As 2007 approaches, brace yourself. It's going to be a helluva year.

At home, we will see the great ANC succession struggle reach its climax, with consequences that will shape the future of this country for decades. Abroad we are going to see the great Middle Eastern mess plunge to new depths, with consequences that could shape the future of the world for decades.

The year may begin with deceptive quietness. The courts will be in recess throughout January, so we shall not see any early attempt to recharge Jacob Zuma. The National Prosecuting Authority reportedly has a new indictment in draft form, but it is unlikely to present it until March or April at the earliest.

Two appeals relating to the search and seizure of documents from Zuma and his lawyer have still to be heard, and the prosecution will surely want to wait for these judgments before moving. It will also want to have completed its attempt to have access to relevant documents from the French arms company Thint's branch office in Mauritius.

After Judge Herbert Msimang's stinging rebuke, the NPA will not want to be caught again in the embarrassing situation of charging Zuma and then having to ask for repeated adjournments as it waits for these judicial processes to be completed. This time, it will want to be ready to start the case right away before bringing a new charge.

That could mean a delay of four months or more - a delay which presents a window of opportunity for a political settlement of this bitter conflict which is threatening to tear the ANC alliance apart.

What form such a settlement might take is hard to say. If there were any doubt before, the Appeal Court's judgment in the Shabir Shaik case has established that there is indeed a prima facie case for Zuma to answer. That means the prosecuting authority should charge him; it would be wrong simply to abandon the case for political reasons. But a plea bargain compromise would be legally and ethically acceptable.

If there is no deal, the case will go ahead, turning mid-year into a time of high political drama and stress, with potentially damaging consequences for both the ruling alliance and the country.

Other factors around mid-year will heighten the stress levels. In May, the Democratic Alliance will choose a new leader, which, if smart thinking prevails, could reposition it to take advantage of any split that might occur in the ANC-alliance.

The ANC's succession struggle will effectively begin a month later, when it holds a policy conference to determine what kind of party it should be - how far to the left or right in the broad spectrum of social democracy. It is a debate which will bring to a head the whole ideological conflict between the supporters of the Growth, Employment and Redistribution policy (Gear) and its bitter opponents; between the pragmatists and the so-called "ultra left".

It is a debate that will have to decide these issues once and for all - and once decided will effectively determine what kind of leader the ANC should have. To that extent, it will be a precursor to the ANC's national conference later in the year at which the next leader will be chosen, for whoever that is will be largely bound by the June policy decisions.

Picture all this taking place against the backdrop of a Zuma corruption trial. It is enough to make one shudder with apprehension.

The international outlook is no less forbidding. As the mess in Iraq worsens - the death toll is now averaging 1 000 a week - it is evident President George Bush is trying his damndest to avoid accepting the Baker Study Group's advice to begin a gradual withdrawal of US troops while at the same time launching a campaign of expanded regional diplomacy, including talks with Iran and Syria. This despite James Baker's standing as a long-time Republican Party and Bush family fixer.

The Baker group's careful analysis and advice are being muddied by a flood of alternative proposals, the latest of which is a Pentagon plan to actually increase the number of US troops in Iraq by another 35 000 in the hope of stabilising the situation sufficiently to make a later phased withdrawal easier.

It's a vain hope. Given that the 140 000 US troops already in Iraq are unable to prevent the relentless escalation of a civil war between factions they can neither identify nor comprehend, it is hard to see how a few thousand more will make any meaningful difference.

More likely, it will simply provide the angry Iraqi militias with another 35 000 targets on whom to wreak their vengeance for the destruction of their country.

These militias have infiltrated the new Iraqi army and police force to such an extent that ordinary Iraqis themselves can no longer tell the difference between the insurgents and the security forces, so how young Americans from the backwaters of Kansas and Missouri |arriving in this strange and hostile place are supposed to do so defies imagination.

Moreover, the expanded American forces are supposed to train the Iraqi army and police so they can take over responsibility for maintaining security. Which means the Americans will be training the infiltrated militiamen as well, making them more efficient killers.

It seems to me all this is simply a smokescreen to obscure the Baker plan and create the illusion that the Bush administration is developing a new strategy, whereas in fact it is simply playing for time. Having proclaimed his determination to "stay the course" and denounced his critics for wanting to "cut and run," Bush cannot bring himself to order a withdrawal, however gradual.

His aim is to hang in there until he can dump this wretched problem in his successor's lap.

Nor is the other great Middle Eastern issue, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, looking any less bleak. After his messy invasion of Lebanon, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is as much a lame duck as Bush. His plan for a unilateral withdrawal of Jewish settlements from the West Bank, inherited from the still comatose Ariel Sharon, is now dead. Only the wall remains.

The so-called "road map" is dead, as are the Oslo Agreements. And as long as the Israeli settlements remain in the West Bank, there can be no viable state for the Palestinians. So the "two-state solution" is dead too.

With no creative thinking anywhere, Olmert refuses to talk to Hamas, the only organisation that can deliver peace, just as Bush refuses to speak to Iran, the only country that might be able to help him stabilise Iraq. As long as leaders in conflict situations refuse to speak to their enemies, there can be no peace process. When will they learn?

But then again, maybe none of this will turn out in 2007 as I have suggested. As the late British prime minister Harold Macmillan once warned, the trouble with politics is that "things happen." Sudden, unexpected things that turn all predictions on their heads and change the course of history. So let's raise our glasses and drink to a happy New Year.

Sparks is a veteran journalist and political commentator.

With acknowledgements to Allister Sparks and Cape Times.