Beyond that, however, at present there is no legal provision for eliminating dictators, no matter how bloodthirsty they may be. For the moment, all that the rubble left after the destruction of deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's regime illustrates is how lousy most regimes in most of the world are, not simply in their excessive use of power, but also by the luxurious lifestyle of the tyrants ruling them, standing in contrast with the austerity, often misery, imposed on their populations. Furthermore, modern history is full of examples of sons-of-bitches being ultimately replaced by other, sometimes far bloodier, sons-of-bitches. We do not entirely understand why proper governance is such a problem. What seems beyond historical doubt, however, is that for regime change from dictatorship to democracy to occur successfully, the best, arguably only course, is for developments to occur inside the society concerned, rather than be imposed from outside.

Had the western allies invaded Spain in 1944-1945, as many urged they should, and had they overthrown the fascist dictator Francisco Franco, it is highly probable that the communists would have seized power and the Spaniards would have been no better off. Ultimately, Spain became a robust democracy because the Spaniards themselves made it a democracy.

A revealing contrast in East Asia can be drawn between Japan and South Korea. In Japan, democracy came from the barrel of General Douglas McArthur's gun. Given the absence of truly indigenous origins, democracy has never really taken root in Japan.

In South Korea, on the other hand, democracy was won by militant activists who not only had to fight against their own dictatorial regime, but also against US interference. South Korea has already achieved genuine regime change via the ballot box in its short history of democracy, something Japan has not experienced since democracy was installed by the US almost 60 years ago.

Going to war for democracy may sound nice in principle, but it will yield nothing substantial in practice. So why did the US go to war with Iraq? The fact that the US government - to put it very, very mildly - has been economical with the truth has not made understanding easy and has led to the spawning of conspiracy theories, which focus on the nature of the Bush regime and its entourage.

The administration has three dominant characteristics. One is that President George W. Bush is a Christian fundamentalist. The second is that oil interests are strongly represented, through his family and Vice-President Dick Cheney. The third is that there are well-known Likud-sympathising Zionists in influential positions in policy circles, notably Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Pentagon adviser Richard Perle.

All three conspiracy theories have an air of truth. While the Christianisation of the Arab world sounds nuts, it must be remembered that fundamentalists are by definition irrational. The close relationship between Mr Bush and the evangelist Grahams - father Billy and son Franklin - and the fact that the latter intends to be involved in post-war Iraq, gives credence to the view that Mr Bush does indeed perceive the war to be part of a broader 'crusade'.

The opacity surrounding how oil contracts will be awarded and the rapid positioning of Halliburton - formerly headed by Mr Cheney - provide lots of grounds for those inclined to think the war was basically all about oil.

In an article in the South China Morning Post on April 8, headlined 'Iraq: Is the real winner Israel?' Philip Bowring argues that the current administration's foreign policy is responding to the interests of ultra-Zionists and that its idea of empire fits well with the goals of the Likudniks. But without peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians, the prospects of good governance in the Middle East are nil. The very existence of Israel justifies the neighbouring regimes maintaining large armies and bureaucracies, an insurmountable obstacle to good governance.

Given that peace in the Middle East is the key requirement for stability and prosperity in the region, resolving that dispute and relaunching the peace process deserved a much higher priority than waging war on nasty regimes. All this shows how the Bush administration's inability to put forward a compelling explanation for the war has made the conspiracy theories not only proliferate, but sound more persuasive. I cannot think of any major war in the past 200 years the reasons for which lie so shrouded in mystery. The truth is probably much simpler. I think we are paying the price for having the most powerful nation the world has ever seen led by a man who until he became president had never shown the slightest degree of interest in (let alone respect for) the outside world.

His ignorance is blissful in that he harbours no doubts. That is a great advantage for fundamentalists. Not only are there no doubts, but actions are cloaked in superior moral garb. Waging war on Iraq was something he decided to do and that nothing could stop. (All those who stand to benefit - Christian fundamentalists, ultra-Zionists, Halliburton - were, of course, more than pleased to join and share the spoils).

This is not a Bush conspiracy theory, since I do not believe he is capable of conspiring even with himself. This is a man who shoots from the hip and does not ask questions, least of all of himself. He did not come to the presidency intent on going to war with Iraq. That would smack of vision and strategy. This war was the result of no such thing, but just sheer gut reaction.

Mr Bush will not only cause havoc in the Middle East. Unless he is removed from office at the next election and succeeded by a more worldly and rational person, he will set in motion the decline of the US. History over thousands of years is replete with examples of societies, nations - indeed, entire civilisations - brought down due to the arrogant ignorance of their rulers.

Jean-Pierre Lehmann is professor of international political economy at the International Institute for Management Development in Lausanne, Switzerland, and founding director of the Evian Group