Washington is unhappy about the "antagonistic, occasionally offensive terms" with which Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad castigated the US over the Iraq War.

Despite US ambassador Marie T Huhtala's warning of worsening bilateral relations, it is assured that this castigation, which our premier characterised as "speaking the truth" will not stop at the 13th Non-Aligned Movement Summit, but will continue o­nto the G8 Summit in Evian, France and beyond.

Now, what - 'regime change' in Malaysia? There is no need. It will change o­n Dr Mahathir's own accord in five months' time. Nevertheless, the berating will continue o­n from the OIC chair.

Given the supine and often servile Arab allies that the US has in the Middle East, the US must realise that Mahathir's rhetoric is calculated to enhance his personal stature and prospects as leader and spokesperson for the Muslim world.

Whether this will be a good or bad thing for the US is for it to determine after weighing the following deeper considerations:

Washington is irritated by Mahathir's allegations that September 11 was "collateral damage" and that "the US was pursuing a war against Islam". It is true that there is some exaggeration for purposes of effect, but shorn of hypocrisy, the core is not far from the truth.

The raison d'etre for the Iraq War has always been to rid Saddam Hussein of the weapons of mass destruction. But long after Baghdad's fall, the US has not found any WMD. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has now admitted that WMDs are not there.

Yet Rumsfeld had said before that the war was not about oil. So if it was not for oil, and it is now doubtful that it was the imminent threat of WMD, then what was the primary reason?

US officials now exert pressure o­n Syria and Iran. This is after Afghanistan and Iraq. What do reasonable minds think of this pattern after September 11?

It appears to be a campaign not against Islam in general - which is a religion of peace - but a phenomenon called 'political Islam' whose adherents advance their political and ideological objectives of defending and spreading their faith, as they interpret it, through militant means.

In forward self-defence, the US has to take out radical regimes in the Arab world that support the infrastructure and network of such groups. Taken in this restricted sense, Dr Mahathir is right that it is a war against Islam - in the sense that from the US' viewpoint, the phenomenon of 'political Islam' - dubbed euphemistically as war against terror.

Whilst the US thinks that a show of invincible force is the best way to overwhelm Islamic militancy, Dr Mahathir thought otherwise that it will o­nly change moderate Muslims to radical o­nes, and hence not an answer to international terrorism.

To counter international extremism requires balance, and a degree of accommodation, persuasion, diplomacy and firmness. By leading the Muslim world o­n the world stage, Mahathir probably thought he could add another feather to the cap by helping mitigate the Muslim world's intractable problem of adapting to modernity and globalisation, and coping in peace with Western civilisation.

Whether or not the premier's approach is right, I make no judgement, but it is apparent that his rhetoric is perceived necessary at this moment to rally the Muslim world to make him a leader o­n international stage.

It also scores point in the domestic political front against PAS' claims to religious leadership in an environment of creeping conservatism, beginning from the 1970s when Islam entered the public domain.

This Islamisation process - resulting lately to proclamation of Malaysia being already an Islamic state - is in a large part due to Mahathir's policies to counter the Middle East influence beginning from the time of Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian Revolution.

The o­nly way Dr Mahathir knows how to counter extremism is through a balancing act.

On o­ne hand, he provides enough freedom to attract Western companies and trade and to enhance secular economic development in tandem with globalisation and the information age.

On the other hand, he tries to parry and sometimes compete with the demands and influence of powerful Islamic fundamentalists not o­nly in the opposition, but also throughout the civil service, educational and law enforcement establishments.

The US must understand this balancing act. It has brought Malaysia to what it is today, which even the US admits that Malaysia is the most progressive and developed Muslim country.

Our trade policies, joint military exercises and regional cooperation o­n terrorism reflect the pragmatic side of this balance.

This balancing act is not without problems even as it impacts o­n our domestic situation. The problem of rising religious extremism is not just in PAS' success in pushing through hudud (Islamic) law in Kelantan and Terengganu.

Rising conservatism and overzealous interpretation and enforcement of religious laws pose a continuous challenge to the Mahathir's progressive vision of Islam. According to Sisters in Islam, when Dr Mahathir criticises overzealous enforcement, he "receives little back-up from political figures who usually echo his thoughts and exhortations faster than the speed of sound".

The US officials should understand that in such a cultural milieu Mahathir would need to balance pragmatic policies with sufficient anti-West rhetoric to bolster his international stature in the Muslim world. This in turn bolsters domestic political support to moderate local extremists.

Who knows, he may be an important ally o­n the international stage to counter terrorism, and he can o­nly be o­ne if he could persuade the Muslim world. Obviously he cannot gain credibility to speak o­n its behalf without first having dared to stand up against and criticise the US along more extreme lines.