Unlike the Magi of Biblical times who came from the Orient, two American "kings" are visiting the Middle East this month bearing expensive gifts and rewards to the various rulers in the region provided they will back the Bush administration's controversial, if not discredited, policies in the region.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defence Robert Gates are this week offering more than $60 billion in American weaponry to the governments of Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain.

And R. Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, will be following shortly to work out details of the American offer.

The lion's share of the American package goes obviously to Israel which over the next 10 years will be receiving $30 billion in American arms - a whopping 25 per cent increase in the level of US military assistance.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert saw this American gesture, which he worked out with President George W. Bush during their talks in Washington in June as "important and significant improvement".

The Israeli leader's comment was seen as an attempt to calm fears among supporters of Israel over a major US-Saudi arms deal. On the other hand, the military assistance to Egypt will remain at the same level -$13 billion.

But unlike any other recipient, Israel has to date been allowed to change to its local currency - the shekel - 26.75 of the total assistance which will be funnelled to its own arms manufacturers.

US officials have been reticent about divulging the extent of US military sales to Saudi Arabia and the remaining Arab Gulf states which have been estimated to be more than $20 billion.

Rice explained that this "renewed commitment" to the region is intended to "help bolster forces of moderation and support a broader strategy to counter the negative influences of Al Qaida, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran".

It will also "bolster our partners' resolve in confronting the threat of radicalism and cement their respective roles as regional leaders in the quest for Middle East peace and in ensuring Lebanon's freedom and independence."

Burns added at a briefing that "the majority of what we are planning" for the Arab Gulf states "are defensive systems, not offensive systems". Then he let the cat out of the bag.

"There are no formal quid pro quos at all behind this, but it stands to reason that given the fact that Iraq is the number-one American foreign policy interest globally, we would want our friends in the region to be supportive, not only of what the United States is doing in Iraq, but ... of the Iraqi government itself."

Saudi Arabia, which is expected to purchase advanced satellite-guided bombs, is being asked, according to Haaretz, "to accept restrictions on the range, size and location of the satellite guided bombs, including a commitment not to store the weapons at air bases nearby Israeli territory".

Largest amount

But nothing is asked of Israel in return for the massive increase in military assistance, which makes Israel the recipient of the largest amount of aid per capita in the world.

In fact, Olmert revealed: "Other than the increase in aid, we received an explicit and detailed commitment to guarantee Israel's qualitative advantage over other Arab states."

However, in an apparent gesture to his donors, he said, "We understand the United States' need to assist moderate Arab states, which are standing in one front with the United States and us in the struggle against Iran."

Surprisingly, it was only the Western-supported Lebanese Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, who had expressed displeasure, surprise and astonishment at the US generosity to Israel.

If nothing else, one would have expected the Bush administration to come up with some quid pro-quo gestures for the Olmert government such as banning the US-supplied cluster bombs (which were used by Israel in its war on Lebanon) and ending its occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Whatever Rice and Gates can come up with on their visit to the region, the Bush administration should speak with one voice. It is obvious that the published accusations of US Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad that Saudi Arabia is undermining US efforts to stabilise Iraq will not sit well with officials in Riyadh.

Likewise, the administration's anti-Syrian stance would only serve as a monkey wrench in the Bush administration's ill-defined effort to sponsor a Mideast peace conference in the fall.

Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East programme at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, who has recently visited with Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, writes that "there is little evidence to suggest that a cornered Syria is a more pliable Syria."

William Quandt, a former aide to president Jimmy Carter who had helped draft the 1978 Camp David accords, is more blunt in his criticism of the current US approach. "I don't think they have a real strategy that has much chance of working," he is quoted as saying.