The expected American attack on Iraq, with the stated aim of overthrowing President Saddam Hussein -- what the Bush Administration calls “regime change” -- cannot be considered an ordinary event in modern Arab history (writes a commentator in Beirut) since it will represent a new strategic turning point and will have a direct affect on the map of the region, especially if it is accompanied by the reconsideration of the political geography of the region which the Western media are expecting.
The American threats against Iraq are not merely attempts to frighten the peoples or to change the system in Iraq. Their aim is to have control over the region in a chess game the US has begun to win. The game covers former republics of the Soviet Union, from which it hopes to extend its hegemony over the oil-rich Caspian basin, and reinforce its grip on the Gulf.
The Americans may accomplish several objectives at the same time, for they can lay siege to Iran and Syria, pressure Saudi Arabia in an attempt to restrain it from supporting the Palestinian cause, and dispel any hope that the Arabs will be able to adopt a single and decisive stance regarding fundamental Arab causes.
For all these reasons the Arab countries have called for solidarity facing the possible American strike against Iraq. This was clearly reflected in active Syrian, Saudi and Egyptian diplomatic action to present a united stance in opposition to an American attack on Iraq.
Such an assault would also have implications for other Arab states such as Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
We consulted two Lebanese observers -- former MP Najah Wakim and retired Brigadier Yassin Soueid -- for their views of the situation.
It’s certainly the case that an attack on Iraq represents a main part
of the American scheme fundamentally to alter the political geography of the
region in accordance with its new international conception of the world.The Americans want to establish a stable regional system in the Middle East in which Israel will have a central role, one in which it will dominate the other states of the region not only militarily but also economically, as the cat’s paw of the United States.
Washington knows that the Arab peoples are strongly opposed to imperialism in any form, including Zionist hegemony, and that’s why an integral part of Washington’s plan is to further fragment the Arab world, or at least the eastern part of it, into smaller states which will be completely unable to resist the Israeli-American hegemony.
Every sign is there to indicate that the first step in this process is an attack on Iraq, which the Bush Administration is actively planning to carry out, whether or not it has the backing of the international community, even whether or not it has the backing of the US Congress. What is not clear is the timing of the strike, which will have such momentous consequences for Arab states and regimes.
Is Washington directing its attention wholly on the Arab East?
The four countries that can lead Arab resistance to America’s plan are
Egypt, Iraq, Algeria and Syria. These countries can play roles that go beyond
their boundaries and this is why they are threatened with being divided.
What about Lebanon in this scenario?
Some may fear that Lebanon will be divided. I myself fear that it will be abolished,
erased from the map. It’s a pity some people in this country can’t
see this.
To what extent are the Arab countries and especially Syria, capable of thwarting
the American assault?
Syria will become a direct target if the US mounts a strike against Iraq. This
is why Syria wants to reinforce its internal front and improve relations among
Arab states. But this won’t be sufficient by itself. It’s very important
to hold an Arab summit to discuss the means of confronting such a possibility.
Our only choice is to mobilize the Arabs, perhaps imposing a boycott on all
American interests.
Are you calling for military action against the Americans in the region?
When the Americans are willing to use every kind of weapon against us, and when
they allow Israel to use unlimited force against the Palestinians, how are we
supposed to respond?
Yes, I believe we should reply by using force against American interests.
How will the map of the region change if Iraq is attacked?
Of course I don’t know the details of how Iraq will be divided. But what
one can say is that Iraq will not be the only Arab country to be fragmented.
One way of resisting America’s scheme is to continue the Intifada in Palestine.
Another is to support Syria in its campaign of diplomatic action to mobilize
the Arabs. We have to use all the means available to confront the US’ plan.
Better to die on our feet than to live in humiliation.
We mustn’t think Saddam Hussein is America’s only target. Overthowing
him is just the means to other ends. And what are these? One is to seize Iraq’s
oil fields. Another is to complete the encirclement of Iran and Syria, the bastions
of resistance to Israel in the region.
The Americans believe they can treat Iraq as they treated Afghanistan. They
forget that Iraq is a country of great resources, not only mineral but human.
It has a reserve of highly-trained manpower which is capable of taking effective
steps to resist an invasion. It also has a resolute leadership. None of this
was not true in Afghanistan, an impoverished country, which had suffered from
more than 20 years of civil war.
Will the Iraqi regime be able to confront an American attack?
Of course the Iraqi army would be no match for the Americans in a traditional
battlefield situation, especially since the invaders would have control of the
air. But it appears that the government is planning an urban guerrilla resistance,
in which there will be hand to hand fighting in the cities and towns. This will
lead to high American casualties that the US public will eventually find unacceptable.
Remember that the situation is different from 1991, when the Iraqi army was
occupying Kuwait. Now the Iraqis are defending their own country; their backs
are against the wall. I believe the Iraqi authorities are planning an effective
resistance with which they will “welcome” their enemies.
What about the Shiites and the Kurds?
The Kurds will, I believe, be very wary of the US. They have had a long and
bitter experience with great powers, and if the American offensive shows any
signs of faltering, they will stay out of the fight. The same is true of the
Shiites. If the US can obtain a swift and decisive victory, the Kurds may come
in. But I believe such a quick decision is unlikely.
The Americans hope to use the opposition, but this is so disparate and divided
that it is hard to see it playing an effective role.
Do you think the US Congress will support Bush in such an Iraqi adventure?
This is a moot question. It seems clear that he intends to go ahead with his
plan even if he is not supported by the rest of the international community,
and even if he lacks the support of the United Nations. But he can’t go
to war if Congress is against him because he needs Congress to supply the money.
And it seems that Congress is divided on the issue. The whole matter is sure
to be a central item in the campaigning for the legislative elections in November.
How will an assault affect Lebanon and Syria?
It would mean they are encircled on three sides: from the north -- Ankara being
an ally of Tel Aviv --, from the east and from the south. And there is the possibility
that military action might be taken against Syria and Lebanon, as also against
Iran, on the pretext that they are havens of “terrorists”.
The Americans would dearly love to hit Iran and erase the humiliations the Islamic
Republic has inflicted on them since 1979. And Israeli Prime Minister] Ariel
Sharon would be very happy to avenge what happened in May 2000, when “Tsahal”
was humbled by the Lebanese Resistance and forced out of our territory.
What about the effect of such an assault on the Palestinians?
Sharon has for years advocated what the Israelis call “transfer”,
namely the expulsion of the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip,
which would then be handed over to Jewish settlers. He might well regard a war
in Iraq as a suitable time to take this step, even though it would wreck what
remains of the Mideast peace process and destroy any hope of an eventual comprehensive
Arab-Israeli settlement. But Sharon has never been in favor of such a settlement;
he has voted in Parliament against every single Arab-Israeli agreement, beginning
from the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979.
What about other Arab states?
One thinks at once of Saudi Arabia, which is under increasing American pressure.
The kingdom has been described as an “enemy state” by a report submitted
to an “advisory” group at the Pentagon, which also called for the
country’s oil fields to be occupied. And what about the trillion-dollar
lawsuit laid against Saudi individuals and institutions? An assault on Iraq
-- which the kingdom unalterably opposes -- would be the signal for even greater
pressure.
What action could the Arabs take in the face of an attack on Iraq?
The Arab states should for once take a firm and united stand, adopting decisive
measures against the Americans such as a total boycott of American products
and a severance of diplomatic relations. Obviously all the links established
by certain Arab states with Israel would also be broken.
|
Main |
Archives |
Contact us |
About us |