As a new leader takes the helm at the U.N. General Assembly, the much-discussed but ill-defined “Bush doctrine” has me thinking about one of the bedrocks of American foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine.

Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, a former foreign minister of Nicaragua, will assume the General Assembly’s presidency this week. A trained Catholic priest who was born in Los Angeles but spent his life among the Sandinistas and other secular Latin American revolutionaries, Mr. d’Escoto is expected to give a cool reception to President Bush, who makes his final official visit to Turtle Bay next week, and embrace the likes of President Ahmadinejad of Iran.

Mr. d’Escoto’s old boss, President Ortega, is part of a resurgent anti-Yankee Latin axis — Presidents Chavez of Venezuela, Morales of Bolivia, Castro of Cuba, and at times Kirchner of Argentina — that is allied with Iran, Russia, and sometimes China. Washington’s escalating diplomatic hostilities with Caracas and La Paz last week was only the tip of the iceberg. Fresh off the sale of two dozen Sukhoi fighter jets to Venezuela, Russia is planning a joint naval exercise with Mr. Chavez in November. And Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, have set up shop in Venezuela. Clearly, the policy-makers in Washington need to refocus on the Americas.

In his State of the Union address of December 2, 1823, President Monroe told the day’s predominant European powers that America would not interfere in disputes on their continent. However, he warned, “We should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere, as dangerous to our peace and safety.” America soon became a regional power to reckon with — and then the world’s top superpower.

With the recent resurgence of anti-Yankee sentiment in Latin America and the alliances some of its leaders are forming, it seems that in recent years Washington has concentrated on maintaining its powerful status everywhere but the Western hemisphere, where the danger to our peace and safety may soon be equal to that posed by the Middle East. Little attention has been paid to Latin America in any of the prominent speeches that formed the Bush doctrine, a topic that has captivated the political chattering classes over the last week.

On September 10, 2001, I flew to Mexico City to interview the newly elected President Fox, because aides of another new president, Mr. Bush, cited his friendship with Mr. Fox — and the fact that as governor he could actually see Mexico from Texas — to bolster his foreign policy credentials. I watched the horrors of the next day on television, and although Mr. Fox and his aides would not say so out loud, it quickly became clear to everyone in Mexico City that the friendship between the two new presidents, as well as policy issues such as immigration and trade, would soon be sidelined. Mr. Fox never regained his status as Mr. Bush’s top ally.

Monroe’s division between Europe and the Americas lost its validity long ago, and that fact was underscored when orders given from Afghanistan were executed with such destructive results in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington. It made sense for the Bush administration to drop everything and tend to faraway places such as Afghanistan and Iraq in a battle against the anti-Western sentiment that had killed so many on September 11. But as American troops traveled far and wide, Middle Eastern influence was spreading closer to home, in the Americas.

Mr. Chavez recently banned the activity of Christian missionaries in his country, accusing them of spying for America. Instead, Shiite imams are indoctrinating a growing number of indigenous Venezuelans. Intelligence sources tell me that newly converted Muslim recruits from Venezuela are receiving military training from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. A Western source recently spoke to the Los Angeles Times of a “strategic partnership between Iran and Venezuela,” saying Hezbollah is moving “people and things” into the Americas.

In June, the U.S. Treasury Department accused two Venezuelans of Arab descent, diplomat Ghazi Nasr al Din and a travel agent Fawzi Kanan, of terror-related activities. The next American administration should go further, explicitly drawing Monroe’s line in the sand for the Iranian mullahs and this hemisphere’s leaders. And Russia’s maneuvers in its so-called near abroad aside, Moscow needs to be reminded that the Cold War is over and that this side of the world, as Monroe cautioned early on, is no place to make alliances with America’s enemies.

bavni@nysun.com