These are certainly exciting times in the Middle East. Even the most cynical observer can't help but feel a twinge of excitement as the peoples of the region begin to assert their right to a just, democratic, peaceful future. But if we take a step back from the celebrations--and in the United States, self-congratulation--of the last month or so a much more sober reality emerges; one which reminds us of how little has actually been accomplished on the ground and how far ahead lies the road to real democracy.

Here's the reality in the region as of the time of writing: in Afghanistan the "democratically elected" government of Hamid Karzai still controls almost no territory outside of Kabul, the capital, while opium production--much of which reaches the United States as cheap, potent, and therefore deadly heroin--has skyrocketed under the watchful eye of the US military. And, of course, the Taliban have regrouped and are increasingly powerful in the no-man's land of the frontier provinces with Pakistan. This is not surprising since three years into the American occupation Afghanistan remains perhaps the poorest country in the world.

In Palestine, free and fair elections have occurred, but it is hard to see how this will improve the lives of most Palestinians--or Israelis for the matter--in the near future. Not only has it not stopped Palestinian violence, but the Israeli government continues to expand settlement construction and has okayed a rerouting of the so-called "security fence" that will permanently alienate even more land, the sine qua non for a viable state, from Palestinians. The current scenario is in fact eerily similar to the early Oslo period, and we all know where that led. What this should tells us is that without a clear demonstration by Israel that it will relinquish practically all the territory conquered in 1967 and a concomitant renunciation of all forms of violence by Palestinians there will be no peace, no matter how many elections, conferences and aid commitments we read about.

Then there's Iraq, where we should remember the US opposed elections (in favor of a US-appointed transitional council) until the country's Shi'i religious hierarchy left us no choice but to go ahead with them. And while they were successful from the standpoint of Shi‘i and Kurdish turnout and the relatively violence-free atmosphere under which they were conducted--if we consider 40-plus dead Iraqis on election day to be relatively violence free--the violence picked up again soon after, Sunnis seem to be little closer to joining the electoral process, abuses and killing of foreign and Iraqi civilians by US troops and insurgents alike continue apace, and nothing has been done to stem the massive corruption that will destroy any possibility of building a democratic political and economic culture in the country.

The two most celebrated moves toward democracy are the announcement of multiparty elections in Egypt and the mass protests that are forcing Syria to begin a process of withdrawal from Lebanon. The US is taking credit for both of these developments, but it's hard to see how it can credibly do so, or that even if both processes played out as planned it would signify a real democratic evolution in the two countries.

Starting with Egypt, President Mubarak has signaled his support for "multiparty" elections this year; but announcing this process is a far cry from holding anything resembling a truly free and fair election in the country. Not only are democracy advocates admitting that the coming elections are sure to be rigged to ensure the ruling National Democratic party remains firmly in power, there's absolutely no guarantee that in the five to seven years before the next election that the regime won't continue to arrest democracy advocates, ban or coopt opposition parties and utilize the myriad other standard practices of authoritarian regimes that together will make the next elections little freer than this one, whatever the hoopla that might surround them.

And lest we assume the United States will keep a watchful eye on the country's democratization process, let's remember that Egypt remains America's number one destination for "rendering" high value intelligence detainees for "interrogation"--in plain language, torture--outside the bounds of US law. It's hard to see how the US will push Egypt (or Jordan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or other rendition-friendly countries for that matter) to democratize as long as they continue to be our principal destinations for the "ghost detainees" of the war on terror.

Finally, there's Lebanon, ostensibly the most heartening development of them all. Except when we realize that the "withdrawal" of Syrian troops will likely not change much in the country. Syria has functioned in Lebanon like the mob, skimming a nice share of the cream off the country's economy in return for ensuring stability of the existing system. Rafiq Hariri believed that the Lebanese no longer needed an outside power to ensure its stability, a sentiment which likely cost him his life. But even if Syria withdrew its armed forces, innumerable Syrian intelligence agents--enforcers really--hidden amidst tens of thousands of guest workers, would remain, ensuring that the system continues to function as a combination cash cow and safety valve for Syria's otherwise moribund economy.

Naturally, none of this concerns the tens of thousands of protesters camping out in Martyr's Square in Beirut. But we need to realize several things about these protests that were already clear last fall when I visited Beirut: first, unlike the East European protest movements of the late 1980s, today's generation in Lebanon and elsewhere has no love for the United States, is not protesting in response to President Bush's rhetoric, and most protesters are as opposed to US domination of the region as to Syria's. Second, as of now, the protests don't include the most important demographic and political force in the country--young Shi‘a who are nominally supportive of pro-Syrian Hizbollah (which is, in many ways, the most democratic force in the country), without whom the democracy movement will never achieve a critical mass. To contextualize the situation: if the current protest have brought about 25,000 people into the streets, Hizbollah brought 500,000 people--roughly 20 times that number--into the streets just last month for the celebration of the Shi‘i holy day of Ashura.

It is undeniable that a seismic shift in the political landscape of the Arab world is occurring before our eyes. But before the United States can meaningfully support democratic transformation we need to understand both America's ongoing role in frustrating democracy, how marginal the democratic gains of the last six months have been on the ground, and how little President Bush's eloquent rhetoric will mean unless backed by a sea-change in the substance of US foreign policy. Only such an honest appraisal can lay the groundwork for a productive American role in the democratic transformation of the Middle East.