Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt
In the Middle East, what you see is not always what you get. I have been attending a World Economic Forum meeting here, a gathering of politicians, business leaders and opinion makers, which President Bush addressed as he passed through the Middle East this week.

The President expounded on his ideas of “true democracy” and called for economic reforms, political reform and greater rights for women, declaring that “freedom is a universal right, the Almighty's gift to every man, woman and child in the world.” His audience, most of whom live in countries that clearly fall short of his standards, gave him polite applause and turned their attention to more pressing matters – the price of oil, what to do with their growing mountain of petrodollars, and the rumors of possible political deals between Middle Eastern countries that point to a shift in the balance of power in the region.

One thing was clear – Mr. Bush and his waning administration are seen as short timers whose influence is rapidly fading in the Middle East. As a result, regional leaders are beginning to fill the vacuum left by an American attention deficit and are looking for ways to pursue their own strategic interests, whether or not they coincide with America's perceived interests. Washington now seems to be reacting to events in the Middle East, rather than trying to shape them.

Syria, Israel and Turkey are emerging as key regional players, and events this week suggest that they are seeking arrangements that would turn back the clock in Lebanon – currently the region's most dangerous flashpoint – and perhaps even lead to a peace agreement between Israel and Syria.

But as I said, what you see in this part of the world is not necessarily what you get.

The simultaneous announcements in Damascus and Jerusalem that Turkey has been brokering negotiations between Syria and Israel over the return of the Israeli occupied Golan Heights to Syria came as no surprise to Middle East insiders. The two enemies have been talking on and off for years. What seemed interesting was the fact that Turkey – which is both Islamic and a full-fledged member of NATO – is carving out a major regional role for itself as American influence fades.
But even more interesting was the timing of the announcement. It coincided with a major political development in Lebanon. After a week of negotiations hosted by Qatar (another rising regional player) the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora ended a dangerous standoff in Lebanon by agreeing to give more power to his opponents, led by the powerful Hezbollah movement.

On the face of it, that sounds like a setback for Mr. Siniora, who has been Mr. Bush's poster boy for the spread of democracy in the Middle East. Hezbollah, which controls a well-armed Shia militia, is backed by two of Washington's favorite enemies – Iran and Syria. But some observers believe that far from being defeated, Mr. Siniora has set up Hezbollah for a fall. How could that be?

Here's the scenario laid out by some experts in the region. The Lebanese government, by allowing Hezbollah to overplay its hand and dominate Lebanon, may give Syria an excuse to intervene in the country and restore some semblance of stability. The first thing that Syria would then do would be to rein in Hezbollah. Why would it do that?

The answer is that Syria uses Hezbollah as a card in a bigger game that involves Israel. The game then proceeds as follows.

1. Syria, which controlled Lebanon for years until the United States forced it to withdraw its forces in 2005, re-establishes its presence in Lebanon and insures that Hezbollah will not attempt future attacks against Israel or start launching rockets against the Jewish state as it did in 2006.
2. That makes Israel happy. The Israelis would rather see the wily Syrians on its northern border than trigger-happy Hezbollah.
3. Israel agrees to return the Golan Heights to Syria as part of a peace agreement, which means that Israel is now at peace with all its immediate neighbors. This is a bit of a stretch of course, but it's not impossible in the foreseeable future.

Of course, this may not be what happens. In the Middle East, things rarely go as planned. But something along these lines seems to be in the works.

What does the Bush administration think about all this? It does not like the idea of the Syrians moving into Lebanon again. It does not like to see the Israelis making a deal with a Syrian government that supports terrorists and radicals. But the administration would probably acquiesce because it does not seem to have a better plan or at least one that it is willing to push hard enough to have a chance of succeeding.

As a leading businessman from one of the Gulf states put it at this conference, it may be time for the Arabs to stop blaming others for their problems and instead of waiting for Washington to solve them, to pull their socks up and do it themselves. Washington might not like the shape of the Middle East the regional players would arrange for themselves. It might not like to see Syria rewarded for bad behavior. But as far as the inhabitants of the region are concerned, what works ... works, even if Uncle Sam does not agree.