Bush's Middle East tour

The most powerful in the world, the American president, is touring the Middle East, and the international media is reporting, analysing and repeating every aspect of his trip.

To cynics like myself, Bush might appear somewhat "contradictory": he discusses peace with the Palestinians and Israelis but threatens Iran, he's preaches democracy but is praises Arab autocratic regimes (and calls them moderates), he talks about freedom but calls the occupation of Iraq "liberation", he says the US deeply cares for Lebanon but he supported Israel when they mercelessly bombed Lebanon, he offers aid to some countries but starves the Palestinians in Gaza, he denies Iran the right to have nuclear technology but encourages the Arabs to have it, and he says he wants peace in the Middle East but sells weapons to the Arabs (moderates, I mean). Paradoxical?

Clearly Bush had a good time, based on what we see on TV. In the Gulf ,he was shown handling falcons, dancing with sword, and threatening Iran (must be his favorite pastime). Iran, however, wouldn't be too worried. In a recent interview with Aljazeera, former Iranian defense minister Ali Shamkhani smiled mockingly when he was asked about US threats to attack Iran, he simply replied with an Iraqi proverb, "He who is drowns in the river (can't swim), would he venture into the sea". President Bush is in his last few months as a president, he knows Iran can make or brake his 'surge' strategy in Iraq, that won't be good for the republicans running for presidency. Besides, the CIA's recent report on Iran didn't do him much favor, and Russia and China won't accept an attack on Iran, they've interests there. There's nothing he can do to Iran except to use 'strong words'.

No peace deal in Annapolis but ...

Today begins the much hipped Annapolis Middle East conference meeting, widely attended but also widely expected to yield nothing but smiles and handshakes. The level of attendance is impressive; the Isrealis, Palestinians, Syrians and a host of other Arab and European diplomats will all be there. However the three main leaders who can really effect the outcome of this meeting, namely presidents Bush and Abbas and PM Olmert, are sitting ducks unable to take any giant steps towards peace (or anything else for that matter). By their admission, the Israelis and Palestinians haven't made any progress in the last few months towards resolving the major hurdles of settlements, right of return, borders and security. Therefore, there's nothing of substance to be expected from this meeting in terms of resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, except a committment to discuss these issues (as always).

There are however two important issues the meeting could help in resolving. The meeting can help is calming down the rising Syrian-Israeli tensions after Israel bombed sites in Syria few months ago. The Syrians have proved resilient in the face of American and Arab efforts to isolate them and they've played their cards right in Iraq and Lebanon. But Syria remains venerable. Syria has time and again reached out to the United states but their efforts weren't well received. Syria didn't want to be seen as desperate, so they demanded Golan heights to be included in the agenda as a condition to attend the meeting, and it was added. US, Israel (and Saudi) are keen on separating Syria from Iran, will they use this summit to do so? I doubt it but they just might.

The other major issue is the current crisis in Lebanon. America tried in the past few years to create a New Middle East and used Lebanon as an experiment. US supported the Sunni government against the pro-Syria camp but this move has backfired after the Shia pulled out of the government. US also supported Isreal's bombing of Lebanon last year which didn't sit well with most Lebanese. Now, America wants a pro-US president but it isn't going to get that, so the only way out of this crisis is to reach some type of comprise with Syria. Will this American administration finally change it's ways, of bullying, and reach a comprise with Syria?

Iraq: four years on

Though I follow Iraq closely, I try not to write about it because there are great Iraqi bloggers out there like Healing Iraq and Baghdad burning who have been doing an amazing job reporting and analyzing what's happening in Iraq for the benefit of all those interested. But four years on; hundreds of thousand of Iraqi lives lost and millions fled the country. Two links from BBC might shed some light on the current situation in Iraq and how are the Iraqis feeling about it.

Middle East fears broken Iraq: neighboring governments are terrified of the mayhem in Iraq.

More than a million refugees from Iraq are in Syria, around a million more in Jordan and almost two million have been displaced inside Iraq.

The war between Shia and Sunni Muslims in Iraq terrifies people.

In Saudi Arabia last month a Shia engineer told me how worried his community had been during Ashura, the annual commemoration of the death of their martyr Hussein, the grandson of the prophet Mohammed.

"It's simple," he said. "Some of the Sunnis, the extremists, regard us as infidels. We're terribly worried that what's happening in Iraq could happen here."

When you travel around the Middle East and ask people about how the war in Iraq has affected them you get a combination of regret, anger and trepidation.

Last week I visited a senior Saudi security official, a general. I asked him whether the invasion by America, Britain and their friends four years ago had made Iraq into a recruiting sergeant for Islamist extremists.

He said it had, and explained.

"It inspires these people," he said. "Some of them think it is their duty to go and perform jihad in Iraq. They think they are supporting the Muslims in Iraq and actually protecting the Islamic civilisation and culture in Iraq."

