One of the often overlooked reasons behind Western zeal in its endeavor to wage war against Iraq is its oil wealth. According to Gerald Butt, editor of the Middle East Economic Survey, “the removal of Saddam is, in effect, the removal of the last threat to the free flow of oil from the Gulf as a whole”. Estimates put Iraq’s oil reserves at between 112 and 220 billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia, whose reserves are estimated at more than 265 billion barrels. Iraq’s reserves are seven times those of the British and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea combined. Three giant southern oil fields, (Majnoon, West Qurna and Nahr Umar), have the capacity to produce as much oil as Kuwait. The first two alone could each equal Qatar’s production of 700,000 barrels a day. “There is nothing like it anywhere else in the world,” said Mr. Butt.

The oil dimension is, however, only one element. The balance of power in the Middle East is another. With Israeli plans to dominate the region militarily and create new political realities in the region, the American administration has taken up the Israeli cause without reservation. The United States is now adopting a new form of psychological warfare against Baghdad’s regime. As the saber-rattling continues, no indication is given as to the timing of the anticipated military action against Iraq. The beginning of next year is given as a likely time, but the end of next year is also mentioned. It is a war of nerves, said a western diplomat in London recently.

Iraq’s Saddam Hussein

It is unclear whether the issue of the arms inspection teams is the dominant factor in the decision to go to war. If it is, then Saddam Hussein will also use it as a bargaining tool with the West. The detailed planning undertaken by the military strategists in the U.S. indicates that the threat of war is not a bluff, and that George W. Bush has reached the point of no return on the issue. It is also unclear whether the economic gloom on both sides of the Atlantic following the exposures of accounting malpractice will influence the decision on war. The past few weeks have been particularly tense in the economic world. With the Worldcom and Enron scandals, and the links of senior figures in the U.S. administration such as Vice President Cheney to them, the world has reacted with shock. The result is a sharp decline in share prices, which lost more than a quarter of their value. The world is on the brink of recession, and perhaps, economic crisis. It is not impossible for this single development to have a decisive role in hindering the war agenda. On the other hand, it could encourage the warmongers to deflect the public from the economic debacle.

What is on the cards now is a serious preparation for war against Iraq. The perceived threat comes from the weapons of mass destruction allegedly possessed by Iraq. The preparations involve military planning with the aim of toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime. To that end, the U.S. has “lobbied” its Arab allies, and appears to have obtained the consent of some of them. The plan is to have a three-pronged attack from the North, the West, and the South, with Baghdad in their line of sight. As the attack gets underway, the U.S. is planning to entice senior army officers to stage a coup against Saddam Hussein, while an alternative administration is being formed. The fear has always been the fragmentation of Iraq or it’s sliding into civil war. The U.S. is aware of that, and has encouraged around 100 senior military officers to work jointly for a coup. Most of them have defected to the West in the past few years and offered valuable information on Iraq’s military capabilities to American and British intelligence. It has been reported that a senior engineer with first hand knowledge of more than 30 secret biological weapon laboratories inside Iraq has played a role in hardening Washington’s policy towards Iraq. While it is difficult to assess these claims, they are used to justify the planned attack on Iraq.

There is a serious dilemma here. On the one hand the Iraqi opposition and former military officers aspire to a positive change in their country. They want to see a degree of civility, democracy, and respect for human rights after decades of unprecedented repression. On the other hand, these noble values are not the main motive for the new U.S. “crusade” against Iraq. The marriage of convenience between the two sides may work for a while, but the worry is that it may lead to a more confused future state in Iraq.

Ahmed Chalabi, head of the opposition Iraqi National Congress

Many Iraqis fear that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein through American intervention will be a costly gamble. They argue against any military attack on their country on the basis that in the past such actions had harmed the country more than the regime. What is at stake is the sovereignty and political independence of Iraq. Saddam may remain for a few more years and eventually leave the scene, but American influence will remain for a long time. The pro-American groups within the opposition counter that American influence will be harmless, and that Iraqis will be better off in terms of security and quality of life.

The Iraqi question seems to be at the core of the new American designs for the region, especially as the Saudi situation becomes more obscure and dangerous for American interests. It is natural that regional powers have expressed unease at the American plans to wage war against Iraq. Iran has it’s own sentiments towards America’s Middle Eastern policies, while Turkey is especially sensitive to what happens in Iraq, due to its large Kurdish population. Saudi Arabia will face a difficult situation if the U.S. shifts its power base to Iraq, in the case of its military campaign resulting in the downfall of the Iraqi regime.

Pro-Israeli policies have tainted America’s image and its anti-Iraq campaign is likely to face more popular opposition in the Arab and Muslim world. American policy in the region remains unclear and lacks the vision expected from a leading power. Saddam Hussein may go in the next few months; the question, however, remains: who will replace him?

The articles posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors. Views Archive Advanced Search Views & Analyses