Iraq

 For more than two decades, the Middle East fell easily into neat strategic pieces like a puzzle: A rock-solid peace treaty tied Egypt and Jordan to Israel; stable, pro-U.S. monarchies lined the length of the Persian Gulf oil channels; autocratic governments across North Africa seemed unshakable.

In a second inaugural address tinged with evangelical zeal, George W. Bush declared: "Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world." The peoples of the world, however, do not seem to be listening. A new world order is indeed emerging - but its architecture is being drafted in Asia and Europe, at meetings to which Americans have not been invited.

Rarely has the old saying that our enemy's enemies are our friends been more apt. In the past three years, since the attacks on New York and the declaration of the war on terrorism, the so-called civilised world has reached new heights of duplicity in its approach to human rights. It has shed consistency in favour of exigency. Ultimately, we shall all pay the price.

Strikes in Venezuela and the prospect of war in Iraq make Opec's belated decision on production and quota levels look irrelevant. But the cartel's action provides an important boost to its credibility. Its members account for only one-third of global production, but they supply two-thirds of exports. Restoring confidence depends partly on Venezuela, Nigeria and Algeria, the most likely defaulters, sticking to the new limits.

Even before images of the first cruise missile strikes on Baghdad reached TV screens on the mainland, the country's intellectuals were debating the US-led war against Iraq and the government's response. Commentaries in leading newspapers and online journals demonstrated a diversity of opinion seldom seen in the country's state-controlled media, and precipitated wider discussion in people's living rooms.