The US President George W. Bush has angrily rejected Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein's latest move of discussing the return of UN Arms inspectors to Iraq and seem to be hell-bent on going ahead with the putative invasion of Iraq. Many wonder why the US is so adamant on choosing Iraq as the next target in its war against terror. Even Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, had dissented, though where he will be found on the D Day might not occasion anxiety to Washington. The European Union is unhappy and is saying so.

Iran and Saudi Arabia have opposed the idea. Other Arab potentates are in consternation and have been pleading with the US not to open this 'Pandora's box', especially by King Abdullah of Jordan who is in perhaps the most exposed position; half the population of Jordan comprises Palestinians (refugees) and his economy direly needs better trade relations with Iraq. Russia and China also disapprove the idea of invading Iraq.

Many people would naturally want to know why is Bush so obsessed with Iraq. The reasons may not be too far to seek. At a personal level, he is surrounded by hardliners from the time of his father; they are in key positions in his administration the way they were in the early 1990s. These people now regard Iraq as the unfinished business of 1991. They want Bush Jr. to finish what his father left undone. This time round the removal of Saddam Hussein from office is the main objective.

In terms of interests, analysts reel off various possible motivations. In the order of what one regards as important pride of place should go to what the Israelis think on the matter: They regard Iraq as their immediate security threat on various grounds. To begin with, Iraq is an important oil-producing country, sitting on a big lake of hydrocarbons with a potential for development. While oil wealth of Saudis is no threat to Israel or the west, Iraq's is. And Israel is not alone in feeling threatened. Iraq poses a threat, in the short run, to most other Arab potentates in the region because of the current regime's origins. Although Saddam is a tough absolutist tyrant, his political origins lie in the Baath Movement, an authentic Arab Nationalist movement, who is inimical to Arab dynastic rulers. From the US and Israeli viewpoint, the recent Iraqi and Iranian policies of trying to make up should pose a serious threat. For, both are members of the Bush's 'axis of evil' possessing ample human and material resources.

Then there is the politics of Middle Eastern oil. The US-Israeli duo see the survival of pro-US Arab dictators, kings, Amirs and Sheikhs as vital. As noted the Iraqi regime's cozying up to the Iranians and the latter's more or less positive response is sure to look like a big and growing challenge to American role in its Asian redoubt. Pax Americana in ME is what both regimes in Tehran and Baghdad disapprove. Joining together of an oppressive theocracy with a nominal Arab nationalist tyranny in denouncing the American imperialism can cause turbulence. If this relationship develops, Middle East can become even unstable.

In the short-term, replacing Saddam Hussein with a pro-US regime in Iraq should serve all US major interests. Many analysts think that an unavowed aim of the Terrorism War is to eventually fight the Iranians. It is probable that the US will not directly intervene in Iran. For, that can become an open-ended war, a la Vietnam. A new and adequately pro-western regime in Iraq can possibly be made to re-enact the 1980s war to corner and weaken Iran. Adequate western aid for it will be available. What is needed immediately is the replacing of Saddam Hussein with a more pliable General. But the critics - these include the Europeans, the Arab potentates and many American experts themselves - make a point that removing Saddam is not an easy or cost-free proposition. They see dangers.

The critics' common presumption is that Iraq is a brittle state; it can split under strain along its ethnic fault lines: Its population comprises three distinct groups that are not integrated into a harmonious and inclusive nation. Since Saddam runs a tight ship, he cannot be removed except through a horrible war and may require the deployment of possibly hundreds of thousands of American or European troops, if available. These may have to stay in Iraq for a long time to ensure the successor regime overcomes the possible chaos and strife. Anyhow such a war generates many uncertainties.

The collapse of the Saddam regime amidst a military defeat is sure to create chaos and strife. If the northern Kurdish areas declare a separate state,  would it be suppressed bloodily? An independent Kurdish state would be an anathema to the Turks who have been fighting their own Kurds near the Iranian border for long. Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Iraq are a distinct ethnic entity. They may be particularly incensed with Baghdad but feel equal antipathy towards Arabs, Iranians and the Turks.

Among the Arabs in Iraq there is a sectarian divide: much of the south is Shia and lives in close proximity to states containing Shias, i.e. Iran and Bahrain. Iraqi Shias have traditionally been poor and suppressed. There is much obscurity about their politics or what motivates them; their likely choices are simply not known. Saddam has carefully fomented the sectarian feelings but has kept them contained. It is feared that the south too may insist on being a separate state, the geographical location of which would worry Israel and the US because it may befriend Iran, on the one side, and strengthen other organizations like Hamas in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon, on the other. It can also cause turbulence in Bahrain and other Gulf areas.

King Abdullah's worry about the 'can of worms' centers on the possibility of Iraq splitting up. After all Iraq is not a single ethnic unit; its current boundaries were arbitrarily decided by the British in 1919. Since oil business needs stable conditions, Iraq's sectarian problem has been kept dormant through suppression. Through the centuries ME has shaken down to a pattern of coexistence. An upheaval in Iraq can rekindle ancient conflicts that may unwittingly produce unpredictable consequences, with the US facing more problems than it can cope.

Throwing out Saddam would seem to be an earnest start of ridding the ME of terror - to full Bush satisfaction. In recent history the US bete noir has been Iranian fundamentalism. Few American experts have forgotten the US experiences before, during and after the Iraq-Iran war. It is an unfinished business from yester year. In a way, the selection of Iraq now only makes sense if it is to be a preliminary to the more serious and complex business in Iran. Iranian society, despite the 23 years of Mullahs' hard work, remains a plural and variegated society with many political schools and barely suppressed forces.

The US is being sorely tempted by the ongoing struggle for power in Iran. On surface it is a tug of war between entrenched hardliner Mullahs and the more moderate and democratic elements of the clergy itself. What does President Mohammad Khatemi represent or who, is a question on which most outsiders can only speculate. What seems certain is that this power struggle seemingly between hardliner and moderate Islamicists is portentous. In Khatemi's corner loom huge and amorphous forces. He won twice with the votes of women, youth and the unemployed. These sections still feel ignored and marginalized by the entrenched clergy. The country may be teetering on the brink of a civil strife because big chunks of population are involved on either side.

In this situation the US administration has hitherto shown an admirable restraint, though its strain may be telling now. The dogged insistence on getting Saddam may be a reflection of developments in Iran, which seem to be relentlessly moving towards a denouement. For how long can the US remain restrained? 

MB Naqvi is a leading columnist in Pakistan.

Source: www.dailystarnews.com