Washington ? A regime change in Iraq would mean a regime change in Saudi Arabia, Syria, the smaller Gulf states, and possibly in Egypt and Iran as well. Why? Because democracy is contagious, and democracy is what the United States has in mind for post-Saddam Iraq. This is the real reason that there is no Middle Eastern support for America to oust Saddam Hussein.

President George W. Bush has it right. Unlike his father, who assured his Syrian and Saudi allies that he wouldn’t go to Baghdad, much less call for a new democratic government in Iraq, the current president has his cabinet members publicly announcing just such plans.

Troops and equipment are now being positioned to execute the plan, and except for Great Britain and Israel, we have no allies, not even the royal family of Kuwait, who we restored to power in 1991 and whose people we liberated from Saddam’s yoke. Neither is Saudi Arabia with us, even though Saddam’s tanks poured out of Kuwait into that country only to be stopped literally in their tracks by U.S. armored forces. The Saudis will not even allow U.S. forces to marshal there.

Just as the United States supported dictators to fight communism in the Cold War, the Arab dictatorships are willing to support a fellow dictator to fight democracy. Brian Cohn (son of Douglas Cohn) dubbed it “The Reverse Domino Theory.” Indeed, it is an old Arab proverb that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In this case, that enemy is an ideology: democracy. And they have a point, because democracy will unseat those Middle Eastern rulers just as surely as would an invasion.

Oddly enough, the Saudis pretend to support free and democratic elections for the Palestinian people living in the West Bank and Gaza. Perhaps they believe it will never come to pass or that, like Israeli democracy, it will not spill over to its neighbors. But this is strange thinking. Israeli democracy has not spread because religious and cultural differences have proven to be strong counterweights. This would not be the case for a Palestinian democracy. And it most certainly would not be the case for an Iraqi democracy.

It is of note that we first advocated a post-war democracy for Iraq in 1991, but at that time most Americans agreed with President George Bush the Father that it was enough to oust Saddam from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Today, the previous decision not to go to Baghdad is viewed widely as a mistake. And this has brought significant pressure on President Bush the Son not to appear that he is fixing what papa ruined. On the other hand, a majority of Americans believe there is not yet sufficient provocation to attack Iraq.

So it will take a great deal of courage to order a pre-emptive strike in the face of opposition at home and abroad. But it would be the right thing to do.

Prediction: The benefit to accrue from a democratized Iraq would prove to be monumental. Democracy would spread and peace could finally find home in the troubled Middle East the modern world’s powder keg.