The Hindu : The Iraq-U.S. face-off

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Sep 27, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

The Iraq-U.S. face-off

By Qamar Agha

It will be extremely difficult to install a U.S.-friendly regime in Baghdad. The Shia majority in Iraq is against both Saddam Hussein and the Americans.

IRAQ'S LEADER, Saddam Hussein, is increasingly isolated. He has expressed willingness to allow United Nations weapons inspectors' back unconditionally in the country. But the Bush administration has dismissed the move as a trick. No matter what Mr. Hussein does now, he will find it extremely difficult to save his regime. The decks have now been almost cleared for an American attack on Iraq.

Despite differences among the members of the Security Council, the U.S. appears confident of gaining support for a U.N. resolution on Iraq. It would be a major victory for the Bush administration. Russia is the only member in the Security Council which is yet to endorse the U.S. move, but it is unlikely that it will use its veto power to scuttle the resolution. Mr. Bush has also threatened that if the U.N. does not pass the new resolution then the U.S. will take unilateral action against Iraq.

The decision to engage the U.N. comes mainly because of the growing realisation within the Bush administration that while it may be easy for the U.S. to topple the Saddam Government, one of the most repressive in the Arab world, it will be extremely difficult to install a U.S.-friendly regime in Baghdad. The Shia majority in Iraq is against both Mr. Hussein and the U.S. In order to deal with such a situation, the Bush administration has decided not to take unilateral action against Iraq but to involve its European and Arab allies. This satisfies the leaders of the U.S.-led global alliance against terrorism. The multilateral step will have less opposition within respective countries and it will help protect their own interests in a post-Saddam Iraq.

The Bush Administration wants early dismissal of Mr. Hussein. It is opposed to giving the Iraqi President time to entangle the U.N. in a game of cat and mouse, which could delay the possibility of military intervention. The U.S. objective is to remove him and install a pro-American Government, which should also not oppose Israel. It believes that only if Mr. Hussein is removed from power can the Iraqis will build a thriving democracy; that a free Iraq will become a model for Arab and Islamic nations; and that the Arab-Israeli dispute will also become less intractable and moderation will become contagious. The U.S. wants the pro-West London-based Iraqi opposition groups to form the Government. But the problem is that these groups do not have much support in Iraq. However, they have already announced its intention to form a Government in exile.

The possibility of an army coup cannot be ruled out either. The U.S., in fact, would prefer a pro-American General replacing Mr. Hussein, at least initially. That would also avert a war with Iraq.

If the Bush administration succeeds in toppling Mr. Hussein, it will seek to install a secular Government, based on the Turkish model, that would be willing to contain nationalist forces and the religious opposition led by the Shia clergy.

It would be a military-cum-civilian Government. Pakistan and Afghanistan are also aspiring to install similar Governments. In Iraq, the plan is, the army will remain the most powerful institution and it will help protect U.S. interests in the region. Iraq is oil-rich and strategically located, bordering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria and Iran. It has a large educated middle class and has the potential to emerge as a leader in the region. In the new set-up of the region, U.S. would prefer Iraq to replace Saudi Arabia as its strategic ally. The U.S. mantra for Arab-Islamic States now is secularism. The Cold War alliances with conservative monarchies and the Wahabite Islamic organisations have now become counter productive for the U.S. A friendly Government in Iraq could also help the U.S. contain neighbouring oil-rich Iran — another member of the "axis-of-evil".

In the new set-up, the U.S. will have greater control over the energy resources of the region. After initial setbacks, the U.S. is promising that oil prices will come down to $ 10 per barrel which is less than half the current international oil price. America is the largest consumer of oil in the world and the high price affects its economy.

But to install a friendly regime in Iraq, the U.S. will have to not only remove Mr. Hussein but also dismantle all the institutions controlled by the Baath Party — a nationalist organisation which has ruling the country for several decades. Other political parties are not allowed to function in the country. Apart from this, the U.S. will have to weaken Shia Islamic movement. The removal of Mr. Hussein is likely to trigger a major struggle between pro and anti-U.S. forces. However, the Bush administration has made it amply clear that it will not allow any hostile Government in the Iraq because the country possesses weapons of mass destruction.

In such a situation, there are chances that the war may spill over to neighbouring Iran, whose conservative clergy extends moral support to Shia groups in Iraq. The hardliners within the Bush administration believe that the U.S. can achieve its objective only through a military confrontation and they are not prepared to accept any diplomatic solution. The U.S. administration has been doing "a lot of work internally" on war scenarios and the cost of cleaning up and reconstructing Iraq. The coalition partners will share the cost but Iraq will have to invest huge sums for its reconstruction. This means Iraq will have to export surplus into the market. It is likely to disrupt the existing production schedules maintained by OPEC, designed to keep prices high, and it could also end Saudi Arabian domination of world oil markets.

The war will have far-reaching consequences for the entire region. In the absence of democracy in most of the neighbouring states, it will give rise to forces of destabilization and weaken unpopular, repressive Arab regimes. It will further increase their dependence on Western nations and perhaps some may even be forced to seek assistance from Israel, which has long expertise in dealing with the problem of "terrorism" emanating from the region.

But the U.S. is fully prepared to deal with the long-term destabilisation consequences. Its primary objective is to contain Islamic militancy and ensure uninterrupted oil supplies to industrialised nations at an agreed price. Hardliners in America are propagating that the U.S. should capture the "oil strip" stretching from Oman to Saudi Arabia. However, the U.S. Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, believes that this does not reflect "dominant opinion" within the administration.

But one thing is certain, the Bush administration will not give up till a friendly regime is installed in Iraq, no matter what.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Standing the test

Cricket's comeback kids

After the first round

The Iraq-U.S. face-off

Attack on human values