Two years back, the United States had already decided to go to war against Iraq. And yet, it was making a show of diplomacy at the United Nations.

Many observers then believed that US PresidentGeorge W. Bush would display some goodwill by relaunching the peace process in Palestine, in order to have freer hands in Iraq. That did not happen.

The United States invaded Iraq and provided full support to the worst Israeli extremists.

Now that the same Zionist neoconservatives remain in command in Washington, why is the Bush administration seemingly prepared to make a few sacrifices in Palestine? Because the situation in "democratic" Iraq demands it.

Further to so-called democratic elections a fair illustration of community groups' ability to mobilise votes Iraq continues on the path towards insecurity and growing hatred against America.

The elections look like a wasted effort. They will not help resolve any of the fundamental issues that the country faces, such as its national unity, its domestic security and the survival of any of its governments.

These elections had little to do with democracy. It all started with Bush's comment: "The world is hearing the voice of freedom from the centre of the Middle East."

The world could not hear anything else, anyway, as the Iraqi truth was so obvious it had to be re-explained every day by dedicated columnists, in a rare example of conformist thinking.

Observers had left the space open for lobbyists. Press syndicate Benador Associates led the way in promoting the official line.

Amir Taheri, who made himself famous with his detailed assertions about Saddam Hussain's hidden "weapons of mass destruction", made another hit.

In an American boot-shining exercise, he described a "massive show of people power in one of the few genuinely clean elections ever held in any Arab country" (Gulf News, February 3).

Actually, these elections were "imposed on the opposition under the protection of military repression", as Sunni tribal leader Raad Al Hamadani observed.

The official US-appointed voting commission mentioned a figure of 54 per cent participation. Other sources (such as www.geostrategie.com) said that only one-third of eligible Iraqi voters could actually exercise their rights.

No independent journalists were allowed to visit some areas. Television stations were authorised to film only five polling stations, four of them in Shiite areas.

A mere 20 international observers were present, compared with the 2,400 in Ukraine.

"Elementary principles for an election were so little respected that [if these elections] had taken place in Syria or in Zimbabwe, the United States and the United Kingdom would have been first to denounce them," Salim Lone, who served as communications director of the UN mission in Baghdad, said.

These days, it seems, democracy is no more about a government of the people, by the people and for the people, but what is looked after by America.

Mahmoud Abbas's election was a democratic one, but Arafat's was not. Israel is the only democracy in the region which, however, can maintain stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction because "it is not a threat to the United States", as Bush's senior advisor Richard Bolton said.

Opposition leader Ayman Nour is arrested in Egypt; detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are stripped off their most basic rights; but this is democracy.

Meanwhile, Bush's State of the Union Address sticks to a pre-emption doctrine and the continued presence of US forces in Iraq "as long as necessary"; US Secretary of States Condoleezza Rice confirms that attacking Iran is "a postponed decision that is not ruled out".

One can feel the enthusiasm of the Arab people to whom Iraqi elections "put to rest the myth that Muslim nations are not ready for democracy" (Gulf News, February 2).

But one should be clear. Democracy is not what suits a dominant power at a given time.

Beyond a freely chosen effective government, Iraqi democracy should also deal with security and the rule of law, the treatment of minorities and, as British weekly The Economist reminded us, "the writing of a constitution that sets out the role of Islam, the balance between the centre and the provinces, and the sharing of oil revenues".

Democracy has not yet won in Iraq, nor is it going to win if it tends towards a theocracy that the United States has already said "it will not accept".

This worsening situation may lead the United States to move on Palestine, just to avoid being wholly cornered. The concept of a viable Palestinian state was reaffirmed by Bush and Rice, who told Israel to prepare for "difficult decisions".

Then, one will see what kind of pressure the United States can exert on Israel when it comes to hard facts.

The Sharm Al Shaikh meeting, indeed, focused on security issues those are the only ones of interest to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"Bush has launched a global war on the grounds of morale at a time when the borders between war and peace are fading away," says analyst Alain de Benoit. And his moral war is endless.

Why are so many countries in the region, which were immune to terrorism 20 years ago, now forced to face this new threat? Is it not because America perverted democracy through the use of selective definitions in order to extend its imperial grip?

America's responsibility in the spread of Islamic fundamentalism should make democracy neophytes more cautious, as the results of Saudi elections in Riyadh show. "The battle to be led is not the one between good and evil, but a fight inside each of us between power and grace, cruelty and fraternity", writes French minister Dominique de Villepin in a recent book. Will the Arab world accept as a perpetual destiny the control of a foreign power that tells it what to do? I believe not.

Luc Debieuvre is a French political analyst and writer on economic issues. He is also a board member of IRIS (Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques)