After Iraq: Who is next?
Columnist Muhammad Irshad surmises that some other country will follow Iraq.
Iraq stands devastated today. The once cradle of civilisation, the once centre of Muslim super power, the once greatest seat of Muslim learning is in ruins today. All in the name of ‘Freedom and Liberation for Iraqis’. About 1400 years back, when a single woman cried for help against Hindu atrocities, the sole Muslim power from the same place acted swiftly and the Hindu Raja had to leave his throne. today when millions and millions of Iraqis cried for help, more than 56 Muslim states watched the scene with a sort of helplessness but failed to take any action. Thus the American forces trampled Iraq without any hindrance, and after the occupation things are going from bad to worse. Iraqi civilians are being shot by American troops, and looting, chaos and vandalism still reign on the streets of many towns and cities. Pilfering is being encouraged to ensure a complete devastation.
The world’s sole superpower, which already has to its credit 216 attacks on different nation, and which still remains to be the only country having used nuclear weapons against any other nation, has ensured the complete destruction of the brother Muslim country Iraq. All was done with brutal force.
After a one-sided Persian Gulf War in 1991 that devastated Iraq back into the dark ages, massively destroying water, electrical and sewage plants, dams, food storages, pharmaceutical companies, roads, bridges, schools, orphanages, nursing homes, and mosques; after 12 years of the severest sanctions that denied medicine and water purification chemicals, claiming they were ‘dual use weapons’; after 12 years of non-stop British and American bombing in the illegal and unsanctioned ‘no-fly zones’ to ensure future division of Iraq into three zones, after sending the UN inspectors to locate the possible future targets to be attacked under the disguise of searching Iraqi weapons, and after getting a clear confirmation that Iraq possesses no dangerous weapons, then against the wishes of more that 180 nations American President Bush inexplicably focused like a laser on Saddam Hussein’s country, destroying Iraq almost in a manner, similar to the destruction of our brother Muslim country of Afghanistan.
The Americans have attacked Iraq for a large number of reasons, but three reasons stand out more prominently. The American hegemony getting expansion on the world map, the quest for unhindered cheap oil, and the security of Israel. There is a strong evidence available that Israel badly wanted Iraq to be trampled, along with devastation of many other middle eastern countries for accomplishment of the dream of a ‘greater Israel’. And such plans were available many years before the actual attack on Iraq. The fact that America, a superpower should fight a war for safety of a small client state should not surprise anyone. The news from Iraq stating that the new Iraqi government is going to recognise Israel and the immediate priority of laying oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel should just confirm the importance of Israeli desire in the devastation of Iraq.
The Americans got very easy victories over Afghanistan and Iraq. You can’t stop a military machine that has achieved such a quick and complete victory with so few losses. It will push for action again and again. Thus the American government which is intoxicated with its military might easily smashing other Muslim states, and the Americans getting convinced that might makes right, do not intend stopping at Iraq. In fact when the victory of Iraq was visible and yet not complete, the Americans gave warning to Muslim countries of Syria and Iran and also imposed sanctions on the nuclear laboratories of Pakistan. Thus defining the three future targets, Syria, Iran and Pakistan. (For North Korea, Americans shall only apply ‘diplomacy’)
Still reeling from the haze of victory following the rapid demise of Saddam’s regime, President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell wasted little time in accusing Syria. These accusations set off a feeling in Damascus that Syria and President Bashar Assad’s regime could become the next target as the United States sets out to implement its Middle East “road map”. Damascus was charged with aiding Iraq, harbouring Iraqi officials and possessing chemical weapons.
Yes! Again the same familiar outcry: “They have chemical weapons!” (And so have the United States, Russia, Egypt, Israel, Britain, France and many others. Every military machine develops these weapons, even for defensive purposes.) “There is a brutal dictator out there!” “He supports terrorism!” In a few days, we shall hear: “He butchered his own people as Saddam did with his Kurds! We must liberate the poor Syrian people from the tyrant!” And from there: “Regime change!” It will begin with slogans, “warnings”, speeches in the UN and sanctions. The most expert professionals will prepare public opinion. The American and world media (with the Israelis to the fore) will eagerly cooperate. And then the war will become “inevitable”. It already has a name: “Operation Syrian Freedom”.
But there is one important difference between “Iraqi Freedom” and “Syrian Freedom”.
