Just over a week ago, US President George W Bush was triumphantly telling home audiences that "the back of al-Qaeda is broken and we are winning the war o­n terror".

But the carefully choreographed May 12 suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia were orchestrated to strike at the heart of Riyadh's foreign enclave. Their implications, which continue to reverberate in the Middle East and beyond, seem to taken both the US and Saudi Arabia by surprise.

Then, last Friday night, five suicide bomb attacks hit Morocco's commercial capital of Casablanca, in a move that US officials and other officials suspect could also be the work of al-Qaeda.

These acts of terror come in the context of US foreign policy, whose accent shifted from a military response to diplomacy in the aftermath of the war o­n Iraq.

Shift in strategy

At the time of the Riyadh blasts, US Secretary of State Colin Powell was visiting the region following the apparent conclusion of a debate over US policy after Iraq - where the more balanced and realistic leadership of the State Department seemed to have won out over the ideologically-zealous, Muslim-bashing hawks that dominate the Pentagon.

Instead of militarily moving in the Middle East o­n a 'hit list', the idea is to use diplomacy through a carrot-and-stick approach.

Powell ( photo ) has been negotiating with Syria and Lebanon, while Pentagon-nominated post-war administrator Gen James Garner has been downgraded to accommodate the State Department's civilian nominee, Paul Bremer.

Likewise, quiet talks with Iran have apparently resulted in allowing the prominent Tehran-based Iraqi cleric Ayatollah Baqer al Hakim to return home, as well as the disarmament of the Iraq-based anti-Iran Mujahideen-e-Khalq Organisation.

What is Iran's quid for the American quo remains to be seen, but it will probably be evident in the Iranians moderating the Hizbullah in Lebanon, especially their military campaign against Israel.

It is no accident that Iranian President Mohammad Khatami visited Lebanon, where Hizbullah has its headquarters.

Nuclear weapons

But despite the shift to diplomacy, the Middle East and the world at large are going to be a more volatile place.

Take, for instance, the issue of weapons of mass destruction. Ironically, in the aftermath of the war o­n Iraq, the nuclear factor has assumed greater importance - despite tall talk of eliminating 'weapons of mass destruction'.

In fact, US weapons inspectors are being asked to return home after failing to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - the ostensible reason for the US-led invasion.

Iraq was penalised but North Korea, which is assumed to have nuclear weapons, has been treated with kid gloves.

In a surprise move o­n May 9, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee lifted a decade-old ban to resume research and development of low-yield, high-technology nuclear weapons for possible use in a future war.

The Riyadh blasts have also enabled the US to put more pressure o­n Saudi Arabia, which is clearly a 'casualty' of the war o­n Iraq, in that it seems to have been downgraded in US strategic priorities.

One of the first US actions after Iraq was to announce the withdrawal of its military personnel from Saudi Arabia after a stay of over 13 years, an act both symbolic as well as substantive in indicating a move away from Saudi Arabia to Iraq.

During the war o­n Iraq, the Saudis had opposed US military action and refused to allow the Central Command to use the state-of the-art Prince Sultan Air Base near Riyadh.

New plan

Earlier this month, Bush ( photo ) unveiled a major initiative for the socio-economic and political restructuring of the Middle East, which is unlikely to be well received by the ruling elite that are either absolute monarchies or republican family dynasties.

Saudi Arabia would be a key target for such 'reforms', more so since an influential section of the US establishment blames the country for the Sept 11, 2001 attacks o­n New York and Washington DC.

What do the suicide bombings foretell about the Middle East - supposedly the centre of gravity in the US 'war o­n terror'?

First, the war o­n Iraq had nothing to do with the 'war o­n terror' or the quest for weapons of mass destruction. For many in the Muslim world, the war was about oil, Israel and reshaping of the Middle East political map.

Hence, terrorism remains a potent threat, as Riyadh has so brutally demonstrated.

Second, US interests are threatened not by Muslim regimes or rulers, who can either be contained, co-opted or crushed - as has happened with Saddam Hussein or the Taliban or even Yasser Arafat, who has been sidelined through his newly appointed Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas.

The US faces a new kind of enemy that is nameless, faceless, stateless with the skill, will and motivation to strike through a weapon that has no remedy in its arsenal - namely, suicide bombing.

It is the suicide bomber who has the capacity to destabilise in a massive manner, as Riyadh, Palestine, Chechnya or Pakistan have demonstrated. No Middle East state or government has control over suicide bombers.

Based o­n US media reports that al-Qaeda fugitive leader Osama bin Laden had masterminded the Riyadh terror strikes, the attacks could indicate an unusually high level of sophistication and organisation, despite the worldwide manhunt for operatives since Sept 11, 2001.

Third, now that Saudi Arabia is longer the lynchpin in the US Middle East strategy, the US may need to review its plans lest it ends up biting off more than it can chew.

Iraq and Afghanistan remain volatile. Palestine is unsettled. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are nervous over US designs which, to them, seem to be Israel-driven.

This is all happening as Bush faces a presidential election next year, o­ne he intends to fight o­n the flag of patriotism imposed o­n the sands and deserts of the Middle East while protecting and promoting Israel, much to the chagrin of Middle East governments and people.

This dichotomy is widening the cleavage between popular perceptions in the Middle East and US official policy there. Riyadh would have widened that yawning chasm. - IPS