THE United States never ceases to amaze outsiders, even wizened old cynics like myself, who have been living in or visiting that country for more than three decades. Having arrived in the US last week on my annual three-week yatra, I was immediately struck, once again, by what makes this such a fascinating place.

The diversity in all aspects is massive and breathtaking — whether it is ethnic origin, religious belief, cultural orientation or political affiliation. The contrasts are everywhere and in everything. The dynamism, vibrancy and vigour are remarkable. There is so much about this place that attracts and yet so much that repels, even frightens, especially those of us who belong to a different world.

As in other places, the Lebanese crisis has been a big story here as well, but its treatment in this country has been totally different. There is no effort and even less pretence at evenhandedness between the combatants. Much of the media and most major political analysts have publicly advocated that there can be no neutrality between Israel on the one hand and Hezbollah on the other. Any neutrality in a battle between good and evil is wrong and immoral, it is claimed.

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration, has backed Israel to the hilt; but its support has been qualitatively different, having broken previous records of partisanship in favour of the Jewish state. Earlier administrations, while sensitive to Israel’s interests, had nevertheless sought to project an image of balance and fairness. American assistance was provided to Israel quietly, even surreptitiously, to ensure what came to be known as “plausible deniability”. The Bush administration, on the other hand, is doing so publicly and aggressively.

Of course, it was encouraged in this policy by the absence of even a murmur of dissent, far less any opposition, from the Arabs and other Islamic states. Even by the standards of their subservience on earlier occasions, the performance of these states this time has been truly abysmal. Some Arab leaders were actually rooting for the Israelis in the belief that any whittling down of Hezbollah’s influence would strengthen their own authoritarian regimes.

This enabled the Bush administration to portray the Israeli military operations against Hezbollah as a war against a terrorist organisation that was a foreign body in Lebanon, rather than as the violation of the independence of a sovereign state. The fact that Hezbollah enjoys widespread support in Lebanon and is a member of the ruling coalition in that country was totally ignored.

Israel’s massive air raids that succeeded in destroying much of the economic infrastructure of this small and peaceful country were of little relevance either. But the real villains, as far as the Americans are concerned, are the Iranians. Nobody is willing to question this, given the bitter hostility between the two countries ever since the ouster of the Shah.

Many reasons are advanced for this, including the belief that Iran is sponsoring terrorism across the globe. Moreover, the Iranian president’s statements, especially those about Israel, have strengthened the belief that he is not only anti-Semitic, but that his country is implacably opposed to Israel and possibly determined to destroy it as well. There are others who claim that Iran instigated this crisis to divert the world’s focus away from its nuclear weapons programme.

Off-the-record meetings with more credible analysts in Washington, however, revealed a more nuanced picture. Many of them did not hesitate to admit that the Lebanon war could not have come at a more opportune moment for the Bush administration. The daily trickle of reports of American casualties in Iraq is becoming too much for the president to handle and is whittling down his popularity.

The Democratic opposition that has so far been either supportive of or submissive to the president’s claim that the Iraq war was not only the right thing to do, but even necessary in the pursuit of the global war on terror, has started to become increasingly restless. Such enthusiasts of the war as Senator Hillary Clinton have begun to show public exasperation — which recently took the form of a public spat with Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — with the administration. Others, too, have been encouraged to question the whole rationale of the administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East.

The most visible fallout of this public disenchantment so far has been the shocking defeat of the veteran politician Joe Lieberman. Though a Democrat, he rose to national prominence when chosen by Al Gore to be his running mate. But he has also been the most enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq war and was among the first to call for Saddam Hussein’s ouster. His defeat by a fairly unknown politician, who savaged Lieberman for his support for the invasion of Iraq, sent shockwaves around the country. This has given rise to a whole new industry concentrated on analysing what impact the continuing Iraq war will have on the forthcoming November congressional elections and even the next presidential elections.

In such a scenario, the administration’s strong and enthusiastic support for Israel, that prevented the UN from even considering a possible ceasefire in Lebanon for a month so that Israel could achieve its war objectives in that country, has brought it rich dividends at home. The administration has earned kudos from the traditionally pro-Israeli lobbies, and, more importantly, given fresh sustenance to the Christian right and the neo-conservatives, who had been expressing the fear that under Condoleezza Rice’s influence, the president was wavering in his commitment to the neo-con agenda that had dominated his administration in its first term. These important lobbies are the ones on whom the Republicans are counting for raising the money and galvanising the voter turnout in the forthcoming elections.