Iraq Poll 2007 - with graphics: the poll reflects how much has the situation deteriorated since 2003.

Only in Morocco ...

The King pardons 33,000 prisoners as part of a celebration of the birth of his daughter ... justice prevails.

A miracle healer claims to cure HIV, cancer and every other disease there is. Such "healers" pop-up every now and then, in the Muslim world. Morocco has 40% illiteracy rate.

Torbi el Mekki, the man being hailed as the miracle healer of Skhirat, a village about 30km south of the capital, Rabat, says he can cure any disease from HIV/Aids to cancer.

When pilgrims reach the front of the long line, they are ushered forward by his assistants.

It is a very quick process: Mr Mekki shakes their hands; touches their bottle of water or bag of sugar - which he says will cure them of all their ills - and blesses them as they go past.

"I do this in the name of God. I do not do it for money," he says dismissing suggestions that he is a charlatan.

"If I wanted to do it for money I would gain billions every day. But I don't need money because I am already rich from land that I inherited."

Some people say he makes money out of the sugar and water that they have to buy.

The story-teller in Marrakesh, a fascinating man with a dying trade, Moulay Mohammed has been practicing his art for over 45 years. Unfortunately, people are glued to their TV sets and the young aren't interested in becoming story-tellers but Moualy remains optimistic.

I found Moulay Mohammed, a bearded man with a few missing teeth, sitting in the square in his grey jellabah surrounded by a circle of onlookers. He is 71 and has been a story-teller for 45 years.

He used to come as a boy and listen to the old men in the square tell their stories and he was so entranced by them that he became one himself.

He says he knows most of the Old Testament and all of A Thousand and One Nights.

According to legend, to prevent her murderous husband King Shahryar from killing her, the Persian Queen Scheherazade told a different story every night for 1001 nights.

Moulay Mohammed is like a modern day Scheherazade: he tells tales of sultans, thieves, wise men and fools, he speaks of mystics, genies, viziers and belly dancers.

Moulay Mohammed told me it is not just what he says that counts but how he says it.

Unsettling Iran

The pending conflict between Iran and US has been making headlines, even more than before, in the past few weeks. Aircraft carriers moving into the Gulf, troop surges, hundreds of Iranians arrested in Iraq and the nuclear standoff had everyone speculating an imminent, inevitable US strike against Iran. Other say, an Israeli strike more likely. But of course everyone knows it isn't that easy, even for the Bush administration.

It has surfaced that US, along with Arab Sunni states afraid of Iranian influence, is supporting separatist movements to destabilize the Iranian regime. A large portion of Iran isn't Persian, there are Arabs in the south-west, Baluchis in the south-east, Kurds in west and Azeris in the north-west, these ethnic groups make up more than 40 percent of the population in Iran, only the Azeris are Shia. None of these are adequately represented in the government and are treated as second class citizens (apart from Azeris again). In the past two years the number of attacks on Iranian security have increased.

So far the situation isn't that worrying for Iran but if the attacks increase and the US, along with Sunni states, decide to push this, it could be disastrous for Iran. Arabs are also becoming more vocal in demanding more rights for Arab-Sunni minority in Iran.

Settling scores

Palestinian infighting continues despite Mecca agreement, the reason? the powerful families in Gaza - some Fatah, some Hamas - are settling scores and revenging for their dead sons prior to the agreement. Both parties, Fatah and Hamas, have little control over these families and it isn't threatening - so far - the peace agreement but it shows how fragile the Palestinian society has become. Some even suggest that these families are revenging the killing of family members during the first Intifada, where more a thousand Palestinian were accused of collaborating with the Israel and executed.

The Future of Democracy in Middle East

The Middle East is known for conflict, oil, periodic US invasions (recently), and, of course, the never-ending debate about democracy—with little, if any, progress to show for it. After the invasion of Iraq, it became clear that the Bush administration was serious about promoting democracy, which unsettled Arab regimes significantly; they could be next if they did not act quickly. These efforts were soon put to the test in Egypt and Palestine, yielding some interesting results.

In Egypt, the banned Islamic Brotherhood won almost 100 seats in parliament despite facing imprisonment, torture, and relentless government pressure. In Palestine, Hamas won the election—an election supervised by the UN—as the people of Palestine voted against the corruption of Fatah.

It became clear that the major political force in the Arab world—long suppressed by the regimes—was the Islamic parties. These groups were more organized, better educated, and had strong grassroots support. Unsurprisingly, this did not sit well with the West. Many in the West view all Islamic parties and groups as enemies, regardless of their ideology or actions. Consequently, the debate shifted to whether democracy is even desirable for the Middle East. It seems—at least in the US—that this viewpoint is gaining traction among neoconservative policymakers and academics. Perhaps the US will now speak less of democracy in the Middle East.