OP-ED: "Two Alliances: U.S.-Sunni versus U.S.-Shiite," by Edward Luttwak, Wall Street Journal, 10 January 2006, p.A17.

Great piece by Luttwak exploring how sometimes (in Iraq) we need to be pro-Shiia and not be afraid of making Sunni states nervous and sometimes (in Lebanon vis-a-vis Syria) we need to be pro-Sunni and not worry about making Shiia leaders (Syria, Iran) nervous.

To me, that comes a lot closer to playing the board instead of having the board play you and--in effect--keeping the Big Bang alive (which Luttwak suggests is happening).

That's a key point we often forget: just because Iraq goes south doesn't mean the Big Bang dies. The BB is about shaking up existing orders and making others possible, and to me, that includes being realistic about what comes next, which is Shiia revivalism, to use Nasr's term.

That's a helluva useful thing to put into play. Scary to some, but--again--let's be realistic about two things: 1) Tom Jefferson ain't the next guy who'll show up when you topple the typical dictator (that's just too big a leap) and 2) that development gets us back in the business of competing directly with Osama (we both want to destabilize corrupt authoritarian regimes in the region, we just want different outcomes).

Now, where Luttwak doesn't go is where I'm dying to go: play Iran more as a scary balancer. The more we dialogue (none yet) with Iran on Iraq, the more we freak the Saudis and the easier it becomes to splinter Syria because we're basically playing prisoner's dilemma with both Damascus and Iran--as in, who's gonna bite first because we'll go harder on the other next.

Beyond that, I also advocate talking direct to Iran on the nukes issues, playing them like a USSR on missiles by linking carrots of connectivity with greater assurances that we'll not invade, thus giving rising pragmatists and moderates inside Iran something to reach for besides perceived humiliation in caving in to the Americans. Ahmadinejad's just been "thumped" on the mid-term elections, with Rafsanjani clearly resurrecting. We need to exploit that dynamic to our own, soft-kill ends.

But instead, we play the Big Bang 3-D chess game on just one level--hell, mostly just one square called Baghdad!

And that's too bad. A serious Henry Kissinger-James Baker type would be shuttling like mad, playing angle off angle. Instead we have talking-point Condi and just-say-no Cheney letting all the sacrifice for, and early momentum of, the Big Bang go largely to waste.

Again, it's a fundamental lack of strategic imagination.