RESTORING THE BALANCE A Middle East Strategy for the Next President By Richard N. Haass, Martin Indyk and others

For years, a debate raged among Middle East analysts on how connected the many conflicts in the region were. One side argued, in essence, that all roads led to Jerusalem. Solve the core problem — the Israeli-Palestinian dispute — and much of the tension elsewhere would dissipate. The other side countered that the Sunni-Shia split in Iraq, the revolutionary fervor in Iran, the sectarian stew in Lebanon and the sclerotic authoritarianism of Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia would be little affected by any deal over Palestine. Each issue required its own approach.

The debate is not over, but there is an emerging consensus for a third way. All the roads that used to lead to Jerusalem now lead to Tehran. Meet the Iranian challenge, it is said, and most everything else falls into place — Iraq (where Iran meddles with the Shia majority), Syria (with which it is closely allied), Lebanon (where it has vast influence over Hezbollah) and Palestine (where it equips and trains Hamas and Islamic Jihad). Through Tehran, every one of the major concerns in the region is connected to nearly every other one. Because of Tehran none can be solved in isolation. And if Iran goes nuclear, everything becomes hugely more problematic.