I read a fair number of news stories and headlines parsing Iran's activities and interests in the Iraq war. Certainly, we hear a lot from the White House and intelligence services about Iran supplying IED components, backing rogue militias and generally doing everything possible to disrupt prospects for a workable Iraqi government and stable Iraqi politics.

I don't doubt that much of this is true. But, writes Fred Kaplan in Slate, keep in mind that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki controls a Shiite militia/army that shares more in common with Iran's goals than does the Mahdi militia under Muqtada Sadr. In other words, the U.S. and Iran are on the same side of the fighting happening in southern Iraq, particularly Basra, not by design or decision but simply because disparate interests sometimes align politically. What does this mean for the U.S.? Says Kaplan:

One thing is for sure: It is time to start talking with the Iranians. First, they control too many of the pieces for us not to engage them diplomatically. Second, it turns out that we do have some common interests (for instance, crushing Sadr in Basra). Might it be possible to leverage those interests to induce cooperation, or extract concessions, in other realms where we have differences? Third, Maliki clearly has no qualms about talking with the Iranians when it suits his purposes. Why should we?

Finally, there is so much to discuss with Iran that unless we're at war with each other (and nobody has suggested that we are), it's stupid--unfathomably self-destructive--not to make a serious effort.