All that would just be a bit of interesting history, if the current Bush administration weren’t in the process of repeating it. Exhibit A? Scowcroft. Scowcroft was a mentor to two key foreign-policy figures in the current administration: National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and the State Department’s director of policy planning, Richard Haass. Through Rice, and through his continuing close relationship with the elder Bush, Scowcroft is playing an influential role in George W. Bush’s efforts in the Middle East, the Washington Post reported October 1. He’s also trying to sway public opinion: America must "repeat the coalition-building of the Gulf conflict," Scowcroft wrote in an op-ed for last Tuesday’s Post. "If anything we are more dependent on friends and allies than we were in the Gulf crisis."

This is the equivalent of saying, "Never mind the mistakes I made a decade ago — I’ll make them even more gloriously this time around." Following the template created by Scowcroft and the first President Bush, the current president and his administration are pressuring Israel into making concessions to the Palestinians. This pressure continues despite the recent assassination of the Israeli tourism minister, Rehavam Zeevi, by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. In a daily briefing last week, for example, a State Department spokesman still stressed the "imperative of Israel exercising restraint." In other words, after the PFLP assassinates an Israeli leader, and Yasir Arafat refuses to crack down on the terror group, "terror must not be allowed to divert the parties from continuing steps to put an end to the violence," according to the State Department. The hypocrisy of this policy alone — the whole Bush war on terror is based on exactly the opposite principle — could cripple the entire struggle.

Of course, none of this should come as a surprise given the pro-Saudi bent of Bush’s father and Scowcroft — and of so many within the current Bush administration, including Haass and possibly Rice. (The notable exceptions are said to include Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense; Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff; and possibly Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.) The Wall Street Journal reported September 27 that the president’s father, former secretary of state James Baker III, and former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci have business links not just to the Saudi regime but to a company connected to the bin Laden family. According to the Journal, the elder Bush advises and has made speeches on behalf of the Carlyle Group, a Washington merchant bank in which the bin Laden clan is a major investor. If there were any doubt about the former president’s involvement in Middle Eastern matters, it should have been put to rest this summer. In a July 15 story headlined bush senior, on his son’s behalf, reassures saudi leader, the New York Times reported that Bush still relies on his father when it comes to the Middle East. Apparently Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was irked that the younger Bush had until then taken a hands-off approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bush was in the room, but silent, when the former president telephoned the Saudi. "The president’s heart is in the right place," Bush’s father reportedly assured the Saudi prince.

Yet after all this deference toward the Saudi regime and its concerns, the Saudis have not exactly rushed to reassure the Arab world that the campaign against Afghanistan does not represent a Western jihad against Islam. First, the Saudis refused America the use of their air bases on the Arabian peninsula. Then, they condemned America’s bombing campaign in Afghanistan. "We wish the United States had been able to flush out the terrorists in Afghanistan without resorting to the current action ... because this is killing innocent people," said Saudi interior minister Prince Naif. "We are not at all happy with the situation."

Given American reliance on oil, it’s a lot easier to pressure our ally, Israel, at the behest of Saudi Arabia than it is to ask serious questions about the corrupt Saudi regime. Why did the Saudis pour millions if not billions of dollars into Islamic charities that transfer money to bin Laden? Why do the Saudis remain so uncooperative about the prospect of war in the region? Finally, why do the Saudis continue to fund the Islamic schools in Pakistan that fuel pro–bin Laden and pro-Taliban sentiment? Indoctrination in hate and suicide bombing is a much more fundamental cause of terrorism than any alleged American misdeeds.

Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Senator John McCain of Arizona accused the Saudis of "playing ... kind of a double game here." He said: "They’re kind of trying to have it both ways." His fellow guest, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, took McCain’s words a step further. "We can’t tolerate a nation like the Saudis, whose government, in many ways, continues to stand because we support them, to promulgate that hatred."

But Bush’s current focus — away from Saudi Arabia and onto Israel — plays into exactly the same duplicitous game the Saudi regime has used for years to divert attention from itself. The more effort the Bush administration puts into forging a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians during the war on terrorism, the greater the chance that the US will be distracted from the real goal: bringing terrorists to justice. Just as they did during the Gulf War, the Saudis have created a trap — one that could lead to less-than-total victory. With 6000 Americans already dead and more deaths surely on the way, that would be tragic.

Seth Gitell can be reached at sgitell[a]phx.com