The dangers of relying on the politics of personalities in the Middle East

■"Sharon's Stroke Adds to Turmoil In Israeli Politics: Crisis Complicates Elections, Hopes for New Peace Talks; Concern of Renewed Violence," by Karby Legget, Wall Street Journal, 5 January 2006, p. A1.

■"Militants bulldoze Gaza-Egypt border wall: Hundreds of Palestinians rush through breach; 2 Egyptian troops killed, 30 hurt in rampage," by Associated Press, Indianapolis Star, 5 January 2006, p. A7.

■"Iraq's Political Consensus: The good--and not so good--lessons of its sectarian election turnout," editorial, Wall Street Journal, 5 January 2006.

Is it just me, or does it seem like Israeli politics often features tough guys who, very late in life, decide to make peace, only to die tragically or suffer some debilitating loss before they can bring their vision to fruition? I mean, it seems like Israel is constantly falling just short of some Nixon-goes-to-China outcome that would deliver it some serious stability.

But maybe that just points out how reliant we've all been on the politics of personalities in the region, not just with the autocratic Arabs and those pesky Persians, but even with democratic (and raucously so) Israel.

Sharon, legendary tough guy and hardliner-among-hardliners was in a perfect Nixonian zone for reaching out and forging some new arrangements. He had left Likud and formed his own centrist party Kadima, plus several states in the region are clearly considering normalization of relations with Tel Aviv.

But here's the rub: "the party is largely a product of the force of Mr. Sharon's personality and the dramatic change in approach toward the Palestinians and security issues that he has successfully pushed in recent years."

The U.S. was clearly betting on his amazing pullout from Gaza last year, and with Abbas running Palestine, the opportunity for settling the border issues was definitely there.

Now, perhaps, we're back to zero.

Meanwhile, Gaza is lurching back toward instability. I will tell you, there are plenty in the Pentagon who think we'll end up in Palestine at some point in this process. I know, I know. It's IMPOSSIBLE. We're too tied down. The public won't stand for it. Blah blah.

And yet these things happen, whether we want them or not. I'm just saying that few in the Pentagon think Iraq will be our last intervention in the Middle East. Go figure.

But looking at Iraq's recent election, maybe it just teaches us the reality of "identity politics," as the WSJ calls it, and how it's unrealistic for us to expect that to disappear in a region that's remained: 1) so isolated from globalization for so long; and 2) has suffered so much autocracy for so long.

You pull the top off that, and you have to expect it to boil and bubble for quite some time. A region that so depends on the politics of personalities and has so much unrequited political yearning for identity can't be changed overnight. In fact, it only makes sense that it would be a generational turnover at best. This is not a region of systems, reflecting the general lack of connectivity (or, in the case of Israel, it's strange disconnectedness within its own neighborhood even as it remains amazingly connected to the global economy), so it's all about who is leading and when.

The U.S., Europe, Japan (my Old Core) all enjoy systems robust enough to survive all manner of sloppy and stupid politicians (which is, of course, why we get them, because real talent avoids that venue and I don't blame them), but there is no such slack in the Middle East. There, countries need the best of leaders under the best of conditions and armed with the best of intentions and then ... maybe then ... they get somewhere.

Otherwise, stagnation.