"The problem is not the regimes and the lack of democracy; nor is it the flawed policies of the White House," said Smith, an expert in Arab and Islamic affairs.. "The essential problem is the same (whether in Iraq, Lebanon or Israel): fear, distrust and hatred of each other."

While regimes themselves may not be directly responsible for terrorism, they do incite terror, and what's more, use terror as a tool for policymaking, Smith said.

In such a climate, conflict resolution becomes increasingly complex. But many, such as the American Enterprise Institute's Joshua Muravchik, firmly believe democracy is not only possible but is the best option.

"Democracy is always a win-win game," Muravchik said. "It's less likely to create conflict, it's better for development and it forestalls catastrophe. It's good for everyone."

However, without important keystones of success in the region, "democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where the empowered majority preys on the weakness of minorities," counters Smith.

For example, democracy in divided societies requires power sharing, an idea that outside of Lebanon is nonexistent in the region, according to Smith, who highlighted the need for leadership that represents the diversity of the Middle East. "Instead of pushing democracy ... we ought to be promoting pluralism," he said.

"These issues cannot be resolved through military alone, nor through elections," Smith said.

So when these forces and others must be combined, how does a course of action materialize? The need for a so-called central command begs the question, but in the erratic political scene in the Middle East, an answer may be hard to come by.

"As soon as any political space is opened, it's not only the good guys who come to light. We have to understand the possible impact of opening space to promote political change. What other forces come forward?" said Marina Ottaway, director of the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Institute for International Peace.

The danger lies not in democracy but in regime change and in the political actors involved, Ottaway asserted. According to her, the Middle East political landscape is "extremely unbalanced" between three types of groups that may all be incapable of democratic change.

Regimes seeking to merely maintain order lack vision of political goals; "few regimes have an idea of the change they want to bring about," Ottaway said. Other groups, those that are more secular in that they do not make religious values as organizing concepts, remain preoccupied in ideological battles that play out in newspaper pages rather than in reality. Islamist parties, perhaps the most efficient of the three, utilize organization and strategy in their systematic exertion of control. These groups are highly effective, but improbable as a conduit of democratic change.

None of the three seems likely as a viable avenue to pursue democratization.

Beyond the inhospitable environment, the other side of the equation presents more indicators of the imminent failure, but also evidence of seeds of success.

"The obsession with 'democratization at gunpoint' is turbo-charging grievances in the region," and the grievances must be addressed, said Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation. Long-term success will take decades, he contends, but is not an impossible feat.

"Of course democratization can take hold. But it will need to be organic, not implemented," Clemons said.

Also necessary will be extensive framework in the form of foreign investments, and a change in language that reflects a transcending of cultural barriers. Western ideas fall on deaf ears because they don't correlate with regional beliefs such as self-determination, according to Clemons, who also proposes an idea similar to the Alaska Permanent fund for Iraq as an economic incentive.

"We have not set up an environment for opportunities to take hold," said Clemons.

Once taken hold though, the possibilities for democracy in the Middle East may be limitless, at least according to proponents like Muravchik.

"Democracy itself is a heuristic device, a tonic that would cure the fevers of the Middle East. It would begin the transformation of this regional culture of violence and help develop peaceful habits," Muravchik insists. "But it must develop in practice. It will be rough and jagged progress."

Related Links
Hudson Institute
Your World At War