Earlier this month, Iranian speedboats taunted U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz, off the coast of Iran, reaffirming the need to stop Iran’s nuclear program.

However, the current U.S. national security strategy toward Iran is containment, which potentially could harm the U.S.’s broader goals in the region and further upset the already unstable balance of power.

President George W. Bush has called Iran the “leading state sponsor of terror,” and the fact that Iran allegedly is pursuing nuclear weapons is discomforting.

According to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. has pursued many different avenues in an attempt to contain or end the potential threat Iran poses. The sanctions by the U.S. have slowed foreign investment, but these sanctions do not appear to have slowed Iran’s nuclear program.

In December 2007, an assessment by the National Intelligence Estimate, which represents a consensus of all 16 American spy agencies, reported that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, according to the New York Times. This contradicts a statement made more than two years ago that Iran was working toward building a nuclear bomb.

Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns says the U.S.’s containment strategy toward Iran, specifically focuses on financial sanctions to cut Iran out of the international market.

The current strategy maintains that the strengthening of surrounding Arab nations will prevent any further efforts of Iranian expansion or aggression. It also holds that by deflating Tehran’s influence on Hamas, the Palestinian-Israeli peace process will be able to move forward.

As an international affairs student and member of the Roosevelt Institution, I believe the U.S. must change its containment policy and focus on destabilizing Iran’s growing influence through diplomatic rewards and punishments by opening Iran up through multilateral talks, compromise and incentives.

Rewards and punishments are the only viable option on the nuclear issue. By imposing new sanctions and military threats, the U.S. could harden the Iranian stance, forcing Tehran into a situation where conflict is the only way out.

After toppling the Iraqi army in 2003, the U.S. is the only force in the region that can contend with the Iranian military.

Currently, the U.S. is set on beefing up surrounding Arab states to prevent Iran’s influence from spreading. However, this could lead to a reliance on states with weak armies, where billion dollar arms deals would not help.

The U.S. must work toward a regional security net in which the cost of engaging Iran would not fall solely on us.

Iran does not wish to dominate the Middle East through Islamic militancy, nor does it want nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map.

Israel is a state with nuclear weapons, and many Arab states, including Iran, view Israel as a threat. Iran wants what any other state wants – security.

Engaging Iran instead of continuing a containment policy will be beneficial to the U.S.

Washington must find a situation in which diplomatic relations with Iran will lead to addressing Iran’s security concerns while, at the same time, Iran will recognizes ours.

Opening relations with Iran through a combination of diplomatic rewards and punishments will give Iran a chance to legitimize its power and look toward cooperation instead of conflict to achieve its goals.

Doing so could enable the U.S. to navigate a hairy situation and prevent war with another Middle Eastern nation.

- Adam Smith is a junior from Macon majoring in international affairs. He is a member of the Roosevelt Institution.