leaving that task to European and other powers. As the wider regional consequences of the war become more clear this makes less and less sense. Iran's leaders face a grave choice about their stance towards peace and order in the Middle East. They should be fully engaged in the search for it so that they are properly involved in decisions about the consequences of their actions .
Although it is not an Arab state, Iran can plausibly be presented as the major beneficiary of this short war. It has diverted attention from the negotiating problem Iran faces over its nuclear programme. The rockets used by Hizbullah demonstrate Iran's strategic range and capacity to intervene. In addition, Hizbullah's growing popularity throughout the region will bolster the position of its major Shia sponsor, not least on the streets of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, whose traditional Sunni leaders are Iran's principal rivals for regional influence. All this comes on top of the boost Iran has received from the outcome of the US-led intervention in Iraq.
This is the political and strategic context within which the United Nations Security Council this week passed a resolution demanding that Iran cease all nuclear enrichment-related and reprocessing activities by August 31st. Otherwise, legally-binding economic or diplomatic sanctions will be sought, stopping short of the use of force. Iran has undertaken to respond in detail by August 22nd to the package of incentives for co-operation on this issue put forward by the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany.
Iranian leaders are divided on the nuclear issue - between radicals who insist on their sovereign right to develop nuclear energy and weapons and pragmatists who recognise the need for compromise if their country is to develop and prosper. There are similar divisions over whether Israel has a right to exist and whether to support a two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Lebanon crisis highlights the urgent need to engage with Iran so as to test which of these positions it supports. This is emphasised by European leaders who insist Iran and its ally Syria be involved in negotiations over a Security Council resolution on Lebanon. They do not accept the Bush administration's apparent assumption, which it shares with Israeli leaders, that Hizbullah is a mere proxy for Iran. It is high time that Iran's pragmatic wing reciprocated by making it clear that it is willing to accept responsibility for regional peace and order and is ready to engage constructively for those ends.