US President George W Bush visited Palestine, Israel, four Gulf states and Egypt earlier this month. At a press briefing at the end of last year, he said he had three goals for the trip: advancing the Palestine-Israel peace process, pushing for reconciliation between Arab nations and Israel and reaffirming the US commitment to the security of its allies in the region. Now that Bush has wrapped up the tour, we can ask: Did he achieve the goals he had laid out for himself ?

Since the Annapolis Middle East Peace Conference in late November, the Bush administration has made the Palestine-Israel peace process an essential part of its Middle East policy package. It has repeatedly expressed the hope of seeing the two sides reach a peace accord this year. However, the Bush administration knows only too well how difficult the Palestine-Israel issue will be to resolve. While in the Middle East, President Bush urged Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to make the "hard choice" and "difficult compromise", adding the US would continue to closely watch the Palestine-Israel peace talks and that Bush might visit the Middle East again, in addition to the celebrations marking the 60th anniversary of Israel. He also said the US would put more pressure on the parties concerned if necessary.

Bush reiterated American support for the Middle East Peace Roadmap, but with a new interpretation. Originally the roadmap consisted of three stages. The first was for the Palestinians to crack down on extremism, while the Israelis abandoned its illegal settlements (in the West Bank and Gaza); the second was to see the founding of a Palestinian state; and the third was when the two sides resolved all their disputes.

This time around the US president again emphasized that Israel must resolve the illegal settlement issue and told Israeli Prime Minister Olmert at the press conference after their meeting that they had been discussing this issue for four years, sounding somewhat disappointed. Olmert then found himself obliged to explain at length why. Bush also stressed in his talks with President Abbas that the Palestinian side must stop the attacks by Hamas militants in Gaza and wipe out their bases.

However, the Bush administration is now saying the three phases should proceed in parallel rather than one after another. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters onboard Air Force One on their way to Kuwait that, after deciding to turn the roadmap from three sequential steps into parallel tracks at the Annapolis peace conference, a fourth track became necessary: all Arab states taking joint action in the Middle East.

What Palestine and Israel are emphasizing, meanwhile, is this:

The Israelis insist that a peace accord must cover Gaza, meaning a peace agreement is out of reach until the Palestinians achieve internal unity. Meanwhile, the Palestinians swear they cannot form a sovereign state within temporary borders, which means a Palestinian state can be founded only after all the thorny issues are resolved, such as territory, possession of Jerusalem and right of return for refugees. Both sides have formed working groups to negotiate these issues, thought the road ahead is undoubtedly full of obstacles.

The Iran nuclear issue has been stuck in a tangle for several years now. Last March and April people heard a great deal of talk about possible US attacks on Iran. Then, in November, 16 US intelligence agencies issued a joint report stating that Iran had suspended its nuclear arms development program in 2003.

While the international community exhaled a collective sigh of relief, the US reminded the world that Iran still poses a threat. For various reasons the possibility of Bush ordering military strikes against Iran before he leaves the White House for good seems next to nil, but his administration wants the world to keep pressure on Teheran all the same.

That's why Bush repeatedly said during his Middle East trip that if the international community cannot work together to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons technology, then Iran was, is and will remain a threat.

The Gulf countries' attitude toward Iran has been rather subtle. By defeating the Sunni Muslim-led Taliban regime in a war in Afghanistan the US rid Iran of an archenemy to the east; and by replacing Saddam Hussein's Sunni government with a Shiite administration as a result of the ongoing war in Iraq, America did Teheran a huge favor to the same effect. This may or may not be what the Bush administration had in mind when it launched the two wars, but the reality is that Iran's military strength is considered tops in the Gulf region, and others in the neighborhood are quite nervous about it.

For this reason few Gulf nations are Iran's bosom buddies, though they all maintain variable levels of cooperation. US pressure on Iran serves the other Gulf countries' interests to a certain degree, but they don't want to - or dare to - butt heads with Teheran. When media reports were full of speculation about a US attack on Iran last spring, some Gulf nations made it clear that they "are not on either side of the US-Iran standoff" and would not be "a staging area for the US to strike Iran".

This is why they are not likely to openly back Washington's Iran posture, even though they need US support.

The Bush administration announced not long ago it would sell $20 billion worth of weapons and military equipment to the Gulf region. And Bush said on his Middle East tour that America would soon sell Saudi Arabia $130 million worth of missiles and other advanced arms. How can it not be another warning shot at Iran?

As for making an assessment of this Middle East trip, it is not an easy task because the visit was part of a long process rather than a shot at solving a particular issue. Some people in the press concluded that Bush returned home emptyhanded, since he heard no new promises from the Palestinian or Israeli leaders, nor a word of support from Gulf countries on his drive to contain Iran. But the Bush administration can say the trip achieved its goals because it added impetus to existing efforts.

The Palestine-Israel peace process was put on ice for seven years after Bush became US president and now his administration has decided to revive it. As for the standoff between Iran and America, I'm afraid it will remain in place until after Bush hands over the presidency.

This is presidential election year in the US. Although the Democratic and Republican contenders all call Iran a threat, the three Democratic front runners - Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and John Edwards - have promised to negotiate with Iran directly without hesitation once he or she wins the presidency and apply the tactic of carrot and big stick. It means they intend to keep the military force option open and tighten the noose of economic sanctions while dangling some economic rewards before Teheran's nose to lure it toward a resolution of the nuclear issue, the same way? North Korea chose to go.

Under the circumstances Iran of course will wait and see without softening its stance. As such, US-Iran relations will likely remain as they have been this year, with little chance of undergoing dramatic changes.

(China Daily January 22, 2008)