There has been much talk lately behind the long hallways of power in the U.S. capital of an impending move toward peace and reconciliation in the Middle East. To become a reality the many pieces that make up the Middle East's complicated geopolitical jigsaw puzzle have to come together at the right time to fit in correctly.

The trouble in previous failed attempts at solving the Middle East imbroglio may be blamed – at least partially – on the fact that to date each piece of the puzzle was tackled as though it were a separate conflict sharing no relation to the original dispute.

Indeed, while some of the clashes unfolding in the Middle East today may have become "autonomous" from their original disputes — the question of Palestine, for instance – a quick study of their origins will reveal how most, if not all current disputes in the Middle East today are closely intertwined.

Is there one piece of the jigsaw puzzle that stands out as crucial?

Most analysts, diplomats and politicians would be quick to reply that the crux of the problem impeding peace in the Middle East today continues to be the dispute between Palestinians and Israelis over land and water rights - a conflict that has been eating away at the region for the last 60 years.

During the Cold War, Moscow and Soviet bloc countries funneled hundreds of millions of dollars and provided military assistance to a number of Palestinian organizations.

With the demise of communism the role of financing the resolution was relayed to Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran; countries that have seen their revenues increased exponentially thanks to the ever-rising oil prices.

The Palestinian-Israeli dispute has spawned wars between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Among them is Syria, which lost the Golan Heights to Israel in the June 1967 war. And in that same war Egypt saw the entire Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip occupied by Israel, while Jordan found itself, after the war, without the West Bank and the eastern portion of Jerusalem.

So what originally began as a dispute involving Palestinian Arabs and newly arrived Jewish immigrants, turned into a major conflagration involving the newly founded State of Israel, with Egypt, Syria, Jordan and to a lesser degree, Lebanon.

However, in the name of Arab unity – a largely utopist concept – much of the rest of the Arab world jumped into the fray to varying degrees; the Arab-Israeli conflict has now included all 22 members of the Arab League and Israel.

One must not forget the role played by the United States, the European countries, the Soviet Union and now more recently, Iran – a non-Arab player – which seems to have become more royalist than the king.

The dispute between Syria and Israel over the Golan Heights, still under Israeli occupation, has evolved into a separate crisis, one which has become disassociated from the core Israeli-Palestinian issue.

If left unsolved, the dispute over the Golan Heights has the potential to derail any future peace talks between Palestinians and Israel.

What worries Damascus is that once the crux of the Israeli-Palestinian problem is solved and a peace deal is reached, Western negotiators – primarily the United States – will be so exhausted after its delivery that they will once again place the Golan dossier on the back burner. This is why Damascus is reluctant to back any partial agreement.

Another "fall-out" of the Middle East crisis is the political impasse currently plaguing Lebanon and threatening its stability. Lebanon is one of the few, if not the only trump card Syria holds that gives it room to negotiate in any future peace venture.

This explains recent reports that Syria is willing to distance itself from Iran, but only if the United States steps in to replace the void Damascus would feel from breaking away from Tehran.

However with fewer than 200 days left in office for the George W. Bush administration, it is highly unlikely that the U.S. president will undertake a 180 degree turn in his policy of giving Syria the cold shoulder.

While Bush has repeatedly said he would like to see the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel before the end of his presidency, the chatter emanating along those long hallways of power in Washington will have to await the arrival of the next president.

That is the optimist's view.

The pessimist's perspective could well be that the chatter being heard are rumors of war as the administration uses its last days in office to address the Iranian nuclear dossier.

For everyone's sake let's hope the optimists prevail.