WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 (UPI) — If U.S. foreign policy planners were Machiavellian enough, one could be led to believe that they planned the whole affair surrounding former Pentagon golden boy Ahmed Chalabi, the man most likely to become the new prime minister of Iraq. But their track record — and history — has proven otherwise.

Chalabi, a long-time Iraqi exile who initially based himself in London, was at first supported by Richard Perle, a neo-conservative policy-setter.

Chalabi first came into the limelight over his debacle in Jordan in 1992, when his Petra Bank went bust leaving more than $300 million in debts. The Jordanians sentenced him in absentia, and a court in Amman found him guilty of 31 counts of embezzlement and bank fraud. He was given 22 years in hard labor. Chalabi, however, never served any time.

He was helped out of Jordan in a car provided for by Prince Hassan, the brother of then King Hussein. He made his way to London, where he survived on the monthly stipend of $340,000 allocated by the Defense Department's Defense Intelligence Agency. Chalabi claims he is innocent. He says he was framed by Saddam Hussein and King Hussein, who connived to put an end to his anti-Saddam activities. Chalabi maintains that he is in possession of documents proving his innocence.

He founded the Iraqi National Congress — an opposition group of Iraqi exiles. Chalabi and some of his associates were at times dubbed by their critics as "the Rolex Revolutionaries" due to accusations of extravagant lifestyles.

Chalabi was instrumental in convincing the Bush administration to topple Saddam, prompting one high-ranking American official to say that anyone who can get the United States to invade Iraq on his behalf must be a "very clever politician."

But soon after the fall of the Baathist regime, Chalabi quickly fell out of favor with the Pentagon when it was alleged that he funneled sensitive documents to Iranian intelligence — an accusation also denied by him. Last May American troops and Iraqi police stormed into his Baghdad home ransacking through his belongings as Chalabi was reported to lament, "Why, Bush? Why? Is this your freedom and democracy for Iraq?"

Since his return to Iraq following the removal of Sadddam, Chalabi had received permission to open an office in Tehran, a country he has visited on a number of times. Journalists who traveled with Chalabi to Iran reported that he was received in the Islamic Republic with full honors and given the red carpet treatment — literally.

Since his fall from favor with the U.S. administration, Chalabi, a Shiite, re-aligned himself with Iraq's most revered Shiite religious authority, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. It was undoubtedly one of his smartest moves. Again, analysts remarked that if U.S. intelligence was Machiavellian enough, they would have orchestrated the whole episode. What better way to give Chalabi credibility among many Iraqis, particularly among those opposed to the U.S. occupation, than to make him appear a pariah to the United States?

Since parting ways with the Pentagon, Chalabi spent time winning favors and cultivating support with Tehran's mullahs and convinced Sistani to include him on his electoral slate.

Iraqis who voted Sunday chose a slate rather than a candidate. Given that the names of most candidates were not revealed due to security concerns, many Iraqis voted for the slate their religious leaders told them to vote for. Chalabi was the lead candidate on Sistani's slate. If Sistani's slate wins, Chalabi will most likely become the next prime minister of Iraq.

Sunday's vote was hailed as historic around the world, as indeed, it was. However, what was largely overlooked in the euphoria of "bringing democracy" to Iraq is the new geo-political reality this vote has created.

President Bush was quick to declare another mission accomplished even though it may be somewhat premature to think that democracy prevailed. The reality of Sunday's election is that it helped create the first Arab Shia state — something Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had tried to do since the 1979 Islamic Revolution but never succeeded.

"I firmly planted the flag of liberty for all to see that the United States of America hears their concerns and believes in their aspirations," said Bush last week.

Iraq's move toward democracy should without the shadow of a doubt be applauded, and it is to be wished that it spreads to the rest of the Middle East. But anyone who has spent any time in the Middle East will counsel extreme caution and tell you that nothing ever goes according to plan.

The elections were a step in the right direction, but they also took Iraq a step closer to Iran. With any luck — and some U.S. coaching — the Iraqis will take a good hard look at Iran's theocratic system and shy away.

Sistani has repeatedly voiced his intention not to turn Iraq into another Islamic republic, opting instead for a more secular approach.

Nevertheless, the result of Sunday's election gives the Shiites a second foothold in the Middle East, a move that will encourage their coreligionists in nearby Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, where they constitute important — if at times somewhat turbulent — minorities. Shiites also comprise the majority in Lebanon, and Syria's minority Alawis, though not considered Shiites, originate from Shiism. Syria's ruling Assad family is Alawi.

Bush's opponents have criticized Iraq's balloting as a means of justifying the U.S. invasion and occupation when weapons of mass destruction failed to materialize. On the other hand, the election was hailed by the president's supporters as a giant step for freedom and democracy. The reality of Iraq's vote, however, is that it has introduced a new political reality in the Middle East. Time will tell how Machiavellian that was.