In the balance
Iraq's future is anything but predetermined, argues Abdallah Al-Ashaal*
If Iraq became part of the US's strategy for the Arab world in 1990, Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait provided a golden opportunity for the US to make inroads into the country. By liberating Kuwait through sending US forces to the Gulf, the US was able to put in motion its plans for Iraq. Israel, undoubtedly, was involved in the wide-ranging plan, as many American observers have suggested now that Iraq is once again under attack. Hence, Iraq has become the starting point for American-Israeli designs in the Arab world, which, according to statements by the US secretary of state, aim to reconfigure the region in a manner more amenable to the realisation of Zionist objectives.
Iraq's future consequently depends on whether the US is successful in achieving the military goals it set in conjunction with Israel. So far, it is clear that the US no longer cares about international law or UN resolutions; like Israel, it does what it wants without paying heed to criticisms of its behaviour. It has stopped listening to anyone, focussing instead on implementing its publicly-declared designs for Iraq. These entail occupying and administering the Gulf country so as to control its resources and inhabitants.
Indeed, speculation is rife that Iraq will be taken as a model to be applied to other parts of the Arab world. First, the country is warned, then it is subject to an overwhelming military assault, which is followed by occupation and foreign administration. US officials and the American media cloak these plans in stirring language, referring to the proliferation of democracy and liberation from dictatorship. But this very pretext relies on the discredited view that the Arabs will welcome those who depose their rulers.
However, resistance to the US invasion has taught the US leadership an important lesson: applying the Iraqi model won't be easy. While it may appear that the country's future has already been decided, upon a closer look it is clear that the outcome is anything but determined. The conflict is multifaceted and brings together a wide range of groups with their own agendas.
Beyond the goals of the US and Britain, Turkey, which has facilitated the movement of US forces who hope to conquer the northern front and thus surround Iraq from all sides, has its own ambitions -- particularly with respect to the Kurds. Key to understanding its position is the fact that it will do anything in its power to prevent a convergence between Kurds in Iraq and those in its own country so as to avert the establishment of a Kurdish state. Such a turn of events, in Turkey's view, would at the very least threaten its national security, but could even lead to its disintegration.
The Kurds, meanwhile, are trying to wipe out Islamist groups in Kurdish-controlled parts of Iraq that are trying to defend the Gulf country. Towards this goal, they have allied themselves with US forces, and might even find themselves aligned with Turkish ones. Since the US tends to simplify matters, it portrays all Islamist organisations as an extension of Al-Qa'eda, and adopts the same stance towards them. Fighting between the Kurds and Turkmen, who are protected by Turkey, is another reason for the conflict between the Kurds and Turkey, although it should be conceded that the Kurds do not agree among themselves about Turkey and its intervention in northern Iraq.
The Shi'ites, for their part, are divided into two camps. One group has declared its support for the Iraqi army against the US invasion. Those who are part of the opposition in exile have vacillated in their stance although they now appear set to oppose the Iraqi army. In short, Arab Iraqis are confronting Shi'ite and Kurdish Iraqis, as well as forces from the US, Great Britain, and other nations. In the meantime, volunteers from Arab and Muslim countries have joined the equation, having headed to the Gulf to stand alongside the Iraqi people.
A wide range of scenarios could come out of the convergence of these groups. Given the mixture of various forces in Iraq, as violent US air raids proceed against Iraqi cities, villages, and troops, it is possible the battle may be settled in favour of the Iraqi government, which continues to resist despite the vast gulf between its military capabilities and those of both its domestic and foreign enemies. Should the Iraqi regime prevail, we can expect a settling of accounts, with rewards given to those who were loyal to the state and punishment meted out to those who conspired against it. Under this scenario, it is even possible that the country might reintegrate itself into the regional and international communities -- even under its present leadership -- although it would have to operate from a different perspective. The likelihood that such a scenario would come to pass, however, seems slim, as the US appears intent on crushing Iraq militarily, regardless of the cost in lives and no matter how long such a campaign takes. Nevertheless, the ability of the Iraqi resistance to withstand the attack will continue to be met with enthusiasm among Arabs and could push the American and British public to pressure their governments to end the aggression.
Another scenario would be US success in taking the country and imposing military administration. In such an event, it could neutralise potential resistance by the Shi'ites and the Kurds by giving them a measure of autonomy, while at the same time providing them incentives to support US designs in the Arab world and against Iran. But under this scenario the US would probably still have to confront popular resistance. Added to this, a US presence in Iraq could provoke a wave of Arab nationalism or embolden Islamist tendencies in the region, particularly if the occupation is protracted or extends to another country.
In a third scenario, the scope of the conflict would widen to engulf Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. Should this come to pass, a regional war would be likely to ensue, and would have the potential to take on global dimensions if powers from outside the region intervene or support any one side. Such a series of events would pose a grave threat to world peace.
Yet, a key question remains that should be pondered carefully. Is it possible that the US might call off its war in Iraq before it has achieved its objectives? This could happen providing that several conditions are met. If US forces suffer heavy losses that the administration cannot justify or conceal, it would lead to overwhelming pressure by the American public and others to stop the war. This would have to accompanied by international pressure on the US, through the UN Security Council and in bilateral relations with Washington.
As long as the war continues, the three scenarios outlined above could come to pass. The danger will continue as long as the Arab world does not work to uphold Iraqi independence and regional peace in the face of Turkish designs and the separatist ambitions of forces in Iraq, and as long as the spirit of Arab nationalism does not rise to the ethnic and religious challenges of these circumstances.
If Israel enters the war against Iraq or against any other Arab country, it could provoke a majority of Arab countries into entering armed conflict with Israel, as this would represent a fundamental challenge to the regional situation and general security. It is more likely, however, that Washington would insist on keeping Israel out of the conflict so that it can guarantee Arab impartiality or even support for its aggression on Iraq.
* The writer is assistant to the egyptian foreign minister.
