WASHINGTON: After two visits that ended in dismal failure, the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, had vowed not to return to the Middle East until it was apparent he could accomplish something. Now he has been ordered back once more, but the prospects of success remain far from assured.

What has undeniably changed is the rhetoric emanating from the White House. Friday’s presidential statement went further than the Bush administration has gone before towards linking the requirement for political progress to the demand for an end to violence.

The Israelis, the president said, would have to stop the occupation and stop building settlements, the two immediate Palestinian demands. It marked a break from the previous White House position that there could be no concessions in the “war against terrorism”.

The statement, in the views of one European diplomat in Washington provides “a wholly different platform for Powell” when he flies in to the Middle East next week.

But for all Bush’s display of resolve, it is not clear it will translate into solid backing for Powell once he sets foot in the region and confronts the Israeli and Palestinian leaders some time next week.

Both sides have become adept at gauging how much presidential authority US envoys carry. They quickly deduced that Powell, on his two previous visits, and the special envoy, Anthony Zinni, had very little.

While the president sent them on their thankless tasks, pro-Israeli hawks in the vice-president’s office and in the Pentagon signalled that they did not represent the dominant school of thought within the administration, which backed Ariel Sharon’s own “war on terrorism” to the hilt.

The hawks have opposed Gen Zinni’s peacemaking efforts as a reward for Palestinian terrorism, and are likely to portray Mr Powell’s mission in the same light. It is hardly surprising that the secretary of state looked less than delighted in the White House rose garden on Friday, as the president made his remarks.

The last time he was in Israel, last June, he backed the idea of placing international monitors in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but was then forced to reverse himself in the face of angry Israeli criticism and a lack of support from Washington.

After a Palestinian attack in the course of his visit, he also found himself obliged to support Sharon’s declaration that no political talks could take place without seven days of absolute calm, handing a veto on peace to the bombers. This time round, much will depend on whether the centre of gravity in Washington has shifted decisively to a realisation that long-term US interests were going up in flames along with the towns of the West Bank.

Powell’s success or failure could be decided by what he carries in his briefcase. If it contains sanctions for non-compliance as well as rewards for compliance, it will make it much easier for him to get the attention of Sharon and Arafat. There is no doubt that the secretary of state is wandering onto a diplomatic minefield with only the most unreliable of maps. His greatest worries may concern the intentions of his political enemies back in Washington. —Dawn/The Guardian News Service.