It was heartening to see presidential hopeful Barack Obama suggest a dialogue with Iran, if Iraq must be stabilised. These comments followed media speculation of a meeting between former President Jimmy Carter and Hamas leader, Khaled Mishaal, in Syria. Ignored so far, and due to sufficient reasons, by the Bush administration, exigencies in the Middle East today dictate the construction of a new foreign policy prescription and engage with both hostile regimes, Iran and Hamas, if it is to deliver a modicum of stability in the region.

It's a truism by now that the Islamic state is responsible for much of chaos that has befallen Iraq since Saddam Hussein's capitulation. Although Iran assisted America in Afghanistan in 2002 and, then, subsequently proved helpful during Operation Iraqi Freedom in early 2003, the tenuous partnership was ephemeral, as the radicals in the government - on both sides, in Tehran, the hardliners opposed any relations with the 'Great Satan', while the neocons in the White House contemplated a regime change in Iran - caused stillborn hopes of an enduring partnership.

Today, there are two primary reasons for Iran's interference in Iraq: it is well known that by keeping American troops busy there, it ensures that Bush will be encumbered to wage a two-pronged war, the second being in Iranian theatre. Most importantly, Iran is informing the world that it is, even if Washington won't coronate it, the regional hegemon. What America fails to realize is that Iran is proud of its culture and religious purity, and is screaming out to be taken seriously and to, above all, be dealt with, with respect. This, is also a motive behind Iran's nuclearisation, and will eventually lead to an imminent arsenal of nuclear weapons, despite all assurances to the contrary.

Iran recently displayed its primacy in the region by organizing President Ahmadinejad's visit to Baghdad last month, despite American protests. This one gesture has several ramifications: it has shown Iran has the ability to play the game both ways, as it chooses. By supporting Shiite militia groups, Tehran can destroy the tenuous peace in Iraq and spoil any gains expedited by the surge, if America plays tough. Conversely, Iran now also has the capacity to use carrots instead of sticks, if need be, by befriending Iraq and engaging in meaningful diplomacy.

So, as far as Obama asserts, the road to peace in Baghdad, indeed, passes through Tehran. Yet, having accepted this, it must be mentioned that Obama is slightly naïve to believe in the success of a rapprochement, or even the beginning of a constructive dialogue, at least at this stage. At the centre of this uneasy relationship are three intractable issues, namely: Iran's nuclear progress, its support for terrorism, and its opposition to any Arab-Israel peace deal. The first and the last issue are particularly refractory, since they are both sine qua non to relations with this administration. Moreover, on the Iranian side, the hardliners will employ all means to scupper any progress. Hillary Clinton has wisely stayed away from announcing audacious schemes, having seen her husband spurned by Mohammad Khatami's reformist government in the late 1990s. At the same time, with sufficient inducement from Washington, there could be hope-the Iranian leadership is known to be pragmatic and there may be opportunities for ad hoc cooperation.

Hamas is the second elephant in the living room, as far as America is concerned. Like it or not, the armed-group that controls Gaza must be engaged if President Bush's vision to see a two-state solution, of Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security, before his term ends, will bear fruition. As many commentators observe, it's a fallacy to think that peace will be in perpetuity, if Hamas and, therefore, Gazans are sequestered from any successful deal between President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert. Instantly, with any measured progress, as is common, rocket-fire out of Gaza, targeting Israel, will escalate and derail the process. Washington must, much to Israel's outrage, and despite Hamas' adherence to violence, involve it in all future negotiations. There were chances of a truce between Hamas and Fatah a few weeks ago, but that was soon undermined by Vice-President Dick Cheney, who was touring the region.

Engaging with Tehran and Hamas will, indeed, need some vision and bold leadership on the part of any American leader. If success, through peace in the region, must be achieved, Washington will need to jettison arrogance and alter its approaches. The elephants in the living room must be addressed.