Experienced White House watchers were quick to spot the fact that the spirit and letter of President Bush’s second inaugural address echoed the writings of Natan Sharansky, a prolific Israeli politician who has long been a favorite of the neoconservative group in the Bush administration.

One of the officials who advised reporters that Mr. Bush’s heavy emphasis on spreading freedom throughout the world did not mean a dramatic change in American foreign policy said the president had been influenced by reading Mr. Sharansky’s latest book. The president himself had told The Washington Times, in an interview published Jan. 12, “If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky’s book, ‘The Case for Democracy.’ It’s a great book.”

The subtitle is “The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror.” The Washington Post reported in November that, “nine days after his re-election victory, the president summoned to the White House an Israeli politician so hawkish that he has accused Ariel Sharon of being soft on the Palestinians.” The report said that Mr. Bush met for more than an hour with Mr. Sharansky, along with Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., Mideast specialist Elliot Abrams, and the incoming national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley. The author and his co-author, Ron Dermer, met separately with Condoleezza Rice, whom the president later nominated as secretary of state.

Mr. Sharansky has been a hero to neoconservatives ever since President Reagan obtained his release from a Soviet prison camp. As a member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, he opposes any concessions to the Palestinians until they accept democracy. Thus he opposed the Oslo accord, broke with Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000 over Mr. Barak’s plan to attend a peace conference in Washington, and has opposed Mr. Sharon’s plan to withdraw from Gaza.

In the book, Mr. Sharansky foresees peace in the Middle East through the democratization of Palestine and Iraq, even though he admits this process may take many years or even decades. Like Mr. Bush, he calls for “moral clarity” in fighting evil and says the world is “divided between those who are prepared to confront evil and those who are willing to appease it.” He goes on: “I am convinced that all peoples desire to be free. I am convinced that freedom anywhere will make the world safer everywhere, and I am convinced that democratic nations, led by the United States, have a critical role to play in expanding freedom around the globe.”

A review of the book in The Washington Post points to two basic flaws in Mr. Sharansky’s reasoning. The first is his belief that free societies are always peaceful. As he puts it, “Since all democratic societies strive for peace, there is no such thing as a belligerent democracy.” But what about Iraq, at least partly democratic in 1948, joining with other Arab states in a military effort to overthrow the new state of Israel? What about the preventive wars fought by Israel since then? In fact, what about the U.S. pre-emptive war against Iraq?

The second flaw is Mr. Sharansky’s failure to see that military occupation breeds resentment and insurgency. Both he and President Bush stumble against that obstacle as they present visions of democracy and peace between Israel and the Palestinians and in Iraq. In both cases, peace is a long way off, if it can be achieved at all.