If Rice could fly

Once again, America is barking up the wrong tree. US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice has stated that one of the main aims of her tour of the Middle East is to fire up moderate Muslims in the region.

"We are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all the people."

Her words are ironic, considering that two of her more significant pitstops are Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I may be wrong, but that's probably why the democratic line is being liberally coated in fluff and spin. Instead, she emphasizes more on forces of moderation, a label into which Saudi Arabia and Egypt might be dropped into without uncomfortable questions being asked.

Rice knows, of course, that if the popular vote is ever served in those two contries, Israel's place in that part of the world would hang in a precarious balance. Hamas' totally expected win in Palestinian elections is a case in point.

America might be the global evangelist for freedom and liberties, but when it comes to the Middle East, the carrot that is democracy attracts some rather unsavory characters. Successive US administrations have tolerated political repression in those countries because its mechanisms also help crack down on extremists who are anti-western by default.

What Rice fails to understand in a spectacular fashion is that places like Saudi Arabia are moderate only insomuch as they serve American geo-political interests. I think it is extremely unlikely, for example, to find even the most indifferent Arab Muslim siding with Israel's continued occupation over large and fertile portions of the West Bank. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been too long-drawn and painful for anyone to carry an objective view of things. The land has become this generation's new idol for monotheists who pride themselves over their uncompromising belief in one God.

But that does not even begin to address the perennial blister that is Iran. The US' continued appeasement of Saudi Arabia, in spite of the vicious anti-western rhetoric coming out from the kingdom's pulpits, must be seen against the context of the version of Islam that dominates not only the regime's religious authorities, but also extremist groups the world over.

Such groups nurture a habit of intense hatred against all Shia. The hostility is a strategic asset that is useful at a time when Iran- the center of the Shi'i sect- appears to be in ascendant form. Worse, Israel's foolish adventure into Lebanon has only managed to enhance Iran's prestige. What better counterweight is there than to enlist the ideological aid of another group that already demonizes the Shi'ias?

It seems that the US has not entirely shaken off its penchant for interfering in the Middle East, pitting one so-called tribe against the other, so that its wider interests of ensuring a cheap supply of oil continues to be served. In this, George Bush broke his promise never again to appease Arab dictators.

While the US rightly fears an arms-race developing in that volatile region, it should perhaps first revise its inconsistent policy on Israel's own formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, attempting to exploit a particular brand of Islam that totally opposes Shi'ism is short-sighted and possibly destructive, especially since the government that is emerging in Iraq shares with Iran the "unfortunate" distinction of being predominantly Shia.

Did the US not cultivate the same kind of "force" in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion? Did the al-Qaida not rise from the ashes of that force?

Stop choosing the easy way out, Rice.