A long article published in Ha’aretz by the former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy is very much worth reading. He makes three noteworthy points. The first is that he fears the Bush doctrine may push Saudi Arabia not towards a liberal democracy but towards a fundamentalist regime. In itself this is hardly a new point; and Israelis (with the exception of the newly departed Natan Sharansky) are endemically reluctant to believe that any Arabs are capable of democratic impulses. But Halevy pushes it one stage further. Apart from making the notable claim that the first President Bush stopped short of taking Baghdad in Gulf War 1 for fear of provoking just such an uprising in Saudi (so much for the ‘turkey-shoot’ popular revulsion theory) he surmises that, if such a ‘terrifying scenario’ comes to pass, the Americans will dramatically escalate their presence in the Middle East:

‘Few observers of the Middle East scene are actually taking a good hard look at the situation in Saudi Arabia and examining coolly the terrifying scenarios, one of which might ensue. Some believe that there is a real danger that extremist religious figures will seize power in Saudi Arabia and establish an "Al-Qaida state" in Riyadh. Others note that the national identification of large numbers of the country's population with the Saudi entity is feeble and that their main attachment is tribal or local-regional. Thus, a revolutionary situation might cause the disintegration of the state and the creation of parallel regimes in various regions of the kingdom.

’In a visit to the United States two weeks ago, I was told by several well-informed observers that should one of the more severe scenarios come to pass, the United States will have no choice but to deepen its presence in the Middle East. To that end, it will have to renew the draft, to ensure that there are enough forces to deal with developing situations in countries like Saudi Arabia.’

Of course, this has always been the risk — that encouraging democratic forces might produce some very alarming results. But I still hold to the view that — whatever nasty shocks there may be in the medium term, and there will undoubtedly be many — the human impulse to be free from tyranny and to prosper is universal, that this is why democracies do not start aggressive wars, and that among cultures where people have known no other state of being than cowering under one tyrannical strong man after another — including the mullahs — the spectacle of a free society in their midst releases the most lethal stranglehold of all: the belief that it cannot be done. That, of course, is why Iraq is so crucial and why the forces of darkness are sparing no effort to try to prevent it from becoming that free society. That is why Halevy is probably right to say that the Americans are in the Middle East for the very long haul.

Halevy’s second point is a surprising one. He thinks that Iran is being contained:

‘The international siege of Iran has lately become tighter and international opinion on the subject is, unusually, being led by the unlikely trio of Britain, France and Germany, with the public support of the United States. From many points of view, this is the most fascinating and significant experiment taking place today, as it is obvious that Iran is trying to extricate itself from this international pressure and is using various modes of deception to conceal the truth and trick those that are negotiating with it over its nuclear program. Iran cannot, ostensibly, allow itself to lose in this struggle, but at the same time the European leaders cannot allow themselves to be duped and be perceived as the village idiots. In any event, the United States will not follow in Europe's wake if it tries to escape to the fringes. Israel, for its part, could not hope for a better combination of players and circumstances in the political campaign that is under way in relation to Iran's nuclear project.

’The campaign against that project is taking place in regional conditions that are not convenient for Iran: Its Syrian partner is being led by a leader who is not very smart; Hezbollah, its forward arm in Lebanon, is under Security Council pressure to disarm; and the American military presence to the west in Iraq and to the east in Afghanistan is heightening the danger of regional isolation that Iran has long feared. On the other hand, of course, Iran is benefiting from the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, which forced Tehran to agree to a cease-fire following their eight-year war (1980-1988), which Iraq launched in September 1980. However, the consolation Iran felt at Saddam's fall is fading as it becomes clear to Tehran that the Shi'ite majority that holds power in Baghdad does not intend to defer to it.

’In the light of the accumulated weight of all the developments cited above, it is possible that the favorable surprise of the years ahead will be nothing less than the containment of Iran and the neutralization of the danger it poses to Israel - without Israel's having to consider whether to cope alone in the face of what it justly construes as the potential of a genuine existential threat.’

One hesitates to take issue with such an analyst, but his assumption that ‘European leaders cannot allow themselves to be duped and be perceived as the village idiots’ does not strike me as the most plausible assertion I have ever heard.

His third point is perhaps the most alarming. He claims that President Bush is committed to the road map and to pushing Israel in directions inimical to its security — with which Ariel Sharon is meekly going along. While noting that the road map indeed represents a fundamental departure from the Bush doctrine — as enunciated in the President’s speech shortly before he plunged down this path —he does not offer any explanation why the President has veered so wildly off his own course. There is only a hint that there are people in a hurry here — Bush to establish a Palestinian state before he leaves office in three years’ time, Sharon to leave his imprint on history.

But they are surely not the only people with an eye firmly on the clock. All abu Mazen has to do is make diplomatic noises, show willing — and wait for the American electoral cycle and the ineluctable process of human aging to shake the lethal kaleidoscope once again.