The climax of Bush's Mideast visit was his hostile speech against Iran, delivered in the United Arab Emirates, in which he urged Arab allies to take action against the Islamic republic "before it's too late."

The U.S. president's trip can be seen in the context of successive U.S. attempts to lobby its Arab allies against Iran, a country that is forming a pole of its own. A regional power that cannot be underestimated, the Islamic republic seems to be challenging Washington's hegemony in almost every vital spot of U.S. interest in the Middle East: from Iraq to Lebanon and from the Gulf states to Syria.

Tensions between Washington and Tehran abated for a while, particularly after the release of a U.S. intelligence report stating that Iran halted work on its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

But that was short-lived. Some analysts attribute a renewal of tensions to a confrontation earlier this month in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, where, according to Washington, U.S. navy ships were threatened by five Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats.

But other analysts, such as prominent Egyptian political thinker, Fahmy Howeidy, think the U.S. claim was overblown. He accepts Tehran's version of the story, but also thinks the incident created a level of "ecstasy" inside Iran for embarrassing the United States.

A senior U.S. researcher sees two new poles of influence in the region.

"It is ironic that today Iran and Israel represent the two most important poles of Middle East politics. For the old-line Sunni states -- particularly Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt -- that have traditionally regarded themselves as the dominant policy voices in the region, this is quite a shocking development," said Gary Sick, a senior research scholar at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs' Middle East Institute.

The United States, according to Sick, strengthened Iran's position as a regional power by eliminating two of Iran's strongest enemies: the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

"The United States, having created this problem, is now attempting to solve it by attempting to build a coalition of … countries that were left out of the process, i.e. the Sunni Arabs, and getting them to align themselves as much as possible with Israel to oppose Iran," Sick, who has served on the National Security Council under presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan, told the Middle East Times.

Amid the sometimes confusing U.S. messages to the emerging power in the Gulf, Iran's neighbors, particularly the Gulf states, find themselves in a perplexing, vulnerable situation.

Today, Arab countries are caught between their allegiance to the world's superpower and the new reality in the region, which is characterized by the rise of Iranian power, a situation that leaves them with very few options.

To totally surrender their decades-long alliance with the United States is out of the question, while bidding solely on U.S. power means losing a possible rapprochement chance with Iran, with all the potential consequences this carries.

According to Howeidy, "Arab countries are in a very weak position. They have the strength to do nothing."

Besides having nuclear capabilities and resources of energy, Iran is a major regional power. It has many bargaining cards to use, including the Shiite communities in Arab countries, its nuclear program, control over vital waterways, as well as other geopolitical and demographical privileges.

Almost all Arab countries have Shiite communities. They are often regarded with suspicion -- even when they are in the majority, such as in Bahrain -- because they are suspected of owing allegiance to the Islamic republic.

Two years ago, King Abdullah of Jordan warned that Iran was attempting to create a "Shiite crescent." Regardless of this fear within Sunni-dominated Arab governments, the line between such allegations and the actual conflict of allegiances that some Shiites feel is sometimes blurred.

As mentioned above, the vacuum created by the absence of a strong Iraq has strengthened Iran's position in the region. It is important to note that, according to many analysts, in the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq, Saddam Hussein acted as a proxy for Arab countries, who feared the spread of revolutionary ideas promoted by the newly established regime in Tehran.

In a region where Islamists are either crushed by autocratic governments or isolated from the masses for adopting a reactionary form of Islam that is usually associated with extremism and terrorism, the Iranian form of Islamic activism, with all its support for resistance and defiance against "imperial powers," seems to be winning over the Arab street.

During Lebanon's summer 2006 war, one that was regarded by many as Iran's proxy war against the United States, Arab masses flooded into the streets holding photos of Hezbollah's secretary general while chanting slogans of resistance.

Interestingly, when polled about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a great number of Arabs tend to answer favorably.

Iran's nuclear program is also a concern for Arab countries. This, in turn explains recent declarations by several Arab countries of their intentions to pursue peaceful nuclear programs.

Howeidy dismissed the idea of the Iranian nuclear program being a threat to the Arabs.

"Definitely, Iran's nuclear technology will serve the interests of Arab countries. Arab countries have coexisted with nuclear Pakistan for decades. It should not be any different with Iran. Iran's nuclear capabilities will maintain a balance of power in the region."

Sick cited a statement by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, saying that "there are some 40 countries in the world that have the necessary nuclear technology to be able to build a nuclear bomb in a relatively short period of time should they choose to do so."

Despite the superficial solidity of the "anti-Iran alliance," according to some observers, Arabs still fear a possible deal between Washington and the Islamic republic, which might not take into consideration the interests of Iran's neighbors.

A possible deal with Iran would most probably involve Iraq and the Islamic republic's nuclear program, two issues on which Iran seems to be winning.

The deal scenario appears to be a distinct possibility, particularly in light of the Bush administration's "two-track policy" toward Iran, as described by Sick. On one hand, the U.S. government has been trying to form an "international coalition to put maximum pressure on Iran, particularly with regard to its nuclear program. At the same time, it has cautiously experimented with direct talks with Iran, relying on the good offices of the Shiite government in Baghdad," he explained.

If the potential agreement gives Iran a free hand in Iraq, Arab countries will have to deal with a serious threat; the Shiite control over Iraqi politics and the rise of nuclear Iran to the east will leave Arab governments in a very vulnerable situation.

Although most Iranian politicians today are adopting a less fervent attitude toward the idea of "exporting" the revolution, a concept that was introduced by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the fear of the revolutionary zeal reaching the Shiite minorities in Arab countries is still in the air.

Obviously, the United States will not be able to put pressure on Iran without the help of its Arab allies. In this context, Arab countries are forced to find a formula by which they can avoid upsetting the U.S., secure their interests with Iran, and protect themselves from the rising Iranian power. Whether or not the Arabs will be able to find such a formula remains an open question that will be answered as events unfold.

"Political affairs are complicated," explained Howeidy. "For instance, some parts of Iran, particularly Abadan, are located only about 100 kilometers away from the shores of the United Arab Emirates. Practically-speaking, the issue is difficult."

Iran has $11 billion worth of trade with the UAE, its biggest trading partner, wrote Sonia Verma for the Globe and Mail newspaper. At the same time, Egypt's Ministry of Commerce and Industries announced that talks were underway with Iranian officials to sign an agreement to purchase tons of wheat from Iran.

According to Howeidy a number of Arab countries, including Egypt, have chosen to express their "dissatisfaction" with the United States by opening new diplomatic channels with Iran.

He added, however: "Despite all the reports about a heightened tension, I believe that there are no major problems in U.S.-Arab relations."

Despite superficial rapprochement between Iran and its Arab neighbors, it remains impossible for someone in Egypt, for instance, to make a telephone call to Iran without having state security permission first. This is typical of the position adopted by Arab states: a no war, no peace situation characterized by a policy of cautious Arab détente.