The Israeli connection
Israel's needs lie at the heart of the American/British war on Iraq, writes Mostafa El-Feki*
The Iraqi crisis has taken such a hold of the regional and international scene, with everyone discussing various scenarios and speculating on time frames, that little or no attention has been given to the historical background of this crisis and its real causes. It is perhaps fitting that one should go back to 1990, when the Iraqi government executed British-Iranian journalist Farzad Bazoft. Back then, Saddam Hussein rejected all international pleas to spare the journalist's life and proceeded to tell the world that he was ready to raze half of Israel in any future confrontation, in retaliation for the destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor a few years earlier.
At that time, many -- including myself -- sensed that the Iraqi regime, acting under the illusion of victory in the Iraq-Iran war, might embark on a series of adventurist campaigns. A few months later, Iraqi tanks rolled into Kuwait, and a most peculiar phase in Arab history began.
Two divergent approaches emerged over the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the US handling of that crisis. The first viewed an Iraqi military coup as a quick and acceptable way out of the debacle. Supporters of fomenting a coup maintained that, once it had taken place, the new government would be in a position to pull out of Kuwait and apologise for the mess, while laying the blame for it on the deposed regime. This would have spared Iraq the destruction of war and the horrific consequences it has had to endure to this day.
The second approach gave less attention to the continued presence of the Iraqi regime, focussing instead on the country's military capabilities. For supporters of this path, Saddam's presence in power was not the point. Actually, his continued tenure provided a convenient pretext for continued foreign military presence in the region and for repeated intervention in the country. The aim of this approach, then, was to destroy Iraq's war machine, disrupt its technological progress, and undermine its infrastructure.
The second plan won, owing to the support of right-wing US strategists working for George Bush Sr. Israel was told to stay out of military operations against Iraq -- even if attacked -- and it obliged. In 1991, Israel exerted self-restraint while its interests were served by proxy. This incident, in my opinion, is central to understanding the link between Israel and the Iraqi crisis.
Having signed the peace treaty with Egypt -- the largest Arab state -- Israel began focussing on other regional threats to its security. Iraq and Iran were obvious targets in the views of both Israeli and US strategists. Both were seen as well-armed "rogue" states with unpredictable intentions. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait provided an immediate pretext for action against Saddam's country. However, there was a hidden agenda, and it became more complicated after 11 September. It has been pointed out that Iraq is the key to controlling Arab oil. But this is not all. A strong US military presence there would help reshape the region, establish a pax Americana, dishearten Arab radicals, and consolidate Israel's security.
Israel's needs are at the heart of the current campaign to attack Iraq. Interestingly enough, they are rarely discussed, particularly in the context of regional attempts to resolve the crisis. I am not suggesting that Israel should be pleaded with or asked to intercede with the US administration. All I am saying is that regional players -- the Arabs, Turkey, and Iran -- must at all times remain aware of Israel's role in influencing US policy in the Middle East, in fomenting right-wing extremism in America, and in prodding the current US administration to take military action against Iraq. Israel's role in the current crisis may not be mentioned often, but it is paramount. The link between the Palestinian and the Iraqi crises is essential to understanding current events in the region.
Many -- including myself -- believe that the Middle East should be tackled as a whole, despite the multitude of its problems. The Iraqi crisis and the Palestinian issue are a case in point. A comprehensive approach is needed to resolve these two matters. The issue of domestic reform programmes; namely, reforms that Arab countries should undertake without pressure from abroad, also needs to be addressed. Reform is an obvious need, but the timing and the handling of this issue have created a certain discomfort. This discomfort should not be allowed to turn into a hurdle. The Arabs should transcend their sensitivities in this respect and embrace reform as a national goal -- one that reflects their aspirations and helps resolve their problems. We must not forget that Israel has consistently vilified the Arabs, ridiculed their regimes, and belittled their attempts to promote democracy, while portraying itself as an oasis of democracy in a desert of despotic regimes.
Israel is at the heart of the imminent war. Even if it never fires a shot, it has formulated the strategy for the campaign and the emerging pattern for reconfiguring the region. What Israel wants is to consolidate its security and have the Palestinians agree to a peace settlement that gives them a minimum of their rights. This is simply how things are. Still, the problems in the Middle East will not go away through piecemeal solutions or military adventures. They can only be resolved through a comprehensive vision and honest confrontation of the facts. One should also keep in mind that Israel's success in pursuing its goals and influencing US policy, particularly with respect to Iraq, is due to our own failings. If we are in trouble today, this is a result of what Baghdad has done over the past two decades, the divisions in our ranks, and the structural weakness of our political institutions.
The link between Israel and the Iraqi crisis is not new. And it must be safe to assert that the US policy in the Middle East is inextricably tied to Israel's interests and security. This is a fact that neither we nor the world should forget. The regime in Baghdad has erred, and we are not defending its errors, but we are concerned for the Iraqi people and for the safety and stability of the region. That is why we need to make one thing clear; namely, that the security of the Middle East is indivisible. The Middle East has a multiplicity of problems, but they are intertwined. And the link, whether in the case of Palestine or Iraq, is obvious: Israel.
* The writer, a veteran diplomat, is the chairman of Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee.
