In focus: The long goodbye A lame duck president is determined to stick to his script, writes Galal Nassar In his goodbye tour of the region George Bush reiterated his familiar mantra. The common enemy, he insisted, is terror and terrorism. Security, he reminded us, will depend on our ability to stop the "terrorists" from undermining "democracy". The same old tune played to a weary audience and the applause was muted. With only one year left in office the US president is viewed in his own country, and in Israel, as a lame duck. On the eve of his visit to Israel the newspaper Yediot Aharonot quoted Israel's intelligence report for 2008 as saying that the US administration was too weak to kick-start the peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The US has backed down on military action against Iran and is having trouble rallying international support for sanctions over Tehran's nuclear programme, the paper added. Mahmoud Abbas also knows that Bush is a lame duck. Fully aware of Israel's resolve to build more settlements, Abbas leaked news that he intended to resign his post for medical reasons. The move was apparently intended to force Bush to pressure Ehud Olmert to start early talks. Before arriving in the region Bush admitted that he didn't expect a Palestinian state to be created before the end of his term in office, though he voiced the hope that the Palestinians would stop the "terrorists" who are killing "innocent people to stop the progress of democracy". Once again Bush was playing his plaintive old tune, harping on about terror and democracy. But what terror is he referring to? And who exactly are the terrorists? The answer is obvious. Terrorists are those who resist US occupation and US policy in the region. Bush lumps together the opponents of his policy and calls them terrorists. His regional tour was apparently aimed at putting together a "security plan" to confront Iran despite the fact that the White House Press Secretary Dana Perino denied this was one of the reasons for his trip. How can anyone in their right mind regard Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Qaeda as equal threats, let alone terrorists as the US president seems always to insist? In answer to this question the US administration has come up with some interesting sub divisions. For example, Iran is not a terrorist state but the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist outfit. Syria is not a terrorist state but a rogue state that supports terror. Al-Qaeda is definitely terrorist but Hizbullah is somewhere in between -- it is not a terrorist group when it engages in electoral politics but is so when it leads resistance against Israel. Hamas, on the other hand, is evil when it wins elections, and definitely terrorist when it takes up resistance in Gaza. Islamic Jihad is a terrorist group only for so long as it cooperates with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Do Arab countries, particularly those included in Bush's tour, agree with the US assessment? Arab countries, with the exception of Syria, object to Tehran's links with Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been publicly trying to steer Syria away from Iran. Most Arab countries agree that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation and have cooperated with the US in fighting Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is not just fighting America but all Arab and Islamic governments. Recently it has launched attacks in Algeria, Morocco and Mauritania and claimed to be involved in operations in occupied Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. It makes sense for Arab countries to take sides with the US against Al-Qaeda. To take the Americans' side against Iran and Syria is an altogether different matter, for three main reasons: First, Iran and Syria cannot be labelled terrorist. Even Washington avoids accusing them of terror though it wants them to cut their links with resistance groups -- the groups that Washington views as terrorist. Currently the Bush administration is trying to sort things out with both Iran and Syria. The US knows that it cannot get out of Iraq without normalising its relations with both. The two countries could both be asked to contribute troops if and when an Islamic deterrence force is formed to replace withdrawing US troops. So why would Arab countries antagonise Iran and Syria at a time when the US is trying to get on their good side? Second, Arab neighbours of Iran and Syria fear that a US political and security campaign, covert or overt, against either may result in war. And they don't want to be dragged into a proxy war. Third, a conflict with Iran, or Syria, may foment disturbances, if not civil war, in Arab countries. Most Arabs view Israel, not Iran and Syria, as the main threat in the region. And yet President Bush made a point of visiting Israel first in his tour and pledging his support for the "Jewishness" of the state, a point which many in this region consider an affront to Islam and Muslims. The US president may have just given fuel to anti-Israeli fanaticism in the region. Most Arab countries see terror as a localised problem, not an international threat, and definitely not one worth waging war over as the US would have them belief. Most Arabs are just as sick and tired of Bush and his administration as they are of Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahri.
