The Iraq debacle has been overshadowing the Bush Presidency and the first casualty is the While House Chief of Staff Andy Card in a March 28 shake-up which may tiptoe even at the cabinet level. The shake-up has been brewing to recharge and reboot the Republican voter base in the November mid-term congressional election in which polls indicate a take over of the House of Representatives by the Democrats.

It all started after the 9/11 debacle and President George Bush's 2002 State of the Union address in which he had lumped Iran with the regimes of Iraq and North Korea in an indecorous "Axis of Evil" triangle of nations that were allegedly seeking weapons of mass destruction, sponsor terrorism, and repress their own citizens. Since then, the phrase has undergone some transformation as did the rationale for the invasion of Iraq.

With the Axis of Evil portrayal emerged the subtle doctrine of pre-emption against the perceived "evil" states or other evil empires. What followed next warrants no one's conjecture.

· Iraq was invaded by the US (March 20, 2003), Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003, Saddam was overthrown, and an insurgency waged war continues at this time seemingly with no discernible strategy for stabilizing Iraq and pulling out US troops.

· The year after Bush's speech, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Experts believe that North Korea now has enough plutonium to make half a dozen nuclear bombs.

· Iran may have perfected its uranium enrichment technology and fortified its resolve to process uranium enrichment domestically for its nuclear fuel supply.

· Saddam Hussein's repression and tyranny have been replaced by the nightmare of deaths and destructions of a persistent insurgency. Innocent Iraqis are dying weekly by the hundreds and American soldiers are dying alongside them.

Watching the current stance of insurgency, The Detroit News in its March 22 editorial commented: "Iraq has not become the beacon of democracy in a part of the world that sorely needs freedom's light. Rather, its future remains in doubt -- the odds are great that Iraq could ultimately fall to an even worse despotism than it knew during Saddam's reign of terror."

Even before the invasion of Iraq, Los Angeles Times in its October 17, 2002 editorial entitled: "Rebuilding Iraq: Japan is no model," wrote: "Democratization of Japan by the US after World War II worked because of General Douglas MacArthur's strategic decision to retain Hirohito on the throne and had all occupation reform directives come from the emperor. He did not replace the wartime Japanese government but kept it intact, only now taking orders from him."

Frustrated by slow progress or lack of it, President Bush, in an hour long press conference at the White House on March 21 affirmed: "US forces will remain in Iraq for years and it will be up to a future president to decide when to bring them all home."

The press conference was impelled by strings of polls showing less than 40 percent job approve of the Bush presidency and that a growing number no longer trust him. Bush blames the media for exaggerating the negatives from Iraq while ignoring accomplishments, whatever they may be.

Last month an Iraq Study Group, independent of the war planning team and the affairs of the presidency, was formed at the expediency of a small bipartisan lawmakers to examine the situation with renewed perspectives. These think tanks are entrusted with analyzing all dimensions of the noticeable impasse above the fog of politics and recommend to Congress ideas for resolution.

A more significant development is the last month's move for a US-Iran dialogue. Several Iraqi politicians, however, have expressed concerns over the proposed talks and argue that such a talk might become entrenched with the US-Iran nuclear dispute, opening up the potential for Iraq being expendable in any forthcoming accord between the two.

Although it is murky how much Iran could do to assist in quelling what is essentially a Sunni-led insurgency, a stable Iraq is much to the benefit of Iran and the entire region. Many believe that the dialogue may widen to encompass many thorny issues including Iran's much controversial nuclear dossier. Others suspect Tehran's dialogue with Washington as an attempt to deflect or sidetrack UN Security Council pressure over the nuclear tangle.

There is no hiding that Tehran has historical links with some of the main Shiite parties which have strong representation in Iraq's parliament and it is to Iran's vested interest to see a relatively strong, Shia-dominated government there. Besides, Iran openly expressed its business and economic interests (e.g. car manufacturing) in a stable Iraq. It certainly wants to see US forces withdrawn from Iraq but not before restoring order and stability. Iran realizes that a fragmented Iraq or an unrestrained civil war could open doors to insurgents to cross-over to Iran and stir up separatist movements in Iran's already squirmy Kurdistan region.

Many of us are optimistic of some positive outcomes from a dialogue between the two adversaries given both have high stakes in bringing stability in Iraq. Any demand for troop withdrawal by the US lawmakers and the Muslim leaders around the world is premature, if not self-serving. Such a move would be tantamount to a "cut and run" dastardly act for a lone superpower and equally irresponsible as the original invasion of Iraq. Withdrawal of US troops will explode the on-going controlled sectarian strife into a full scale civil war. That shouldn't be too difficult to grasp.

Despite mutual abhorrence and exchange of inflammatory rhetoric, neither Washington nor Tehran wants to see Iraq slide into a full blown civil war. Also neither wants Iraq to be under the tutelage of the other. In face to face meetings, the US wants to tell Iran what is right or wrong in their activities inside of Iraq. Tehran rejects US "bullying" and wanted to make US understand Iran's views. Although these rabble-rousing pre-dialogue contentious rhetoric are a sign of cynicism, both Washington and Tehran realize that adversity will only deepen if talks on Iraq prove a dialogue of the deaf.

Iran's condemnation of the 9/11 terrorists attacks and its token support for the US-led war in Afghanistan, once seemed by many as the beginning of a thawing to edge both sides closer, culminating in a much more wide-ranging development. All optimisms were spoiled by Bush's tetchy rhetoric directed at Iran. Washington must not spoil the prospect this time around.

The mess George Bush created has now become a quandary for the entire region. All neighbouring countries should get involved with the US and Iran and work as a team to restore sectarian harmony and stability in Iraq. The US should invite Syria in a tripartite dialogue. As reported in the March 27 issue of The Guardian, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani insists on Iraqi government representation in the talks and rightly so.

The 22 member Arab League summit in Khartoum on March 27 agreed only on a face saving pledge to open embassies in Iraq as soon as possible without specifying any time-frame.

Do not forget that the countries in the region, except Iran and Syria, had their overt acquiescence for US invasion of Iraq. Indeed, some of these countries allowed their airbases and sea ports to be used by the invading forces. In legal terms, they all are accessories to the Iraqi carnage being waged by the insurgency. Now, without pointing fingers at the US and guided by rectitude, they better team up to help Iraq stand on its own and send US troops back home -- but not prematurely, not before the mission is accomplished and rebuilding of Iraq is consummated.

Dr. Abdullah A. Dewan is Professor of Economics at Eastern Michigan University.