Man, the Middle East has been a busy place lately, and there are some major changes afoot. I'm going to have to make another trip over there before too long to recconoiter and figure out who the bad guys are these days. Some things are apparent however, and in my ongoing mission to promote international understanding, I've decided to provide Malaysiakini readers with a different (and correct) perspective that might not be readily available in the media here.

As I've mentioned in previous columns, I've noticed an interesting quality that the United States has which is analogous to the Black Hole. It seems that the US is so big and powerful that ordinarily reasonable people's thought processes are bent and distorted by its polarity, much like cosmic rays passing through the outskirts of the Black Hole's incredible gravitational field. Thus the end product is illusory, completely dissimilar from its appearance at its source.

This column is meant as an exploration into the realities of the region. I clearly have a bias, but it's a bias that most people should share. This piece is bound to cheese some people off; that's the fun of having a weekly column. I'm fully aware of the historical arguments that will occur to some readers, but in my opinion, one remembers the past, but does not let it control the future. Feel free to print this out and share it with your friends.

Let's make a list to sort out some of the confusion, shall we?

Iran: too much history

This is a sticky one, especially for the United States. Part of it has to do with the history of animosity that exists there, the humiliation the US suffered back in the late 70s, and the memory of the US support for the wicked Shah Pahlevi.

The other part has to do with the whole nuclear power imbroligio. The Iranians say that they are just developing peaceful nuclear capabilities to provide power for their ongoing development. They don't want to threaten anyone, meddle in anyone else's politics, or blow anyone up.

On the other hand, the Americans are suspicious that there is more going on than meets the eye. They maintain that you've got to watch the Iranians like a hawk. Who do you trust? Well, speaking as an American myself, I say no one. But under no circumstances should Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and so I'm inclined to give the US a little bit of latitude on this one (besides, the last thing anyone needs is for the Israelis to fly in and bomb the hell out of anything emitting roentgens).

There are numerous reasons for this. First of all, the old argument goes along these lines: "The US has over 10,000 warheads. Who are they to keep other countries from developing nukes for the sake of national security?" The answer to this is simple. It is certainly bad that the US has over 10,000 warheads; it's a problem that needs to be addressed somehow.

Proliferation, we learned in the 1960s and 1970s, is bad. But the answer to proliferation is not more proliferation. Will anyone be more secure if Iran has nukes? The answer is indisputably "no". Furthermore, one of the big problems with proliferation is the possibility of downwinder effects. For every facility that is created, for every detonation, the impact on the environment increases, and the potential for something to go horrible awry shoots up. Remember Chernobyl?

Accidents can also occur in the transport of nuclear materials, and this is one of the greatest dangers associated with terrorists. There are no safeguards. The construction of a crude nuclear weapon could turn into a catastrophe. Countries like Malaysia, which sits on one of the busiest shipping routes in the world, are especially vulnerable to these sorts of accidents.

No fissile material has ever been stolen from the United States, nor has any found its way into the hands of terrorists. The US spends millions upon millions of dollars a year to safeguard and maintain its nukes. Would Iran have the resources and political will to do the same? It's doubtful.

The last reason is closer to home for me. A common chant in the Iranian Parliament (Majlis) among Members of Parliament is "Death To America". Whether or not this is rhetorical, boasting, or just an old drinking song is beside the point; the leaders of the nation are calling for the destruction of my home and everything I know. In the language of international politics, it can only be perceived as a threat. Regardless of how you feel about the United States, if you observe for 100 years you will never hear members of Congress calling in chorus for the destruction of an entire country, an entire people, and a way of life.

Iraq: bad karma

Things are looking up here, at least slightly. There's still a long way to go, though. For the record, I was against this entire adventure, and still am. I don't agree with the philosophies that guided the decision to go to war. However, taking now, or any point in the last two years or so as a baseline, I believe that the US has an obligation to Iraq.

I also think that if the job is done properly, 10 or 15 years down the road people will remember the result, rather than the questionable reasoning under which the invasion was rationalised. This is not to say that the end justifies the means, I'm merely positing that a few years down the road the Iraqis will still have their freedom, but the difficulties that came with their liberation will only be a memory.

The recent election is in indication of the direction things are moving. Turnout was unexpectedly high, and things went fairly smoothly. People everywhere (except in the US, it seems) love to vote. I'm reminded of an experience in one of my previous jobs. I was over in Bangladesh to observe the pourasawa (municipal) elections, and was amazed to find, in the remotest corners of that country, women and men lined up hours before the polls opened to cast their votes. People love to choose their leaders.

Iraq is still an incredibly dangerous place, though. It's difficult for me to understand the rationalisations here, which usually assert that the killers are fighting against an occupation force, that the US is an oppressor, etcetera. The fact is that hundreds of innocents are being killed for no apparent reason. The good news for the US is that its soldiers are being targeted less in favor of softer civilian targets. This could be a sign of weakness on the part of the killers. It's certainly a sign of callous brutality.