While the Lebanon war was still being analysed, news of the planned London attacks provided the administration with a substantial boost. While that will be the focus of my piece next week, suffice it to say that the arrests in London enabled the administration to redirect all its energies to claiming how right it has been to view all regional and global developments through the prism of the war on terror.

In any case, the Lebanon war, as seen in Washington, has gone through major evolutions. It started off with an understanding of and admiration for Israeli policies. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was hailed as a bold and forceful leader, a genuine protege of Ariel Sharon, and who was doing America a favour by his willingness to knock out Hezbollah. This sense of excitement and expectation was best reflected in Condoleezza Rice’s now infamous remark that the invasion was the harbinger of the birth pangs of a new Middle East.

Rami Khouri, the well known Jordanian political analyst, characterised the remarks as “crude, insensitive and cruel”, and warned: “If it is a new Middle East, it won’t be the one she’s expecting.” Eugene Robinson writing in the Washington Post on August 11 also ridiculed Ms Rice for her statement and argued that the US policies had, in fact, added to the numbers being drawn to extremist ideology. He described the Bush policy as “trying to smash mercury with a hammer”.

US expectations were soon transformed into disappointment with the Israelis and anger at Hezbollah, especially when it turned out that the latter were not fighting as other Arab armies had and were showing far greater skill and grit than expected. Surely, it must be on account of the weapons and the money that the Iranians were providing them, otherwise, like other Arabs, they should have abandoned the battlefield and surrendered to the professional skill and superior weaponry of Israel, it was argued here.

There is, however, a growing concern and grudging admission that the latest adventure has been a serious setback for the Israeli state and its ally, the United States. The embarrassment is greater now that word has leaked out that not only had Israel received the “green light” for the invasion, but had discussed this operation with both the US and the UK. Bush may claim a major victory for Israel as he did after the ceasefire was announced, but even the Israelis are admitting that they made a mess of everything.

Not only has Israel’s myth of invincibility been shattered, but Hezbollah has demonstrated what a non-professional, irregular army can achieve, if it has the people’s genuine support and commitment behind it. Hezbollah’s success in raining down rockets, virtually at will, on Israeli cities, has been another big surprise. This led Hillel Frish of the Begin Centre to remark that “technology has taken a blow in the war”, and that this will surely result in major shifts in Israel’s military strategy and tactics. Most worrying for the US, it is Iran that appears to have gained the most from this conflict. Its effectiveness and credibility have been enhanced and it has proven itself a major player in the region.

Another casualty of the war has been the American pretence that it remains committed to the promotion of democracy in the Middle East. This is even more ironic when it is recalled that only last summer Secretary Rice, in an emotional speech in Cairo, had declared: “there are those who say that democracy leads to chaos, or conflict or terror. Freedom and democracy are the only ideas powerful enough to overcome hatred and violence.”

However, in the wake of the setback it received in Lebanon, the US had to fall back on those very authoritarian rulers who were targeted for ouster. After all, who better to serve America’s interests than these potentates, as evidenced from the manner in which Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s son, Gamal, was feted in Washington, as if he was already the anointed successor to the throne of the pharaohs. Not surprisingly, Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group, was constrained to warn: “On almost every count, you see diminished assets and credibility.”

In these hot, humid days, generally known here as the dog days of August, I cannot help but recall what Barbara Tuchman wrote in her seminal book, The Guns of August, when she pointed out how seemingly isolated events nearly a century ago set off a chain reaction that culminated in the First World War. She spoke of nations being “caught in a trap” from which there was no escape. Are we all heading towards a similar disaster?

The writer is a former ambassador.

I DO not know why Pakistan has overreacted to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s reiteration that if cross-border terrorism did not abate the supporters of the peace process would be weakened. I got frantic calls from TV stations in Karachi for a reaction.

What the prime minister has said makes sense. How can people in India be convinced of Pakistan’s intentions if it allows its territory to be used for violence in Kashmir and elsewhere?

Islamabad may not admit the charge. But this is the perception at this end and it is not confined to one area or one set of people. It is all over. When Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee also says that infiltration from Pakistan has increased and that training camps for terrorists have expanded, it becomes a matter beyond accusations and counter-accusations. The government in Islamabad has to take the allegation seriously and not just brush it aside as its foreign office tends to do.

