(IPS) analysis

The political statements from and events in the Gulf, Arab and Islamic countries after last week's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington best explain the dictum that in international relations there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.

Muslim leaders, barring those in Iraq, have unequivocally criticised terrorism, emphasised the wide gap between Islam and the killings, and lent support to the global coalition that is taking shape under US leadership.

But there is no denying the fact that the entire Arab world has reservations about the United States' shadowy plans for reprisal.

Arabs blame the United States for the Sept11 events. Leaders and commentators recall their warnings to the George W Bush administration, saying that its failure to halt the conflict in Palestine could result in an outburst of terrorism.

Only a week before the ''air rage'', the Gulf Cooperation Council had issued its strongest condemnation to date of U.S. policies - a combination of inaction and favouritism toward Israel.

Michael Jansen, an American journalist based in the Middle East for several decades, says: ''Washington was amply warned against violent acts for the wrong policies it pursued in the Middle East. If anybody should be blamed for the devastating militant attack on America, it must be the country itself.''

Hatred and resentment

The joy expressed on the streets across the Middle East, particularly in the occupied territories, immediately after the attack, has revealed the depth of hatred and resentment felt by many in the Arab world for the support that the United States has lent to Israel.

Arab leaders have now stemmed that joyous spontaneity out of fear of causing damage to long-term interests, but they are now worried about the United States' war language, which has stoked suspicion in their minds.

US President George W Bush called his campaign against terrorists a ''crusade'', which is a loaded term that recalls the Christians' medieval wars against Muslims in the Holy Land.

This also brings into focus the post-Cold War theory of the 'Clash of Civilisations', expounded by American academic Samuel Huntington, which in particular refers to a war of interests between the Western Judeo-Christian civilisation and Islamic civilisation, which may have just begun.

When the counterattack begins, one can be certain, like the Americans believe, that it will be a very long and costly war, given the resolve of the opposition and the inexperience of US forces in extremely difficult terrains.

Against this backdrop, there is every chance that the ''anti-terrorism war'' will actually be seen as a full-blown clash of civilisations.

'Freedom fighters'

It is ironic that the prime suspect in the US attack, Osama bin Laden, had received U.S. support to fight Soviet troops in Afghanistan - former US president Ronald Reagan had praised him and the like as ''freedom fighters''.

The difference now is that the Arab leaders secretly and most Muslims in the region still openly believe that they are ''freedom fighters''.

''The Arabs have an impossible task in convincing its people and helping the West differentiate between Bin Laden's Al Qaeda and the Palestinian resistance forces Hamas and Islamic Jihad,'' says Gen Ahmed Abdul Halim, an analyst at the Cairo Centre For Middle East Studies, in Egypt.

The US announcement that it will not invite Israel to join the planned anti-terrorism strikes was aimed at winning Arab allies such as Egypt, whose President Hosni Mubarak fought a successful battle against extremist Islamist movements like Jihad and Jamaa Islamiya.

It is not as if the Muslims will not fight this war against terrorism even if it is against Muslims, but they want all terrorists treated alike - ''including Israel''.

'Israeli terrorism'

UAE President Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan, while extending complete support to Bush, warned the United States that it expects the anti-terror coalition to be free of ''double standards'' and that ''Israeli terrorism'' will also have to end as well.

Differences are also being drawn between the Arab support for the 1990-91 Gulf War and the impending one, which the United States deems has already begun with the movement of fighter jets to the Gulf.

While the Gulf War helped Kuwait restore its sovereignty after being invaded by Iraq, the coming war is, in a sense, against those who took to terrorism in response to American-supported Israeli policies in the occupied Palestinian territories that is also home to Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the third holiest Islamic shrine.

Because direct and concrete evidence linking bin Laden with the terror attacks in New York and Washington has not been forthcoming until now, there are a number of alternate conspiracy theories doing the rounds, mostly floated by the Arab and Muslim world.

The Iran-backed, Lebanon-based Hizbollah television reported that 4,000 Jews failed to show up at work in the twin towers the day the attacks occurred, implying that the Israelis had information of the attack, which was not shared with Washington.

It was reported in the Egyptian press that it could even have been the Vietnamese taking revenge for America's killings in the Vietnam War, which ended in 1975, or even the Japanese Red Army reacting to Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombings in 1945.

Some say any of these could be true until proved wrong, just as the Arabs were first blamed for the 1995 bombing in Oklahoma, the United States. The culprit then turned out to be a US veteran of the 1991 Gulf War, Timothy McVeigh.

There is another interesting dimension to the emerging alliance: Many of the Arab countries will lend support to the United States even outside the Palestinian-Israeli question, but laced with intentions to fulfill their own agenda.

Take the case of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan, the only three countries in the world that recognise the Taliban government of Afghanistan.

One of bin Laden's primary aims, alongside destabilising the United States, is to overthrow the Saudi royal family and drive out American forces, which help protect the Saudis from their threat of Iraqi revenge.

To that extent, Riyadh will fully cooperate with the United States in its Afghan mission.

Infinite justice

If Saudi Arabia is within bin Laden's sight, the UAE cannot be far behind. Dubai is one of the most liberal cities in the entire Middle East and certainly has many dynamics that are antithetical to Bin Laden's brand of Islam. The country will be that much safer without bin Laden.

Moreover, the UAE has had a longstanding dispute with Iran over the occupation of the Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunbs islands. If it were to emerge that Iran or Hizbollah is directly or indirectly involved in the terror attacks, the UAE will want to keep its doors open to maximise its diplomatic affinity with Washington against Tehran.

Pakistan has thrived on a weak Afghanistan for decades. It has derived a cocktail from its foreign policies in order to survive as a nation-state.

Pakistan has been an ally of the United States and yet befriended the Taliban and China to fulfill its interest in and claim over Kashmir, territory that has been disputed by New Delhi and Islamabad for decades.

And if claiming Kashmir were to ever become a reality, only the United States can help. Hence, Pakistan's strategic option would be to play along with Washington's intentions, even if it means risking a civil war in its own country.

Narrow interests apart, as the first war of the 21st century enters the retaliatory-strikes phase, it is quite certain that the US administration has got its think tanks working on the Arab-Israeli conflict and its resolution.

If the United States and its global coalition have to claim victory in this war, the solution to the vexed Middle East problem is the most important component for the entire Arab World. Until then, 'Infinite Justice' - as the US operation against terrorism is called, will remain incomplete.