I just watched the joint press conference with George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. It looked pretty clearly like their meeting was not a pleasant one and that it had shaken Bush.

There is a lot going on. One major goal of Maliki’s visit is to shore up his support and credibility at home, and for this purpose it is essential that he be somewhat critical of the administration and show some independence.

…in Washington, administration officials said they viewed Mr. Maliki’s public breaks with American policy positions as proof that he was his own man leading his own government, and was not a prop of the Americans.

“We hope he comes with his own plan,” said a senior administration official, who requested anonymity because of a general policy limiting public comments in advance of presidential meetings.

However, given the administration’s policies vis-a-vis Lebanon, the differences between Maliki and Bush are not just for show. Iraq’s government is a Shi’a government now, and they can be expected to feel solidarity with the Lebanese Shi’a while they are under attack from Israel (with Bush’s blessing).

This unfortunate battle between Israel and Hezbollah is prying open a contradiction in Bush’s policies. On the one hand, Bush is pushing for a democratization of the Middle East, arguing that democracies do not fight with each other. Yet, Bush’s Iraq War, while bringing representative elections to Iraq, has given power to the Shi’a sect, whose other political representatives are Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah.

If we look at the Middle East (excluding Turkey) we will see that it is the Shi’a that have what little democracy that exists. Iran, Lebanon, and Iraq have all had elections since the invasion. In the Sunni dominated countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, elections are largely a sham. Bush has encouraged those countries to have more free and open elections, but any truly free and open elections in those countries would be likely to sweep their rulers from power.

If we look at the current situation from the perspective of Israel we will see something interesting. Back in 1994, Bill Clinton brokered a peace agreement between King Hussein of Jordan and Yitzhak Rabin. In 1979, Jimmy Carter brokered a peace agreement between Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Menachem Begin. These twin agreements form the basis for Israel’s security in the region, and King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt are the assurances that the peace treaties will be respected. It is therefore, not in Israel’s short-term interests to see democratization in the those countries.

However, using Bush’s ostensible philosophy, it might be in Israel’s long term interests. The reality is that neo-conservative thinking on the issue of Israel’s security does not rely on democratization. Their goal was to use Jordan as a model for Iraq, putting a Hashemite king on a throne in Baghdad. Instead they got this Bushist mish-mash. An Iranian allied Shi’a government in Iraq does not appear to serve Israel’s interests at all. The fact that it is popularly elected only exacerbates the problem. However, a weakened Iraq, at war with itself, and possibly carved into pieces, will remove that country as an existential threat.

All things being equal, the Israelis have better relations with Sunni governments than Shi’a. But it’s not clear at all that the average Sunni on the street is any less hostile than the average Shi’ite. As the vast majority of Palestinians are Sunni, this only stands to reason. A truly democratic Egypt, for example, might disassociate itself from the United States and renounce the Camp David Accords and resulting treaty.

So, Bush is playing a dangerous game, and not one that is assured to advance the cause if Israel’s security. At least, that is how it appears if you listen to his rhetoric about democracy and don’t watch what is happening on the ground. On the ground, the two democracies in Iraq and Lebanon are being taken apart piece by piece, their citizens being pitted against each other. Meanwhile, menacing threats are leveled at Persia’s (admittedly imperfect, but nonetheless robust) democracy. And Syria, as ever, is the oddball that defies easy categorization. It’s 74% Sunni, falls into the sham elections category, and is ruled by a sect of heretical Shi’a, called the Alawites. They are essentially aligned with the Shi’a, though they aren’t Shi’a, and they are closely allied with Persia, though they’re Arabs. And they have never made peace with Israel.

In the big picture, Bush will spend the rest of his administration presiding over the destruction of Lebanon and Iraq and pushing for the international community to isolate Syria and Iran and weaken their ruler’s hold on power.

This will not advance democracy an iota (unless inadvertantly). But it will assure that any true expression of the will of the Muslim people will be ever more hostile to both U.S. and Israeli interests. This is neo-conservatism. It’s a tragic and reckless mistake.

It would be far better to work tirelessly, as Clinton did, to improve our image in the Muslim world and to bring about peace in Palestine. That way, if democracy ever flourishes it might not be disastrous for our allies.