Bush is an idealist and a revolutionary willing to fight for other countries' freedom, writes Peter Hartcher.

In the past 30 years the number of democracies in the world has almost trebled. Of the 192 nations on Earth, 119 of them, or 62 per cent, are now democratic, according to the annual Freedom House Survey. The democratic sphere has enlarged markedly on every continent and in every region of the world bar one - the Middle East.

Thirty years ago, among the 19 countries of the Middle East and North Africa there were three democracies - Israel, Turkey and Lebanon. Today only the first two survive. Of the 16 Arab states of the region, none is a democracy.

Is this stubbornness against the tide of history because of the dominance of Islam? No. There are democracies in Islamic countries elsewhere in the world. The most populous Islamic country on Earth, Indonesia, is now democratic. And outside the Arab world there are 27 countries that have a predominantly Muslim population. Among them, seven have a democratic set-up.

The renowned philosopher Mohamed Abed al-Jabri has said that, nowadays, democracy is the only principle of political legitimacy acceptable in Muslim societies - whatever their religious beliefs and attitudes. This is the same condition that applies in all other countries, too - there is no longer any other source of political legitimacy abroad in the world.

In practice, there are many variations, there are many delays and interruptions and declarations of states of emergency. But in principle, there is no other serious source of political legitimacy.

Most of the autocratic states of the Middle East have Muslim majorities, but they are not ruled by Islamic regimes. On the contrary, most are stridently secular dictatorships. It is not Islam that is somehow vetoing democracy. It is the self-interest of the secular regimes, the autocrats that defend their own power, or, in Churchill's words, are riding tigers they dare not dismount.

Until now, US presidents have been content to live with this stronghold of tyranny in the Middle East in the service of stability. This has been one of the manifestations of the school of realism in US foreign policy.

George Bush reminded us again yesterday in his State of the Union address that he is no realist. He is an idealist and that means he is a revolutionary.

Last month, in his inaugural address, Bush made a case against tyranny that was so powerful and seemed so brimful with purpose that dictators around the world grew concerned: "We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.

"America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies."

And Bush concluded his inaugural address with words that seemed to burst with imminent action: "America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom."

The stridency and imminence implied in these words was so intense that the Bush Administration then had to set about reassuring some of its favourite autocrats that they were not under immediate risk of hostile US action. Vital US allies, including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and the crucial great powers with which Bush has pursued closer relations, China and Russia, were relieved.

Now, in the State of the Union, Bush burned just as brightly with the fire of his democratic revolution, but he was more careful to specify how and where America wants it to catch alight.

Bush was not retreating in any way from his fervour of a few weeks earlier. Indeed, he explained that it was not only in the service of the high ideal of liberty that Bush framed his vision, but also in American national self-interest: "In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder," said Bush. "The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom."

But this time he differentiated. First, he limited his remarks to the Middle East. Second, he differentiated between friendly states and hostile states.

"To promote peace and stability in the broader Middle East, the United States will work with our friends in the region to fight the common threat of terror, while we encourage a higher standard of freedom."

He spoke of "hopeful reform" in "an arc from Morocco to Jordan to Bahrain". He specifically called on Saudi Arabia and Egypt to make democratic reform.

But Bush was careful to sound intimidating only to unfriendly states, specifically Syria and Iran. He cited these states for harbouring or sponsoring terrorists and promised to confront them.

And, as debate rages inside his Administration about how to deal with Iran's nuclear program, Bush addressed the people of Iran directly: "And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: as you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."

Implicit in this is the fond hope that the Iranians will rise up in a democratic revolution. In the meantime there are powerful voices in his administration that advocate the urgent armed confrontation of Iran.

The key question, of course, is not the desirability of democracy in the Middle East but the practicalities of how to achieve it. The US has a low rate of success in installing durable democratic regimes - it has had four successes out of 16 attempts in the last century.

In Iraq, the Americans are at the point where the presence of its army serves not to advance democracy but only to discredit it. How? Because to continue as an occupier will only arm America's enemies who argue that the US is not serious about freedom, but only about using the cause of democracy as a Trojan horse for its imperial self-interest.

This argument will gain force if Bush continues to tolerate repression in states like Egypt, which has just arrested Ayman Nour, a key opposition leader and an activist in the cause of a moderate democratic alternative to Hosni Mubarak, the long-ruling autocrat and US ally.

Bush has set himself the great cause of unblocking the autocratic obstacles to the tide of history in the Middle East. He appears to be about to intensify the use of friendly pressure on friendly tyrants and gunpoint democracy on unfriendly ones.

It will be a dangerous and difficult test of American resolve and wisdom.