President George Bush apparently does not think he is a lame-duck president. He is, in fact, staying the course. There is no likelihood of early troops withdrawals from Iraq, while withdrawal from Afghanistan has not even been mooted. It means that Bush is still following the geopolitical goals attributed to Neo-cons by somewhat modified means.

Indeed, more troops are being sent to the region, with an eye on Iran, while the Fifth Fleet is being reinforced with another aircraft-carrier group. All talk of withdrawal actually means the dispersal of troops rather than their going home. That may be the net outcome of the ISG report by Mr James Baker.

The Khomeini revolution destroyed American domination of Iran. The revolutionaries were led by the clergy who naturally incline toward right-wing and religious ideas. It did not take the country leftward. The internal differences over economic policies could never be overcome; the revolution was, and still is, undecided about either socialism or capitalism. There is still a whiff of revolutionary élan. Tehran has followed a non-aligned policy with efforts to build Iran's own power. While its military power does not compare even with Israel, let alone the US, its military has the advantage of organization, discipline and motivation. The regime is still capable of much mass mobilization. It has considerable oil that will bring in plenty of Euros in the coming days.

Iran's strength includes a modicum of genuine democracy through free elections, though circumscribed by the constitutional clout of the senior clergy. The clerical regime's realpolitik wants to bridge the gap between Shias and Sunnis in the region so as to be able to win the support of the Arab masses in its struggle against the region's own feudal Amirs and kings or dictators. Tehran feels mandated to counter Israel's power and influence. And Iranian clerics are as good players of geopolitics as was the Shah, if not better. Tehran needs to be taken more seriously than has been the case so far.

Here the American fears intrude. The chief American purpose in the ME is securing Israel's role and power. All American objectives hinge on the Israelis' ability to reshape the region. Iran being able to counter Israel's power will be a threat that the Americans will feel compelled to meet. That is the difference between North Korea and Iran. While North Korea is now off the hook, Iran is not. What Iran admits to be doing is within its rights: it wants to enrich uranium so as to have locally processed fuel for the nuclear reactor that is coming up. The Americans suspect that Iranians would go beyond enriching the uranium for a civilian reactor; and may enrich it to the level required for a nuclear weapon.

American suspicions of Iran are so strong that they are assuming that Iran is actually engaged in bomb-making, despite its denials. Objectively, American suspicions are understandable. Look at the Middle East map and see how Israelis have behaved vis-à-vis the Arabs, because they have the bomb and, additionally, have America supporting them. Shouldn't the Iranians think of finding an antidote for both powers? Indeed a case of sorts exists for the Iranian bomb, the way Pakistanis thought they needed the bomb to offset India's.

Strong winds of change are, anyhow, sweeping the Middle East. The Arabs have heard the Iranian propaganda for over 25 years; they could not but have been affected by this effective propaganda. They have seen the way the Israelis humiliate the Palestinians, and the way they treat other Arabs has stirred their souls. To be sure, most Arabs remain underdeveloped and mostly apathetic.

But a change of sorts is taking shape, and some credit may also be given to the often cynical American verbiage regarding democracy and human rights. Although American words are not very credible, the continued utterances, ad nauseum, cannot leave a residue of desire for it. The American practice, of course, remains wedded to supporting tyrants against the latter's own people for preserving the status quo that benefits the US.

Thus, there is a tumult in the Arab mind. The rise of Hamas, Hizbollah and Amal underlines a general restiveness. It is due also to the logical perception of what Israel and America are doing in the region. They concentrate on American actions -- whatever the motives, though these also need to be examined -- and disregard rhetoric. They see that the US has effectively put Iraq on the road to destruction as a nation state. What may emerge is three states which would probably be embroiled in internal struggles or wars, while all the oil in the north and south will remain with US companies. Maybe many other states will be engulfed by civil wars as a consequence of the rise of Shia consciousness in the rest of the region, especially the Gulf Sheikhdoms.

The long-running and low-intensity cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia has had evil consequences, particularly in Iraq and also in other countries, not excluding Pakistan. The Saudis have, without taking any official responsibility, let the world know that they will not tolerate the rise of a Shia axis in the Middle East that will come into being as a result of a potentially powerful Shia state in southern Iraq -- allied with Iran and maybe others like Lebanon. Other Shia minorities in the region are now beginning to demand their share in representation and power. There is a threat of a large-scale Shia-Sunni conflict throughout the Middle East.

The stakes are high. America has to rethink about what it wanted to achieve in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can those purposes be achieved? Perhaps the Afghan imbroglio may be even worse than Iraq's in terms of the longer-term aims of acquiring a dominant voice in Central Asia. The fates of Afghanistan and Pakistan are linked. If the present war's ethnic underpinning come to the fore Pakistan's integrity can also be at risk, while Afghanistan may meet a fate similar in effect to Iraq's.

The major difficulty for America is that Iran is not a pushover. It can hurt America's own military power. If a direct war takes place some of Iran's smart new weapons can inflict spectacular losses. Secondly, the US is likely to be forced to invade the vast Iranian territories, including deserts. If the Americans could not conquer Iraq without inciting a tough resistance, Iran would be twenty times more difficult to conquer. The Americans will be hopelessly bogged down, and will have to accept defeat in view of their inability to accept too many body-bags.

Iran can also punish the whole lot of developed countries by stopping its own oil exports, and also possibly disrupting all exports through the Straits of Hormuz altogether for sometime. It can also spin into a Third World War -- as a long shot. The possibilities are mind-boggling.

Therefore, the Americans have to re-think their role and aims. They will have to adjust to a new emerging world that was not there in 1945. The 21st century does not look like becoming an American Century, though America will probably remain the sole superpower for a couple of decades more.

MB Naqvi is a leading Pakistani columnist.