| Author | Message | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2003 1:26 am Post subject: Iraq uses clever ploy to hoodwink hawks |
| http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/opinion.asp?ArticleID=63553
Iraq uses clever ploy to hoodwink hawks
Paris | Patrick Seale | 20-09-2002
The hawks in Washington and Tel Aviv are furious. They were preparing to smash Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein, install a puppet government in Baghdad, and redraw the political map of the entire region, shifting the balance of power decisively in favour of the United States and Israel.
This was the 'big picture' which, to the point of obsession, had captured the minds of the neo-conservatives and pro-Isra-eli activists shaping American foreign policy from the Pentagon and the office of the US Vice President.
Now, their prey has escaped them, just moments before the kill. By his sudden decision last Monday to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to return to Iraq 'without conditions', Saddam Hussein has robbed the hawks of their main pretext for going to war.
His eleventh-hour move has probably saved his regime from destruction and his country from devastation - at least for the time being. He has also made the hawks' geo-political master-plan look like a house of cards. Their ambitious agenda of 'reshaping the Middle East' now lacks opportunity - and credibility.
But Iraq is by no means out of danger. It has merely won a reprieve, and will need to be extremely cautious. It cannot claim victory. Its enemies are very determined and will seize on any pretext, however slight, to pounce. As a Washington source put it to me this week, 'Saddam has no margin of manoeuvre. If he steps one millimetre outside the UN framework, he will be hit.'
In other words, Iraq must truly rid itself of any capability to manufacture or stockpile chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. In view of its past record, any suggesting that it is hiding such weapons or the facilities to make them would draw an immediate military response.
The United States and Britain are fighting hard in the Security Council for a tough new Resolution, which would allow for immediate punishment if Iraq makes the smallest slip.
They are facing opposition from Russia, China and France, who believe that Iraq should be given a chance to prove its good intentions, and that no new Resolution is required.
Such divisions among the permanent members of the Security Council are for the moment to Iraq's advantage, but Baghdad should always be aware that the US has reserved the right to act alone, if it thinks it necessary.
As they voice angry scepticism about the sincerity of Iraq's intentions, the hawks' disappointment is palpable. They want to kill Saddam Hussein, not merely to disarm him.
As Vice President Dick Cheney put it: 'The inspectors are not the heart of the problem. They are only the means to an end. The region would be safer and the Iraqi people freer if someone other than Saddam Hussein were at the helm.'
Accordingly, Washington was quick to dismiss Saddam's decision as a 'tactical gesture' which is 'bound to fail'. Faithfully following the hard American line, Tony Blair's government in London also expressed its disbelief that Saddam could be trusted to disarm.
U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeated that the policy of the American government was to 'change the regime'. The National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice called Saddam Hussein a 'diabolical man', whose overthrow was 'morally justified'.
In turn, President George W Bush described the Iraq government as 'the world's most barbaric regime'.
No doubt hoping to strip the Palestinians of Arab protection and protect Israel's monopoly of weapons of mass destruction, Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres have been urging the US to hit Iraq hard and with all possible speed. They are very unhappy that war has now been averted.
American determination to attack Iraq had been so clear, Peres said wistfully this week, that 'I almost don't see how it will retreat'.
The hawks in Washington and Tel Aviv do not want Saddam to be serious about weapons inspections. They want him to cheat and provide a pretext for war.
For them, Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has always been something of a side issue, while Iraq itself was only a means to an end.
They dream of 'regime change' in Iraq as a stepping stone to bigger things - control of Iraq's oil, thereby reducing Western dependence on Saudi oil; pressure on Iran, seen as the major long-term threat to Israel; possible 'regime change' in both Iran and Syria; a free hand for Israel to break the Palestinians and draw new expanded frontiers; 'democratic' reform, US-style, in both Egypt and Saudi Arabia; a new imperial order in the Middle East under joint U.S.-Israeli control.
Such are the geo-political fantasies devised by a group of fervent American Likudniks - Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary for Defence Policy Douglas Feith, Chairman of the Defence Policy Board Richard Perle -and which have been adopted, uncritically, by the two most powerful men in President Bush's administration, Defence Sectary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney, and apparently by the President himself.
Some of these men are aware that, if Iraq manages to escape from war, their own ideological vision and political fortunes could be sacrificed. They need to move fast because the timetable is extremely tight.
To avoid the summer heat in Iraq, which would hamper military operations on the ground, the hawks had planned to attack this winter-in December or in January-February at the latest.
This timetable will have to be scrapped if Hans Blix and his team of UN inspectors start their lengthy inspection process. Blix has already held preliminary technical talks with the Iraqis. Further discussions are planned in Vienna in the coming days, which will no doubt be followed by a visit by Blix and a core group of experts to Iraq.
They will need to make an assessment of what needs to be done and devise a plan of action. This plan will then be presented to the Security Council for its approval. It is estimated that this process could take up to six months. Once approval has been given, the real business of inspections can begin.
If, by cooperating fully with the UN inspectors and being ultra careful not to give any sort of provocation, Iraq manages to spin things out until November-December of 2003, it will probably be safe from attack, because the United States will then be preoccupied by the start of the 2004 US Presidential election campaign.
But can Saddam be trusted to maintain his present docile posture when the inspectors start demanding access to his most sensitive sites?
Logically, Iraq would like a guarantee that the UN team of inspectors will not include American spies- unlike last time - and that the information about Iraq they uncover will not be shared with Israel - again unlike last time.
It is hard to see who could provide such a guarantee. Hans Blix, however, is a serious person and is well aware of the need to ensure that his inspectors are wholly independent, free from any links to intelligence agencies.
Iraq would also like an assurance that, if it cooperates fully with the inspectors, it will not be attacked.
Iraq's deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz voiced this anxiety in a rhetorical question to the French this week. 'Can (President) Chirac give assurances that he will prevent an aggression? Will he help us defend our sovereignty against aggression?' Clearly the answer is no. No country can today give Iraq such guarantees.
But, by remaining firmly within the UN framework, and never stepping outside it, Iraq must hope that this same framework will also serve to restrain the United States from any aggressive actions.
Opinion in the United States and Britain is beginning to mobilise against the extreme positions of the hawks. In both countries, war is not popular.
But the Arabs need to realise that, after 11 September, the U.S. is haunted by the spectre of mass-casualty terrorism, especially by the fear that a terrorist group might acquire weapons of mass destruction and use them against the United States.
To spare itself further pain, Iraq would be well advised to prove to the world that it has genuinely given up unconventional weapons, and that it seeks nothing more than its own reconstruction and rehabilitation.
This can only be achieved when sanctions are lifted and it regains full control over its oil revenues. This is a sober, rational agenda, which would gain widespread international support.
Patrick Seale is an eminent commentator and the author of several books on Middle East affairs. | |  | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
