Feb. 18, 12:19 EDT thestar.com

In `new' Middle East, Saddam isn't the enemy

WILL THE ELECTIONS of Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush make much of a difference to the Middle East? Yes, clearly. Not merely by virtue of who they are, how they got there and what they represent. But also because of the changed political landscape in America, in Israel, particularly the occupied territories, and across the Arab world.

Cast your mind back to the Gulf War waged by George Bush Sr., his secretary of defence, Dick Cheney, and his commander-in-chief, Colin Powell.

On Aug. 6, 1990, six days after the invasion of Kuwait, there was a historic meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Cheney had gone there with Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, Paul Wolfowitz, under-secretary of defence, and senior American intelligence operatives, armed with satellite pictures, to convince the Saudis that they would be Saddam Hussein's next target unless they invited an American-led force to not only forestall the invasion but right the wrong done to Kuwait.

There are differing accounts of that secret rendezvous in the summer palace of King Fahd. But most chroniclers agree on one point - that Crown Prince Abdullah, unlike the king, interjected sharply about the size and shape of the military intervention, and pointedly asked Cheney: If the Americans do come, when would they leave?

As soon as the job is done, he was told.

With the king ill, crown prince now runs the Saudi kingdom

``I hope so,'' he had said famously, in what proved to be a prescient reading not only of domestic dissent to the presence of American soldiers on Saudi soil but also of deep divisions across the Muslim world which would not heal for nearly a decade.

Fahd has since taken ill and handed over the running of the kingdom to Abdullah.

Bush Jr. is president, Cheney his vice-president, Powell his secretary of state, and Wolfowitz his number two at the Pentagon.

That they ain't the Clinton-Gore-Albright crowd is obvious enough. Also that Sharon is no Ehud Barak.

What is less understood is that Abdullah is not Fahd. And that Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the most pro-Israeli Arab state, have so soured on the peace process they see little difference between Barak and Sharon - a point partly underscored by the Labor leader's decision to join the Likud leader's cabinet.

Just as there is a different dynamic at work in Washington and in Jerusalem, and also between them, there is a new attitude in Riyadh and Cairo as well, and therefore between Washington and the Arab world.

More than Fahd, Abdullah is in tune with Saudi and Arab public sentiment, which is running heavily against America and Israel.

First, the anti-Saddam coalition collapsed long ago, due mainly to the continuation of the economic sanctions on Iraq that are not hurting him one bit but killing Iraqi civilians by the hundreds of thousands. The policy is now widely viewed as proof of America's malevolence toward Muslims, at the very least of a highly selective morality that evinces so little humanity for such a horrendous man-made tragedy.

Second, the excessive and disproportionate use of Israeli force against the Palestinians in the current intifada, and collective punishments against them, and the American indifference to such violations of human rights, have angered Arabs everywhere.

As much as Saudi Arabia depends on American security, Abdullah has made no secret of his dismay.

In October, he warned Barak against threatened retaliation against Lebanon and Syria for the actions of the Hezbollah: ``Nobody should think that Saudi Arabia and the whole Arab and Islamic nation would just watch with their hands tied.''

Not that the Arabs can do much militarily, or may even want to do so. But since the Saudis are not given to overheated rhetoric, their words do carry weight.

Two weeks ago, with Abdullah in attendance, the assistant deputy commander of Abdullah's National Guard vilified Israel is terms not heard for some years.

The Saudis, and the Egyptians, also stiffened Yasser Arafat's back in resisting Bill Clinton's last-minute pressures to sign away Arab sovereignty over Jerusalem, and the Palestinians' right of return as guaranteed by the United Nations.

The Arab Middle East was visibly relieved at the defeat of Al Gore, who was backed by an overwhelming number of Jewish American voters, according to exit polls. It was pleased with the ascension of Bush, who was solidly supported by America's emerging Muslim and Arab electorate, including Arab Christians.

The polarized voting in the presidential election has been painted in frightening terms by one camp, and touted in triumphant tones by the other. It should be seen for what it is - just another electoral divide and a new phase in an ever-evolving democracy that encourages newer citizens and groups to engage in the political process.

Also, the Bush administration is not about to give up on America's long-standing friendship with, and commitment to, Israel. Nor are the Bushies blindly pro-Arab. They only like certain kinds of Arabs. The oil barons of Texas and the boys from Bechtel Corp. make fine partners with the oil sheiks whose enemies, like Saddam, they consider as their own.

The new complication is that the sheiks no longer feel that threatened by Saddam; they see little point in resuming air strikes against him, as Bush has; in fact, they oppose any action on Iraq except relieving the suffering of the Iraqi civilians. Plus, they may begin demanding some political return for their business.

Haroon Siddiqui is The Star's editorial page editor emeritus. His column appears Thursday and Sunday. His e-mail address is hsiddiq@thestar.ca.