US President Barak Obama's Cairo speech last Thursday is the center of never ending analysis, but none of it truly investigating his overall Middle Eastern vision. Specifics of his speech are known, in particular his demands concerning Israel (halt settlement building and expansion in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria) and the Palestinians (halt violence).

The Islamic world and the Middle East in particular are at a crossroads. One can turn religious/right and become Islamic republics such as in Iran or societies can choose the liberal democratic approach. Most of the Arab world today is ruled by non-democratic secular regimes which no longer represent the people, even if they once did when taking power in the 1950s and 60s. Hosni Mubarak's Egypt is the best example, its Nassarist Free Officers revolutionary messages of Arab socialism and an essentially secular society having gone sour. Despite going through the motions of "elections" democracy never reigned. Promises of wealth distribution and economic development failed, leading to a resurrection of radical Islamist thinking, particularly that of the Moslem Brotherhood. Al Qaeda is the Brotherhood's radical offshoot. Egypt is the Arab world's most populous and powerful nation so Cairo was chosen as the venue for the Obama message. Understanding clearly the failure of the secular Arab regimes (incl. Baathist revolutionary Syria and the conservative Jordanian monarchy) Obama knows these regimes will most likely be overthrown by Islamist revolutionaries or they can try some form of democratic path in the hope of a moderate Islamic influence taking hold in society.

For sure it is a gamble - either Ankara or Tehran. The Turks voted in moderate religionists while the military accepts its role as secular guardian keeping militant Islamists out of power while allowing for democracy. In Iran the Shah's secular dictatorship was overthrown by Khomeini and his extremists 30 years ago when religious expression was repressed. The expectation is that left to their own devises the Arab Middle East and Moslem worlds will shift extremist since none are inclined to embrace democratic values. Obama believes gradual democratic change can eventually lead to regime replacement as shown by the Turkish model and thereby avoid the Iranian alternative.

So why now? Because time is of the essence. A bit of demographic projections and we know that 50 years from today Europe, Africa and Asia from Pakistan westwards (including Indonesia and Malaysia) will be dominated by Islam, both culturally and religiously. Obama seeks to break the double option of either secular nationalist dictatorship or its replacement by an Islamic one. To do so democratic process must take over as the functional form of state authority. The model is roughly European, the religiously inclined and conservative Christian Democrats versus the secular liberal Social Democrats. In America the former are the Republicans and the later Democrats. In the Middle Eastern model we can use generic terms such as "Moslem Democrats" for the conservatives while retaining the term "Social Democrats" for the liberals.

Dictatorship not only tramples human rights but as a system is unstable since regime change is revolutionary and violent more often than not. Democracy as a system is far more reliable since regime change takes place within accepted agreed upon guidelines with checks and balances as a result of popular participation. Instability is the last thing necessary in our increasingly nuclear world. For Obama the Moslem world must become democratic ASAP or we all face cataclysmic global consequences.

The spoiler is rising Islamic extremism, whether Khomeinism or World Jihad (Al Qaeda). Hence Obama's three pronged policy designed to contain the above: The physical battle against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, conflict resolution in the Palestinian - Israeli conflict (a national issue which is developing into a Moslem-Jewish confrontation) and the most urgent need to democratize the Middle East and Moslem world.

Obama's vision will be fulfilled when Cairo follows the lead of Ankara. However he is playing a very risky game with the odds seemingly stacked against him as he advocates the dismantling of the pro-Western non-democratic secular Arab regimes. If the Arab/Moslem world rejects democracy, Tehran will be the winner with Islamic republics the main form of state identity. Such an Islamist victory will be "exported" to the West and in particular the US bringing about an American - Islamic confrontation. Cajoling the Arab/Moslem world to accept democracy Obama hopes to avoid such an eventuality from the outset.