If you are having trouble making sense of the United States' latest moves in the Middle East, you are not alone. In the rush to salvage something positive from the wreckage of its once grandiose plans to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East, the Bush administration is pursuing policies that are both risky and contradictory.

On the one hand, it has broken America's 28-year taboo on talking with Iran and is urgently seeking that country's cooperation in stabilizing its neighbor, Iraq. Two rounds of American-Iranian talks have already been held in Baghdad, and there are signs of progress. The two countries agreed to set up a security committee, and further meetings are expected. Iran's Shia Muslim leaders have considerable influence in Iraq and can help or hinder America's efforts to extricate itself from an increasingly messy war.

On the other hand, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls Iran the greatest threat to America in the Middle East. The Bush administration has not only been beating the war drums and threatening Iran economically and militarily. It is now offering billions of dollars in arms to Israel and Iran's rivals – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf states. Saudi Arabia, which sees itself as the leader of the Sunni Muslim Arab world, is nervous about the prospect of an American deal with Iran that would consolidate the power of the Shia Muslims in Iraq.

The highly sophisticated weapons Mr. Bush is offering the Saudis are clearly a bribe to keep them happy. The Israelis get even more weapons to keep them quiet as well, and to get the controversial arms package through the American Congress. The rest of the arms go to other Sunni Muslim countries that fear regional dominance by Iran.

Under the circumstances, the Iranians could be excused for doubting whether they can trust America's intentions. Should they lend the United States a helping hand in Iraq, or wait until the Bush administration (or its successor) gives in to rising anti-war sentiment at home and withdraws its troops? Or will the hawks win the debate in Washington and try to bankrupt Iran like President Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union in the arms race?

If it is sometimes hard to read the Bush administration's intentions, it is even harder to read Iran's because the country has so many power groups in its governing structures. Iran has both hawks and pragmatists, and they are also pursuing policies that are risky and contradictory (such as aiding insurgents in Iraq while talking with the US). But one thing is clear: the drumbeats from Washington have gotten the attention of the Iranian military.

Reports from Tehran say that in recent months, Iran's army has lowered its standards for new soldiers and sharply reduced the number of draft exemptions for military age males. Men once considered overweight or unfit for other reasons are now being called up. Those who fail to serve face heavy penalties. Men cannot get a passport, buy a car or a house, get a government job or even a telephone line, without a certificate of military service. General Moussa Kamali, who runs the conscription program for the army, recently told a reporter, “Right now, the number of young men trying to escape military service is growing. That's an inexcusable crime!”

There is in fact a growing controversy in Iran over military service. Some of the leaders who governed the country during the war with Iraq (1980-1988) are now being criticized for helping their sons escape military service in that costly conflict.
Some, like former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is still a leading figure in Iran, sent their sons abroad during the war.

But to get back to my original point, both Iran and the United States are now pursuing policies that the other side finds hard to read. That makes the situation all the more dangerous. Under the circumstances, I would venture that the last thing the Middle East tinderbox needs now - is more weapons.