CAIRO, February 17 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – “What is disturbing in the American approach to a war in Iraq is the unequivocal win-win scenarios they generate. In these, only one outcome is possible - total victory,” an Israeli writer said in an editorial published Friday, February 14.

Ze’ef Schiff wrote in the Ha’aretz Israeli daily; “It is doubtful that a proper examination of the alternatives has been made, just in case something does go wrong. That, after all, can happen in war. Did any of the planners, for example, predict the possibility of a developing crisis in NATO and Europe?”

Day after day, the U.S. administration is increasingly coming under heavy criticism over its handling of the Iraqi crisis.

The Israeli writer was, indeed, reflecting what several observers, political analysts, writers, as well as former U.S. senior officials, have repeatedly reitrerated for so long; the (U.S. President George W.) Bush administration does not have a clea-cut foreign policy, or at least not a one based on logic.

"The administration for countries' affairs should be the responsibility of professional, specialized politicians and not the responsibility of amateurs," wrote Galal Dawidar, editor-in-chief of Al-Akhbar.

Schiff, in his editorial, mentioned some points or scenarios of the numerous things that “could go wrong”, should Washington attack Iraq.

“True, it is hard to imagine the United States not winning a military clash with Iraq, but mere logic demands that we also consider some of the potential hitches, and the high price that could be exacted for a military victory. Among them are: Saddam Hussein survives the war and is acclaimed a hero in the Arab world for daring to challenge the world's superpower.

“The war is dragged out well beyond the planned time and American forces get bogged down in combat in built-up areas. The Iraqi civilian population sustains heavy casualties, a development that inflames the Arab and Muslim world, triggering violent demonstrations and rioting. The stability of the Middle East is shaken and moderate, pro-American regimes find themselves in serious danger.

“Israel is attacked by weapons of mass destruction and rejects Washington's appeal not to launch a massive retaliation. The Israeli response generates an unexpected chain of new reactions.

“The Turkish army conquers parts of northern Iraq to prevent Kurdish political autonomy, which Ankara views as a threat. This causes a new crisis in relations between the United States and Turkey.

“The American presence in Iran becomes protracted and an "enlightened presence" that was supposed to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, becomes a despised occupation. Israel can offer free lessons in a course on its negative experiences in this field.

“The American army overruns Iraq, carries out searches in every possible corner and uncovers no weapons of mass destruction. A frustrated Washington decides to prolong the U.S. presence in Iraq,” he elaborated.

U.S. Senator Said It Before

Byrd repeatedly said Bush has failed to give members of Congress any evidence about any immediate danger from Iraq. Byrd also criticized his speech to the United Nations.

According to the Gazette, Byrd said Congress needs solid evidence and answers to several specific questions, including:

- Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the U.S.?

- Should the United States act alone?

- What would be the repercussions in the Middle East and around the globe?

- How many civilians would die in Iraq?

- How many American forces would be involved?

- How do we afford this war?

- Will the U.S. respond with nuclear weapons if Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons against U.S. soldiers?

- Does the U.S. have enough military and intelligence resources to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while mobilizing resources to prevent attacks on our own shores?

Albright, Too

In an interview with the French Le Figaro daily on January 13, Albright said North Korea is far dangerous than Iraq, pointing out that it [North Korea] threatened to create seismic waves in Asia on the contrary to the Iraqi position in the Middle East.

The U.S.A, on the one hand, is rest assured that North Korea is led by a dictator, a nuclear juggernaut and has a one million-strong army, while it, on the other, has no information about the weapons possessed by the Iraqi president, she added.

It is true that Bush wants to see a “regime change” in Iraq. But why does he insist on doing as such when Pyongyang poses real threats? Albright wondered.