For all their hype, the 79 recommendations made by the Iraq Study Group (ISG) last week amount to a middle-of-the-road stance instead of a bold new direction. The panel paid lip service to the idea of broader diplomacy, even calling for a regional conference. But its thinking is still too narrow and US-centric. US foreign policy in the Middle East can — and must —do better. It can begin by looking at a bigger map. The violence in Iraq is situated within — and partly connected to — broader tensions endemic to the massive crescent that stretches from Turkey in the northwest, to Sudan and Somalia in the southwest, and to India in the east. This arc poses major risks to international peace and stability. Yet America’s piece-by-piece strategy that sees each crisis in isolation has failed to bring stability or clarity to this regional puzzle. The inability of US policy to recognise the interrelatedness of issues affecting the region has actually fanned the flames of violence there, creating a world profoundly less secure than the one that existed even 10 years ago.

To its credit, the ISG acknowledged that it is impossible to look at Iraq without looking at the broader region. But it did not grapple sufficiently with the question of “why” other regional actors should get involved with helping Iraq. Nor did it tackle squarely the failures of current US regional policy. On Iraq, for instance, the debate has been about whether the US stays or leaves; on Lebanon, the focus is on disarming Hizbullah; on Iran, it is nuclear technology; in Somalia, it is whether US-backed warlords can get the upper hand over Islamist militias. Confronting these problems individually, as if they could be compartmentalised, won’t produce the desired outcome — and it will create new challenges elsewhere. The Iraq war is a prime example.These conflicts are connected, not just geographically, but also economically, politically, and demographically. That’s why a holistic approach is so urgently needed. Specifically, it’s time for the US to craft a “grand bargain” for this region. Such a bargain would comprise a comprehensive agreement or set of agreements with all nations in this arc. It will require an unprecedented multilateral approach. And the US will need to work more closely with key partners outside and inside the region.

A grand bargain could build on many shared interests, collectively addressing the demographic, economic, and security challenges within the region itself and with its external neighbours. This would promote a unique partnership modelled more on the US-European relationship than on past colonial methodologies. America’s diplomatic structure must be beefed up to secure these interrelated agreements. It’s an investment that would pay substantial dividends. All the countries in the arc — not to mention the US — would benefit from a change in the status quo and therefore be willing to compromise to gain security. A radical course correction could secure lasting, peaceful change in the Near East and Africa. — The Christian Science Monitor