By virtue of its sheer power, especially after military successes in Iraq, the United States could exercise a free hand in the Middle East. Indeed, Americans who espouse go-it-alone-ism would happily stamp “Made in U.S.A.” on the world order emerging from the war in Iraq.

Such attitudes smack of arrogance, smugness and shortsightedness, though, and would ill serve this nation during the long term. The major challenges of the Middle East — in Iraq, on the Israeli-Palestinian front and in the war against terrorism — require more creativity, resources and will than even a superpower has at its disposal.

It’s worth recalling an earlier moment in American history, at the close of World War II, when this nation surveyed the world from a similar position of dominance. Washington declined to bully the planet, opting instead to leverage its strength through regional and international organizations.

That approach remains compelling. A community of shared values and goals serves all key U.S. interests. Also, allies matter — in war and in peace. As much as Americans cherish their unparalleled power, invulnerability and omniscience elude them. And history shows that power ultimately is fleeting, not immutable. In addition, a nation of great traditions, principles and ideals should err on the side of moral suasion, not endeavor to impose its will.

My intent is not to advocate intense multilateralism along the lines of the European Union. America has never tilted in that direction and need not do so today. Nor am I suggesting that the United States abandon its right to take independent action, military or otherwise. However, ample middle ground stretches between multilateralism and go-it-alone-ism.

The overriding goal in Iraq should be the Iraqi people, who suffer from decades of dictatorial rule and the consequences of three major wars. Only by securing peace, feeding the hungry, tending the ill and injured, sheltering the displaced and homeless, rebuilding the infrastructure, restoring services, stimulating the economy, promoting stable, democratic and representative government, and providing hope can one aim for an enduring, constructive, post-Saddam Hussein system. That outcome would serve U.S. interests.

Toward that end, it would be a travesty to block the United Nations and others that refused to bless the U.S.-led intervention from a substantive role in the reconstruction and reform of Iraq.

Similarly, it would be imprudent to bar certain nations and groups from participating in Middle East peace prospects that spring from the war, as would critics of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s upcoming diplomatic trip to the region. The naysayers, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, protest the anticipated involvement of the European Union, the United Nations and Russia. Gingrich has even accused Powell of impaired diplomacy, undermining President Bush and pursuing policies that would “throw away the fruits of hard-won victory in Iraq” — charges that the White House properly has rejected.

Some of the biggest breakthroughs in the history of peacemaking in the Middle East happened during the 1990s, as a direct result of solid efforts by those same countries and organizations. Furthermore, Powell has unique credibility, experience, integrity, legitimacy and standing to lead a new initiative to smooth over Israeli-Palestinian differences — a far greater danger to the long-term stability of the region than Saddam Hussein was.

Finally, the United States needs the rest of the world to counter global terrorism, which traces many roots — including al-Qaida — to the Middle East. Although not identical to the old communist threat, al-Qaida also is a transnational, revolutionary, ideological force with a long-term agenda and the desire to promote its own version of regime change worldwide. U.S. go-it-alone-ism would promote tensions and risk hampering the war against terrorism.

A more sensible approach for the United States in the evolving world order would follow the advice of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who advocates a diplomatic posture based on the widest possible international consensus.

By John C. Bersia, who won a Pulitzer Prize in editorial writing for the Orlando Sentinel in 2000, is also the special assistant to the president for global perspectives and a professor at the University of Central Florida. His e-mail address is jbersia@orlandosentinel.com.