Most people acquainted with the situation know that the US wants to leave Iraq. There is a great deal of political pressure at home to get the troops out. The operations in Iraq are also harming the military itself, as recruitment numbers are down and soldiers are having to serve extended and multiple tours. Thus the killers are creating a reason for the US to stay on and are delaying the eventual exit. It's nice to be optimistic about things, though. Sooner or later the Iraqi people will be so fed up with the violence that they will themselves expel or execute the killers.

Palestine-Israel: maybe?

Could we possibly be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel on this one? It's certainly something to hope for. At least, though, it looks like the second Intifada may be drawing to a close. The new Palestinian leadership seems willing to talk, and the US has reason to push the Israelis towards a settlement. All of the essential ingredients for peace are there; as for the sticking points, anything can be negotiated by parties actually looking for a solution. In this case, all the parties involved have the same ultimate goal, which is peace.

The issue here, though, is the viability of the Palestinian state. Hopefully the Israelis will bend over backwards to ensure that the geography of an independent Palestine is conducive to development. Recent developments and statements indicate that they may; they've revised the course of the huge barrier being constructed to fence in the Palestinians and they've shown themselves open to the idea of building infrastructural improvements in the West Bank.

Money shouldn't be a problem, as every country in the world with a spare buck will be stumbling over each other to donate money. The problem is going to be the management. I hope I'm wrong about this, but Palestine has the potential to become the Cambodia of the Middle East, with everyone throwing billions of dollars at it, but nobody really improving except the fortunes of a few people. I'm curious to see whether or not an eventual settlement affects the world's acceptance of Israel.

For example, Malaysia doesn't recognize the Jewish state, and there are no ties between the countries. It's a pity, too, because given the economies of the two countries there could probably be some fairly profitable partnerships. Anyway, this diplomatic ignorance stems from the desire to show solidarity with the oppressed Palestinians. Of course the new state is going to have a bumpy ride from the get go, and fingers will be pointed at Israel as a saboteur. But when all that fault-finding ends and when the Palestinians are reasonably stable, will Israel be recognized?

A Malaysian friend suggested to me that if the conflict ends, there is going to be trouble in Malaysia, because the Palestinian cause carries with it a lot of political capital; it's a unifying element. I don't know if this is true or not, but his concerns made sense. There very possibly could be some perverse interests hoping against hope that the peace process breaks down.

Lebanon-Syria: the wild card

This is an issue I have pretty close personal ties to (before you ask, both Christian and Muslim I know how some of y'all think). It's also one that could blow up in a nasty way if the wrong things start to happen. It's important to understand what's going on in Lebanon. Since the Syrians invaded in the 1970s ostensibly to ensure the security of Lebanon, they have grown more and more dependent on their parasitic relationship with Lebanon.

Syria uses Lebanon to bolster its own economy; Syrians enter Lebanon relatively freely to work. Some estimates are as high as one million Syrians working in Lebanon. Sound familiar? This is, of course, a huge drain on the economy of Lebanon. Crippling, even. On the other hand, it's a huge boon to the economy of Syria. While the Syrians claim that the presence of their army is to keep the peace, a more accurate description is that they are a colonial occupation force.

The Syrians seem to be alone on this one, except for their allies the Iranians, who, as I pointed out above, don't want to threaten anyone, meddle in anyone else's politics, or blow anyone up. All the other Arab countries are calling for Syrian withdrawal.

While in private the other anti-democratic regimes might not care, in public this is the perfect opportunity for them to exhibit their respective commitments to liberty and liberalism, which is important because everyone from George Bush to Abdullah Badawi to the fat cats in the United Arab Emirates have been exhorting them to move into the 19th century politically. The US and France have found a common cause, and sanctions are starting to be discussed.

Bashir Assad, the "president" of Syria, has publicly said several times that the troops are on their way out. The departure, however, is open-ended. This shouldn't come as a surprise, because Assad's in a tight spot. Although he has received some criticism for sending mixed messages in his speeches, he has to tread carefully because he doesn't have complete control over the government.

There are factions not entirely loyal to him (the same folks blamed for the killing of Hariri) that are naturally concerned about Syria's interests in Lebanon. If the money and jobs dry up to quickly, Syria could be staring down the barrel of some serious internal strife. Bashir's comments are good news, and the whole world will hold him to his commitments. At the same time, though, there are more than likely some elements "considering alternatives".

So there you have it. It's a crazy world. There's a great deal of ugliness and conflict, and although most of us would like to snap our fingers to make it go away, we can't. The best thing to do is rationally look at each situation and make judgments based on thorough and informed analysis.

KEITH BETTINGER is a Fulbright scholar living in Kuala Lumpur. His research involves the national parks in Malaysia, and he enjoys the exchanges he encounters with Malaysians and expatriates (alongwith the occasional monkey). He can be contacted at kisu1492@hotmail.com.