A wise man once said: "Beware of getting what you wished for." Bush and his hawks have long stated that they wished to see a democratic Middle East emerging from the rubble of Iraq. They consider that elected governments from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean would ensure peace in Palestine; the end of extremism and its associated terrorism; and stability in the region. Dream on.

The seriously flawed assumption on which this wishful thinking is based holds that there is a large groundswell of secular, democratic, liberal opinion in the Arab world that has not found its voice for lack of democracy. It is true that a large number of educated Arabs would like to see sweeping reforms in their countries. Like many of us, they have a modern, secular vision for their societies.

But the major opposition to the dictators and kings in these countries does not come from these elements, but rather from religious extremists who are convinced that the solution to their many problems lies in more, and not less, Islam in public life. These are the groups that are currently fuelling the war on the West, and precipitating the resultant "war against terrorism".

Clearly, these Islamic parties, many of them underground, enjoy vast public support. Since most Arab countries are ruled by pro-West autocrats, their opponents associate them and their misrule with the West. Even anti-American dictators like pre-9/11 Saddam Hussein and Qadhafi are seen as secular and modern, both major sins in the lexicon of the extremists.

Thus, a large section of the Arab world support a return to the early, mythical world of "pure Islam", unpolluted by notions of human rights, gender equality and democratic freedoms.

Since no opinion polls are available, it is difficult to assess how prevalent these views are. However, judging by the force of extremism demonstrated occasionally (and mostly violently) in the region, it would be safe to say that a significant proportion of the public would vote for extremist parties in the event of a free and fair election.

One reason why these parties appeal to the masses is the failure of most Arab states to generate jobs and wealth. Despite the presence of vast reserves of oil in many of them, many rulers and their families have frittered away their wealth at the casinos of Las Vegas or in western armament factories.

"Easy come, easy go" seems to be their motto. But when the masses see their opulent lifestyle, they are naturally embittered and fall easy prey to the promises of reform and austerity made by the fundamentalists. The lesson of Iran, where the clerics have made a far bigger mess than the Shah ever did, is ignored.

So if the Americans got their wish and there were free elections across the region, what kind of Middle East would emerge? It seems that Egypt, Yemen, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, at the very least, would see Islamic, anti-western parties in power.

The secular PLO would be swept away by a Hamas-Islamic Jihad alliance that would be even more militantly anti-Israel than the regime of Yasser Arafat. Iraq would certainly be ruled by a Shia government closely aligned with Iran.

The net effect of such a radical transformation would be a sharp increase in anti-West, anti-Israel sentiment. While oil would continue to flow, its supply would be seen at risk in the capital markets of London and New York.

Some of these extremist governments, glorying in the jihad being waged by Al Qaeda and its subsidiaries, might provide terrorists a safe haven. This could well trigger a sharp reaction from the West where many of these killers operate.

Thus the overall result would be a sharp escalation in tension between important Arab countries and the West. How would Bush and Blair cope with this altered reality? Already there are signs that whatever the rhetoric, western politicians are less than ecstatic about the small tendrils of democratic institutions to emerge from barren Arab soil.

The targeting of the Al-Jazeera TV network is a case in point. In the on-going and bloody siege of Fallujah, Paul Bremer, the American viceroy, has demanded that the Oman-based channel stop broadcasting images of the carnage being wrought by American forces in the besieged city. Both in Kabul and Baghdad, Al- Jazeera offices and journalists have been subjected to "accidental" lethal attacks by American forces.

If a single TV channel giving the other side of the picture is not tolerated, how will the Americans cope with several more? One event that triggered the latest round of resistance to the occupation was the banning of Moqtada Sadr's newspaper for its coverage of the American occupation. Multiply this pinprick by a hundred, and Washington's commitment to press freedom will be sorely tested.

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, western powers have become used to controlling most Arab regimes either directly or indirectly. Unrepresentative and repressive regimes relied on first Britain and France, and after the Second World War, America, to prop them up.

The oil-rich states used their ballooning petrodollar reserves to buy modern arms they could not use against external enemies, but were effective in keeping their own people under control.

The Americans got lucrative contracts, and in return, ensured the survival of these corrupt and decadent rulers. When, like Saddam Hussein, they stepped out of the line, they were quickly and brutally put in their place.

This vastly profitable protection racket will be threatened by the emergence of elected governments that have the support of the majority. More important, anti-Israel sentiment will increase, not decrease with the emergence of popular politicians responsive to the feelings of the electorate. These leaders will take a tougher line against Israeli occupation and repression in the occupied territories.

All in all, the early phase of genuine democracy in the Middle East - the stated aim of Bush and his neo-conservative cabal - will be a lose-lose situation for American interests. However, if the extremists prove to be as inept as the Iranian clergy, they will become discredited and possibly voted out, assuming that the democratic experiment is not terminated once the clerics are in power.

If the Americans are patient and wise - two qualities nobody has accused Bush of - they will wait for these governments to be replaced by more forward-looking parties they can do business with.

But one fears the temptation to sabotage the entire democratic transition will be too strong to resist. Just as the Algerian army triggered a 15-year civil war by refusing to live with the results of the elections about to be won by the Islamists in 1989, the Americans might find that they prefer the kings and dictators to democratically elected governments after all.