Although its demand to produce evidence carries weight, those who indulge in such activities do not leave any trace behind. Even then, New Delhi has reportedly given proof which may not be 100 per cent perfect if it is passed through a fine comb. But it is there. America, too, has made some satellite pictures available to show the existence of the training camps. India’s persistent allegation is that even when the two sides have the best of equation at peace talks, the training camps are not dismantled.

New Delhi surmises that President Pervez Musharraf keeps them as a trump card that he can use when the detente process falters. India’s experience, in fact, is that militants coming from across the border keep pace with the progress on peace. The Mumbai blasts are said to be part of that strategy. The talks were not making any headway.

What is new in this is the role of home-grown terrorists. New Delhi has reluctantly conceded that a few Indian terrorists were involved in the blasts. Maybe their complicity is being underplayed but it is not being ruled out. Islamabad only plays up that admission and tries to absolve its militants or those who come through Pakistan from West Asia in the name of jihad.

Terrorism is not a football which should be kicked from one side to the other to register advantage. Both countries are prey to it. They should have jointly thought of steps to deal with it. Since India puts all the blame on Pakistan, Islamabad must offer some credible explanation to disprove the charge. A team of eminent people from both countries can do the job because jingoistic nationalism has not yet contaminated all.

It would be better still to have an independent team of foreign countries, possibly backed by the UN or the Commonwealth, to go into allegations as well as the evidence which America or other countries may provide. This does involve foreign powers in the bilateral problem of India and Pakistan — something New Delhi abhors — but it is one way of putting India’s doubts to rest.

The present situation where New Delhi believes something and Islamabad does not concede even a bit of it has put the skids on everything. Contacts are still there but only on a superficial basis. Incidents like expelling lower-level diplomats will only increase. In this tit-for-tat climate, the governments can do nothing else. Still, New Delhi should not have retaliated immediately to the expulsion of Deepak Kaul. An immediate reaction shows alacrity, not maturity.

Maturity is what India has to show when dealing with Islamabad which is intractable in its attitude. If nothing else, it can unilaterally take measures to increase people-to-people contact. Today most of the steps it has taken are sloppy and lack spirit. Take for example, the bus from Amritsar to Lahore. The fare works out to be Rs11 per kilometre and it does not include the money spent on travelling to Delhi to get a visa. Knowing that the Pakistan government does not want people-to-people contacts to go on — there are several examples to prove this — at least India should unilaterally do something to make travel easy.

Low fares and relaxation in visa restrictions are two measures which would be positive. People in their thousands want to visit India. They cannot do so because they can only procure a visa from Islamabad and that too for only three cities. Reciprocity is not a virtue; it is aping others to cut one’s throat. Why can’t a visa office be opened in Karachi? If this depends on how soon the Pakistan office will come up in Mumbai, India’s foreign office should say so.

The fear that relaxation of visa restrictions will result in more militants coming into India is exaggerated. They do not come through border posts. They have their own routes. The long border with Pakistan cannot be sealed. Nepal is one country which militants have used to walk into India. Better and judicious facilities to issue a visa may pour cold water on their surreptitious ways of entry.

True, Islamabad is impossible at times. But people in Pakistan can judge when a sincere India approaches them for contact. In fact, they have felt uneasy and disturbed because of the halt in the peace process. Some 11 MPs and 20 others who crossed the border to take part in the celebrations on the night of August 14-15 showed defiance to the hate-India campaign that the mullah and the military have blessed. It was an inspiring scene at the Wagah border when half a million people were in a frenzy at finding Pakistani friends in their midst.

What was annoying at the retreat at sunset on August 14 was Pakistan’s tactics to disturb the usual rhythm of cooperation at the border. The Pakistani authorities introduced this time a recitation from the Holy Quran so that the slogan for “India-Pakistan dosti” would not be raised. I do not like the ever-new ways devised to keep the peoples of the two countries distant. Already 59 years have been wasted since independence. People of peace and goodwill must assert themselves on both sides. We owe it to the region and to its bright future.

“Man’s dearest possession is life, and since it is given to him to live but once, he must so live as not to be seared with the shame of a cowardly and trivial past, so live as not to be tortured for years without purpose, so live that dying he can say: All my life and my strength were given to the first cause of the world — the liberation of mankind.” — Nikolai Ostrovsky.

The writer is a leading columnist based at New Delhi.