Heikal sees testing times ahead for America and Israel in the "new Middle East", writes Gamal Nkrumah "I am optimistic, from a historical standpoint," told the Qatar-based pan-Arab satellite television station Al-Jazeera. Heikal was in his element. He rhapsodised in his grand old style of the quintessential Arab nationalist. He demonstrated once again a Messiah-like ability to communicate an uplifting vision for the Arab world. One reason for hope, according to Heikal, is that the latest round of fighting in Lebanon shattered three myths. "First, it made a mockery of the American-Israeli security alliance in the region. Israel is incapable of fighting American wars by proxy," he told stunned presenter Jumana Numur, "Second, it shattered once and for all the myth of Israeli military invincibility. And, last but not least, it overturned theories about the local political scene in the countries of the region." The Arab world's foremost political writer said that the region is entering a new "dangerous and extremely complex phase". Heikal's exposé strongly resonated in the Arab world where US foreign policy is loathed. "Lebanon has emerged as the laboratory for the new dynamic forces in the region." By addressing rising fears about military escalation in the Middle East, Heikal derided the ineffectual response of Arab regimes. "What I can't understand is that they objected to Israel's aggression in Lebanon but never raised an eyebrow over how to halt the aggression," Heikal explained. "The Arab regimes have many options, and not just waging war." While his criticism concerned Arab regimes in general, he reserved special retribution for the official Egyptian position. "Why didn't Egypt cut off oil and gas supplies to Israel, for instance?" he wondered. "The war planted landmines in Lebanon -- political and confessional landmines. Lebanon deserves better from the Arabs. I am especially amazed at the Egyptian reaction. What did Egypt do but stand by idly as Lebanon was bombarded?" Heikal struck a chord in Arab public opinion. He stressed a shift in domestic political, regional and international priorities. In the near term, American foreign policy will be dominated by conjuring up face-saving mechanisms to rectify the international crisis over Israel's savage and fruitless aggression against innocent Lebanese civilian targets. With deadpan humour, Heikal prophesised an apocalypse of almost incomparable proportions. His prediction may sound quixotic, but it is plausible: "There will be much that Arab public opinion still wants to know. There are so many unanswered questions." Heikal has always presented his proposals as the right decision for the Arab world, and most of his viewers concur. Perhaps it is the manner in which he outlines his philosophy of genuinely seeking the best interests of the Arab world that convinces. The eventual Israeli departure from Lebanon was virtually inevitable. What happens next is of critical concern. "Unfortunately there is no consensus about how to improve matters," he said. Sometimes a long-term view helps reveal the big picture. Washington is at a loss. Tel-Aviv is too. The policy agenda has been pitched beyond the immediate chaos in the wake of the Israeli brutish aggression against Lebanon. "Perhaps the most revealing information to emerge from Heikal's encounter is Heikal's continued critical importance as the guru of Arab political dynamics," Mohamed El-Sayed Said, independent analyst at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, told Al-Ahram Weekly. "Further, Heikal has a tremendous analytical capability. His analysis of the current situation is second to none. He is persistent and systematic. And, even more importantly never rhetorical," Said added. "Heikal has a wide audience in Egypt and the Arab world. People understand that he has immense historical relevance. He has been the most prominent political writer and commentator in the Arab world since the 1940s. He was a close associate of the late president, Gamal Abdel-Nasser." "Have no illusions," Heikal warned. "Hizbullah is ready for combat." If these trends are taken to their logical conclusions, a new Middle East is indeed in the making. Meanwhile, the US administration is honing a strategy to begin putting its "vision of a new Middle East" into action. But how far can it go? Arab regimes cannot rehash the disastrous legacy of President George W Bush in the Middle East. The fragile foundations of the new Middle East envisioned by Bush simply cannot be. "There is a new Sykes-Picot in the region -- except that Israel and the United States replace Britain and France. There is both chaos and change in the region," Heikal extrapolated. "Lebanon has become both the sacrificial lamb and the bellwether of the region." The existential angst that has gripped the Arab world since the savage Israeli aggression in Lebanon is indication that there are new popular dynamics that are sidelining official viewpoints. There are signs of societal friction there as well. The most pro-Western regimes in the Arab world will be especially vulnerable. Islamists will become more self-confident and will project their own ideology onto Western notions such as democracy, freedom and the rule of law. If one looks at the region through American eyes, the Middle East is split along three axes: totalitarian, anti- American autocracies; friendly regimes attempting to institute democratic reforms (albeit half-heartedly); and a single viable and vibrant democracy, Israel. Nothing can be further from the truth. Yes, the region is replete with dictators who claim that they desire democratisation while retaining their grip on power. "The contest will be intense, with varying players," Heikal noted. According to Heikal, America and Israel will face an exquisite dilemma in the months, maybe years, to come. "America and Israel know that the Lebanese resistance has achieved so much momentum that it cannot now be defeated through the course of this decade." The trouble is that improving the conditions of life entails the strengthening of democracy across the region, with serious implications for the region's long-term outlook. Arab regimes now face a dilemma of their own. They have been left in no doubt that "redefining the Middle East" will be easier said than done. Finally, the dozens of brainstorming sessions and bickering among Arab leaderships embody the kind of "Punch and Judy" politics Heikal insists that Arab leaders must resist.
