Last drive to save Bush's legacy

With a few weeks left for the current American administration before a new president assumes office in January, there's a rush to get many open files to a certain close in anyway possible. Even with the economic crisis across the world being a priority, the current administration knows for sure that it's got little to do and the problem will be deferred to the next administration. So, remnants of George W. Bush's expansionist policies - especially in the Middle East - need a bit of clearance lest the incoming President is more inward focussing.

Issues

In Afghanistan, US allies at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) are asked to step up their military contribution and Saudi Arabia is asked to mediate between Taliban and the Kabul government. In Iraq, a security deal to secure permanent American military presence in the country is being forced through quickly. The Palestinian-Israeli settlement efforts are not much of a priority - that's why Israel remembered the Arab Peace Initiative more than six years after Saudi Arabia launched it in Beirut.

Though Iran is still a hot issue for the US, the fact that Russia is now at odds with the West is making it difficult to pursue a solution - and military option seems to be out of equation as of now.

So what can this last drive achieve in the weeks up to late January, and what can regional authorities make of it?

As for Iraq, the Arab world looks indifferently towards the security deal - most Iraqis see it violating the country's sovereignty - as US military presence is already prevalent in the region. Iran is the key player there, opposing the deal and relying on its allies within Iraq's new political elite. Iranian manoeuvring in Iraq will not stop the deal, but its amendment and then concluding it will give the two parties - Iran and US - a pretext to claim political victory. For Bush's administration, it will have something to hand over to the next President about the presence in Iraq and curbing Iran's influence in the country. For Iran, it will claim that the future of Iraq cannot be decided without its interests being taken into consideration.

Iraq was the main foreign venture by Bush, and the focus now is to do something - anything - before leaving office. Mideast peace comes low down the list of the urgent files; anyway that was a problem for more than half a century and moving it in the last few years would have been enough achievement. Israel could be on the verge of an early election to choose a new government that would definitely work with the next US President, relieving the current administration of its vow to fulfil the two-state solution before going.

Regional parties will be left to themselves to find a way towards a settlement, as the next American President would have enough internal problems at hand to look abroad - let alone to a complicated issue like Arab-Israeli struggle. It seems that this message is already there and the concerned parties are starting to move accordingly.

Israel is now talking about the Arab Peace Initiative that proposes normal relations between Israel and all Arab countries in return for Israeli withdrawal from land occupied in 1967. A push to accelerate bilateral negotiations with Syria, and may be Lebanon, could follow. Another catalyst for regionally-driven settlement could be - from an American point of view - a possible Arab-Israeli alliance against Iran. Though this looks far-fetched, many signs point to that direction.

That might be good for Israel, and consistent with a new American administration heavily involved in internal issues, but how good is it for the Arab world? It is too difficult to tell as the main moderate states in the region did not manage yet to fully deprive active groups from the power of resistance. Feverish efforts to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon are underway, but with no results yet. Parallel efforts to get Palestinian militant Hamas within a moderate Palestinian leadership to solicit a solution with Israel is part of the national reconciliation process.

The problem with all this is that Israel will accept what suits its interests and Arab regimes would agree on historical solution without a popular legacy - even fringe groups are not representative of the Arab population, despite their popularity compared to the regimes. Palestinian people would be the most to suffer if a hasty solution is reached in this last rush to close files, followed may be by others in less degree.

If Arab countries are eager to get their central regional issue sorted in this last drive, they need to consult their peoples before they sign any agreements.

Dr Ahmad Mustafa is a London-based Arab writer.