Now George [ed: they called eachother George], you will not be surprised that my voting for George Bush is an inconceivable thought – an intellectual impossibility! It sounds as if you have been sucked in by the spin doctors nonsense that Bush is bringing “democracy” to the Middle East. So far he has, at an enormous and continuing cost brought an alleged parliament in Iraq – a parliament with a president and prime minister who are powerless. No ministers have been appointed [ed: this was written before the 'election'] and the instructions to support them do not exist. Realistically you are talking decades to build a nation. (Look at South Africa which has one of the finest Constitutions in the world after ten years. It still faces enormous problems and it doesn't even have an insurrection to deal with.)

The insurrection is expanding and is well financed; Americans will continue to be killed and wounded as well as many more Iraqis. There is no exit strategy other than a rather vague reference to the development of Iraqi security forces.
Same for Afghanistan. In my view, we'll be lucky to be out of either country in five years – with all of it's associated costs in money and lives. It's premature to e boasting about success in such an unknown and extremely volatile situation. Nonetheless your neo-conservatives will continue to boast.

And what about “democracy” in the gulf states? Saudi Arabia has made a little noise about enfranchising a few women in a few municipal areas. In reality, that's what it is – noise. Unless you understand the deep entrenchment of the Wahabi religion and it's religious police, you'll never understand Saudi Arabia. Any enfranchisement will be a very hard sell – at best a token but most likely lip service. But USA policy is to support the despotic regimes of the Gulf – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Dubai and the Trucial states, no talk of regime change there and “democracy” is of no interest to these states. We are in a new era where almost all foreign policy – for us and others – will be dictated by the source of oil. We have no choice but to support these supplies whatever the regime – and, of course, we will continue to do so – so much for Bush's “democracy”.

Now, Saudia Arabia has 25% of the world's oil and to my knowledge could, in 180 days increase their output to 13 million barrels a day. They would need more rotary pumping gear but it's reluctantly doable if the price goes bezerk which at the moment seems possible. But where would the rest of the oil come from considering the dramatic change in demand from China and India.

Russia with 45% of the world's oil. The problem is getting it to market. Oil has to be moved. With little publicity American oil interests – Bush's buddies – are building pipe lines all over South Easters Russia – including an enormous pipe line across Afghanistan to Pakistan and the sea. We certainly will not leave that unprotected. George, everything focuses on oil. The world needs more than it's got.

You may be surprised that the only Bush domestic policy I now agree with is to open the arctic to exploration and development – providing there is some form of environmental oversight. But I doubt if I will see any production from this in my lifetime. Building a producing field requires an enormous investment which American oil companies will make. Bear in mind that you start with exploration platforms, followed by producing platforms and pipe lines to move the oil and possible refineries – all in a hostile environment for the personnel involved. Bottom line: no short term relief, price pressures will continue.

This e-mail is becoming a seminar but you did ask so I will leap into Syria and Lebanon. Two things sparked the present situation – the UN resolution for Syria to go and the idiot assassination of Hariri which sort of unified the Matonite, Christian and Druse side of the equation. Again, while Bush will claim credit, the Syrians, facing UN sanctions and world wide pressure really had no choice but to withdraw their troops at least to the Bekka valley, possibly to their border. But George, this is only the tip of the ice berg in predicting the future at which the Bush administration seems very inept – i.e. “matters arising from”.

The hard fact is that the Syrians have been in Lebanon for 30 years! As a consequence, they hold immense power and influence. They have been very clever at infiltrating the population at the highest political, business and professional levels wherein their loyalty is to their Syrian sponsors and not the state. This will not change and thus – wherever their troops may be the Syrian bloc will remain. Then we have the current alleged “opposition” of Maronites, Christian and Druse. This is a very fragile grouping that if they come unstuck could result in civil war. The last time that happened the war laster 15 years – even with the Syrians in place. Then there is Herzbollah. Will they form a political bloc for the elections? Or remain a strictly militant organization – financed by Syria and Iran? Currently, they operate in practice as an autonomous government in South Lebanon. They run that area with no interference from the army, the Syrians or the government. In fact a state within a state. It's very complex. You might end up with a five sided division in parliament with the Syrians and Herzbollah in control or complete chaos – or any combination in between. No one has a clue at this point. Bear in mind that Lebanon has been a parliamentary democracy since it's creation in 1923. Democracy is not a new concept as it is with the rest of the Middle East It is a Lebanese style and actually has worked except for the civil war and the emergence of Herzbollah. I doubt the elections will involve any regime change. There will be a Christian president and Lahoud should keep his job as Prime Minister.