Buoyed up by what he clearly sees as his personal Iraqi triumph, Bush Wednesday restated his list of countries where he says tyranny prevails and where he intends America to see democracy succeed. Iran and Syria are, he says, not only tyrannies but also sponsors of terrorism. Nor did he omit Saudi Arabia from criticism because the pace of its reforms has not pleased him. His words were extraordinarily ill-timed. Later this month, Saudis will take part in democratic elections, when they choose councilors for municipalities, beginning with the capital, Riyadh. The words were also ill-conceived. Public participation in the decision-making in the Kingdom through the Shoura Council began long before Bush became president — and got his “call from above” to deliver democracy mounted on missiles to the Middle East. Saudi Arabia’s reform program has been a cautious process, the pace of which is determined by the Kingdom, not by anyone else.

For Iran there were no soft words, no attempt to line up with the more measured European response to allegations that it is diverting its civil nuclear program toward the production of warheads. There were some glaring contradictions in Bush’s saber-rattling approach to Iran. One is that if the intention to make a nuclear bomb makes Iran “the world’s primary state sponsor of terror — pursuing nuclear weapons...” what does that line of reasoning make the United States, with its thousands of nuclear warheads? Is it that the United States, because it has a special franchise on civilization, will use its nuclear power responsibly? If it is, it will be interesting to hear what those who were in Nagasaki and Hiroshima in August 1945 have to say about it. And again, how come Washington has made no fuss whatsoever about the Israeli stockpile of nuclear weapons, the development and existence of which has been an open secret for over 20 years? The issue here is not Iran’s right to possess nuclear weapons. That is a debatable point. But what needs to be questioned is the argument that the possession of nuclear weapons makes some nations terrorists and others crusaders against terrorism.

There is also a lesson that many will draw from the speech. North Korea which, along with Iran, was a member of the “Axis of Evil” a while ago — because both of them were developing nuclear weapons — is suddenly out of it. There is no threat against it. Instead, “We are working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions.” Why this sudden change of tone? Could it be that, unlike Iran, North Korea is deemed now to have at least two nuclear devices. Is that the reason why Washington is using every diplomatic avenue it can find to talk to the maverick regime in Pyongyang and negotiate the country’s abandonment of its atomic arsenal? If it is, the lesson is clear for all: If you don’t want to be kicked around, get a working bomb. Whatever Bush may think, it does not seem to be the best way of making this a nuclear-free world.

Bush’s mission to end tyranny and promote democracy does not look like a campaign against global terror but more a clear attempt to extend US power and influence.