The Middle East is currently undergoing a struggle of the titans - Islamic radicalism, with its broad popular base, versus the conservative power-holding elites. The victory of the former over the West's foster children, the corrupt and tyrannical regimes, might reflect democratic justice - but to the same extent, it could lead the Middle East to fall into a new kind of religious Nasserism, burying Israel's chances for an agreement with the Arab world.

The conservative regimes' defeat could be the prologue to a general conflagration that would jeopardize even the cold peace with Egypt and Jordan. Islamic democracies, which are currently the region's only realistic alternative to secular dictatorships, will always be anti-West and hostile to an agreement with Israel.

The "moderate" regimes' cries of distress are taking various forms. One is the plea for a comprehensive Israeli-Arab settlement, which would help remove or moderate the hysteria of the masses and the jihad culture, which threaten the stability of the region's key countries.

	Advertisement

Only on very rare occasions in the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict - if at all - have there been so many signs indicating such asymmetry in the Arab world's desire for an agreement, versus the refusal of Israel and its ally, the United States. The all-Arab (Saudi Arabian) peace initiative, joined by even Syria and Libya; Syrian President Bashar Assad's repeated calls for an agreement; Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' entreaties for diplomatic meetings; and the Arab League's appeals to the UN Security Council to adopt the Saudi Arabian peace plan form an unprecedented revolution in the pan-Arab position on peace with Israel.

I have never believed in a warm peace between us and the Arab world, or in the dreams of a surprisingly friendly integration of Israel into the "new Middle East." Peace, if it comes, will be cold, perhaps even tense, for many years. The Arab regimes' desire for an agreement with Israel is not a call to recognize the moral legitimacy of the Jewish state, but rather an appeal for a diplomatic border arrangement. It is the answer to a political need, a strategic necessity. The issue is not putting an end to an ideological conflict with the Zionist movement, but rather agreeing on a border. The issue is peace, not love.

From Israel's point of view, this cold peace is a worthy strategic objective. The processes taking place in the region are not working to our benefit. The American presence in Iraq has a direct negative effect on Israel, since it backs the concept that terror and resistance can challenge mighty powers, and that in asymmetric wars, superior force does not offer an advantage. Both Hezbollah and Hamas have learned this lesson well.

President Bush's Iraqi adventure has damaged American power in the Middle East. The United States will now have to consider not only powers like Russia, China and Europe, but also regional forces like Iran and Syria, with whom it will be forced to speak sooner or later. The solution in Iraq, after all, will be regional. We are talking not only about an American withdrawal from Iraq, but also about a serious erosion in U.S. aspirations to be the predominant power in the Middle East. And this will have implications for Israel, too.

The voices in Israel that are calling to halt negotiations in order to concentrate on the approaching war with Iran are embracing a well-known formula. Just like it did in the Cold War struggle against communism, and in the post-September 11 conflict with Islamic terrorism, the call - so convenient for a defined political camp - always comes to stop dealing with this marginal issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to handle truly existential issues.

Iran is indeed an existential problem. But the solution will not be found in a war of Gog and Magog with Iran. The solution lies in neutralizing the Arab-Israeli conflict, which Iran is interested in perpetuating to defend its regional ambitions. By doing so, it prevents the pan-Arab effort from focusing on its genuine enemy, Iran. The Iranian threat is indeed one of the Arab states' reasons for enthusiasm about reaching an agreement with Israel.

If we do not take advantage of this narrow window of opportunity for a comprehensive agreement, and we freeze everything to combat the Iranian bomb, we are likely to find ourselves facing the tanks of an Iranian-Shi'ite empire that stretches from Iraq to Syria. Israel must be ready to provide answers to the dangers piling up in front of it, including the nuclearization of Iran. But before we rush to bomb the nuclear facilities of a rising Shi'ite power, whose operative results are in no way clear, it is worth our while to build a diplomatic barrier against the dangerous regional expansion of the ayatollahs' regime.

For this purpose, we have allies in the region - the Sunni Arab states - who prayed for our victory in the campaign against Hezbollah, the Iranian proxy in Lebanon. But this covert alliance cannot hold up for the long term against the Israeli-Arab conflict, on which Iran is eagerly surfing. The solution to this conflict is the cornerstone for a moderate alliance in the Middle East.