The most intriguing moment in President Barack Obama's address to the Muslim world Thursday came about two-thirds of the way through, when he won a round of applause from his Cairo audience simply for uttering this line: "The fourth issue that I will address is democracy."

While most of President Obama's Cairo speech was directed at the average Muslim citizen, his message on democracy targeted Islam leaders. But are there prominent leaders who will ally themselves with the president? Capital Journal columnist Jerry Seib discusses.

That sentence, and the cheers it produced, said two important things. First, the words told skeptics that Mr. Obama intends to continue George W. Bush's crusade for democracy and political reform as powerful tools in fighting Islamic extremism.

And second, the audience reaction told Islamic leaders, especially those in the Middle East, that they ignore those cheers for democracy at their peril.

Now, the question that arises is simply this: Are there any Islamic leaders with the courage to heed the call? Is there a Middle Eastern leader willing to test the proposition that freedom is ultimately a better weapon than repression in combating radicalism and terrorism?

Sadly, the answer probably is no, at least for now. If there is a Nelson Mandela among the Islamic world's leaders, he hasn't emerged. And that may be the biggest problem Mr. Obama faces in trying to turn his finely crafted address into the "new beginning" he called for.

President Barack Obama visits the Great Pyramids of Egypt on Thursday. European Pressphoto Agency

In many ways, the Obama call for democracy and freedom was the most sensitive and important element of his 55-minute address, probably the most closely scrutinized set of remarks a president has ever delivered abroad. He covered a lot of other ground, of course. He was tough on Israel, calling bluntly for it to stop building settlements on the West Bank, and putting Palestinians' aspirations for a state on a rhetorical par with those of Israelis. That will cause some tension next time he sees Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

There also will be speculation about why he avoided using the words "terrorism" and "terrorists" in describing extremist violence. He probably did so because those terms have become loaded in the Middle East, where one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

But most of all, the speech was meant to create a bond between an American president with a unique link to Islam, and the average listeners in the streets of Islamic lands.

"I'm a Christian, but my father came from generations of Muslims," Mr. Obama said. I've heard the Islamic calls to prayer while living in Indonesia. I know something of the Islamic world, he said. If the audience were American, he would have used one of his favorite lines: "I get it."

Mr. Obama and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak shake hands during their meeting at the Qubba Palace. Associated Press

Having tried to establish that bond, he said, in effect: Surely we can agree to reject the killing of innocent civilians, the demonization of Jews, the subjugation of women, and the myth that Islam and modernity are incompatible.

But such words matter more if they change not just Islamic minds, but Islamic regimes. And on that point, the president's words clearly were directed not to the Islamic street, but to Islamic palaces.

"You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion," he told Islamic leaders. "You must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party."

But is there any Islamic leader capable of rising up to embrace this vision? History shows big changes are easier when presidents have world-class foreign partners: Franklin Roosevelt had Winston Churchill, Jimmy Carter had Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin, Ronald Reagan had Mikhail Gorbachev.

Is there such a partner now, one willing to bet on democracy and peaceful transfer of power? Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak should be, but he's proved too afraid of real democracy. Saudi King Abdullah is surprisingly progressive, but works within a rigid monarchy. Jordan's King Abdullah has admirable impulses, but his land is small and weak.

President Obama faces a question as well. Will he continue to call for democracy, or, as have so many of his predecessors, decide over time that it's easier to work with the monarchs and dictators we know than the democrats we don't? The tests ahead, it seems, are on both sides of the Western/Islamic divide.

Write to Gerald F. Seib at