Hassan Nafaa looks up Condoleezza Rice's sleeve and discovers nothing new Condoleezza Rice is on her third visit to the region since the onset of Israel's assault against Lebanon when the US was not only Israel's wholehearted supporter but an accomplice, shoring up the diplomatic front in the battle to shape a "new" Middle East more conducive to Washington's imperialist ambitions. The US secretary of state may have a reputation for being the most moderate senior official in today's White House but she was one of the fiercest supporters of the war. The background to Rice's current visit is very different from that prevailing during her previous two trips when Israel was still decimating southern Lebanon in an attempt to destroy Hizbullah and deliver a debilitating blow to what Washington perceives as obstructive forces in the region. However, the Israeli war machine came up against the heroic Lebanese resistance, the unity of the Lebanese people and the solidarity of the Arab and Muslim peoples with Lebanon and as a result failed to accomplish any of its military objectives. The Americans, in turn, failed to achieve their political objectives and Rice, mid-wife in chief of the new Middle East that was to be born from the rubble of Lebanon, never did hear the cries of the Middle Eastern infant she was expecting to deliver. True, Rice did manage to deliver UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which gave Israeli political advantages that it had not secured military on the ground. The resolution did not, however, invoke Article 7 of the UN Charter and did not confer upon the international forces that later poured into Lebanon the authority to forcefully disarm Hizbullah. Yet the US did succeed in packing 1701 with a number of political landmines that could be triggered at any moment. Now the American diplomatic machine is on the move again, even as the Israeli war machine -- for the time being, at least -- has ground to a halt, and everyone is wondering what Rice has up her sleeve this time. Some observers believe the Middle East has already begun to change in the direction that Washington wants and that US diplomacy is essentially consolidating the road Israel began to pave in Lebanon. According to this camp Rice's visit has only one purpose -- "to rally the forces of moderation in the region behind the US in its fight against the forces of extremism." Other observers, while agreeing that the Middle East is changing, argue that it is the opposite direction to what Washington desires. Rice, they say, is here on a damage limitation exercise following the Israeli debacle in Lebanon and her aim is to seek ways to revive a peace process that the Arabs had officially declared dead. They believe that the US has begun to re-evaluate its policy on the Middle East, recognising that it will ultimately have to abandon certain ambitions that it now realise are beyond its capabilities. It seems unlikely, under the present administration, that the US has changed to the extent that it is willing to forego some of its ambitions. Far more convincing is the view that Rice is here to pursue diplomatically what Israel failed to accomplish militarily. Nor is there any inherent conflict between the declared and undeclared aims of this visit. The latter, in any case, are no secret; Rice revealed them herself in the meetings she held, shortly before her departure, with the editorial staff of major US newspapers such as The New York Times and the Washington Post. The Middle East, she told these newspapers, is sharply divided between moderates and extremists and the conflict between them is going to be tough, complex and protracted. It will be impossible to confront the forces of extremism, such as Hamas, Jihad and Hizbullah, which are supported by Iran -- in her opinion a bastion of extremism -- without the help of moderate Arab states. She had no difficulty in identifying these "moderate Arab states". They were Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, hopefully to be supplemented by the "emerging democracies, such as Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories". From her statements to the press before she left it is relatively simple to deduce what she intends to market during her trip. She will say the US is now convinced that a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is the key to stability in the Middle East and the first step towards curbing terrorism. The forces of extremism, foremost among which is Iran, are the main reason why a settlement has not yet been reached. These forces must, therefore, be contained if talks between Israel and moderate Palestinians are to begin in earnest, and will have to be defeated if such talks are to stand a chance of success. During her visit, Rice will try to mould these ideas into a concrete plan to be carried out on the ground and that takes on board several lessons learned from the war against Lebanon. Lesson one is that there are limits to the use of military force and that using Israel as the US's military arm tends to work for the forces of extremism rather than against them. Lesson two is that the era of military alliances in the region is over and now is the time for political alliances. Lesson three is that countries that lack a strong central authority, such as Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, are most vulnerable to extremists and terrorists. These countries are, therefore, the major testing ground for the political alliance against extremism and terror. We can, therefore, expect Rice to press for a coalition between Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Its purpose will be to support the forces of moderation in the theatre of confrontation -- Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq -- on the grounds that only by eliminating the forces of extremism will it be possible to weaken the Syrian-Iranian alliance, the foremost obstacle to a peace settlement that will usher in a new, moderate and stable Middle East. Rice may even openly ask the three members of the alliance to support the opponents of Hizbullah in Lebanon, of Hamas and Jihad in Palestine and of the armed resistance in Iraq, and to promote a strong, moderate central authority in these countries. By a "strong, moderate central authority" she means, of course, an authority willing and capable of making and sustaining peace with Israel, on the one hand, and of helping to isolate the Syrian and Iranian regimes, preparatory to their being toppled, on the other. It is not difficult to perceive how this thinking reflects the true dilemma of US policy in the region. Washington is clearly still unable to fathom the real causes of the growth of extremism. They cannot understand that America's blind and unremitting pro-Israeli bias has worked to undermine the forces of moderation. The call for a US-led coalition of moderate Arab states is laden with traps. Few will buy the idea that Iran and its allies pose a greater threat to regional security than Israel. The notional alliance also rests on a dangerously explosive ploy, promoting the view that the Sunni Arab world is under threat from Shia influence. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria have always led the Arab world through it severest crises and replacing Syria with Jordan will hardly strengthen collective Arab leadership. Finally, the plan is certain to aggravate divisions within the Arab world, in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq, which could well be pushed to the brink of civil war. The weeks leading up to Rice's visit saw several developments unlikely to be a coincidence. Following his return from New York and his meeting with Bush, Mahmoud Abbas announced that any Palestinian national unity government must recognise Israel and all past agreements with Israel. Hamas's refusal to do so he then characterised as reneging on previous commitments and soon afterwards Palestinian security forces staged a violent demonstration in demand of the back pay they are owed. In Lebanon some parties have begun a vociferous campaign for the disarmament of Hizbullah. The escalation comes at a particularly sensitive time for Lebanon and could see domestic political tensions escalate to a dangerous point. In Israeli the press "leaked" reports of secret contacts between Israel and Saudi Arabia suggesting that Israel could change its mind about the Arab initiative, while in Egypt it was announced that the country was seeking to revive its nuclear energy programme, news that was received favourably by the US ambassador. These far from innocuous developments fall in neatly with American plans to polarise the region. Neither the Lebanese nor the Arabs have anything to gain by disarming Hizbullah in the absence of a strong Lebanese government or a comprehensive settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Palestinians and the Arabs have nothing to gain by compelling Hamas to recognise Israel in advance of negotiations. Nor do the Arabs have anything to gain by helping to jeopardise the national unity of Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. It is Israeli and American occupation of Arab territory, not Iran, that poses the greatest danger to the Arab world.