The American attack on Iraq had many objectives: control of the oil, creation of a permanent American base in the heart of the Arab world, revenge for the failure of the father. Furthering Sharon’s interests was only one objective, and as long as Sharon kept quiet, it wasn’t too obvious. The coming American attack on Syria is quite different. It does not serve any major American interest, but it does serve (and how!) the interests of Sharon. For those who have forgotten the developments, here is a brief reminder:
In 1967, after Syrian-Egyptian threats, the Israeli army attacked Syria (after Egypt and Jordan) and conquered the Golan Heights, which until that time were known in Israel as “the Syrian Heights”. Their 160 thousand inhabitants fled (they vegetate to this day as refugees in Syria.) Their land was taken over by Israeli settlers. The Likud government has officially annexed the Heights (but not the West Bank and Gaza Strip) to Israel.
From that time, the liberation of the Golan has become a central aim for Syria. According to international law, this is occupied Syrian territory. Two Israeli Prime Ministers, Yitzhaq Rabin and Ehud Barak, as much as admitted this when they agreed to return all the Golan to Syria. The negotiations broke down in each case because of an argument about a few hundred meters. Neither Rabin nor Barak was ready to allow the Assads to “wet their feet in the sea of Tiberias”.
The two lions (In Arabic, Assad means lion) acted very cautiously. After they failed to dislodge the Israeli army in the October 1973 war, they did not use their own military again. They found a way to fight by proxy: the Lebanese Hizbullah (soldiers of Allah) militia has harassed the Israeli army with pinpricks. Both Assads hoped that this would help them to get the Golan back in the end. Also, some of the Palestinian pro-Syrian (i.e. anti-Arafat) organizations are based in Damascus. Now along comes the Bush administration, under the influence of Wolfowitz, Perle & Co., and issues an ultimatum to the Syrians: give up your chemical weapons, eliminate Hizbullah, get rid of the “terrorists”.
For the Syrians this means, in effect, to give up any hope of ever getting the Golan Heights back. It also means American recognition of their annexation by Israel, in contravention of all the UN resolutions and the position of every US president up to now.
Without Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, the threat of “the Eastern front” that has been haunting the Israeli military for decades will disappear. Egypt and Jordan have already signed peace treaties. Israel is extremely delighted with the idea of American forces sitting in Iraq. Among the many dreams coming true for Israel, one of them is her desire to break the Syrian-Iranian axis and reduce the support these countries give to Hizbullah in Lebanon and to Palestinian resistance groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Only then Israel can force Palestinians to accept being an entity which is truncated, fragmented, defencelessly living on Israel’s harsh terms leaving Sharon to concentrate all his might against the Palestinians.
Syria has denied all the American allegations. But so violent were the accusations by President Bush and his senior colleagues, quickly followed by Israel’s Prime Minister Aerial Sharon, that it looked at first that the American forces in Iraq were about to march on Damascus. The danger has now passed for the time being. Britain’s Tony Blair objected to military action against Syria, as did Spain’s Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar. They were joined by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and by much of the Arab world. The US did soften its tone when US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared, ‘There is no war plan right now to attack someone else, either for the purpose of overthrowing their leadership or for the purpose of imposing democratic values’. But if the immediate threat has receded, political, diplomatic and economic pressures on Syria continue unabated. Just to ensure that message has been conveyed properly, the US bombed the Syrian Trade Centre in Baghdad and closed the oil pipeline from Iraq to Syria. The valuable trade of Syria with Iraq which totalled about $ 5 billion in the 1998-2002, has been completely cut off. This is a serious blow to the Syrian economy since Iraq has in recent years become Syria’s main trading partner.
Besides appeasing the Zionist lobby, there could be another reason for the American hurry in threatening Syria. The America’s biggest and most immediate fear is that its forces in Iraq will face hit and run guerrilla attacks, as well as suicide bombing, such as eventually forced Israel out of Lebanon. Nothing would be more damaging to America’s imperial project in Iraq, and nothing would erode American domestic support for the war, than if its troops had to endure a steady toll of casualties, even at the rate of two or three a week. To survive any anti-American resistance movement in Iraq would need a regular external supply of volunteers, weapons and funds, as well as safe heavens for its militants and perhaps for its political leadership, outside the country. Syria seemed the obvious potential source of such support. Its leader, President Bashar Al Assad, had vehemently opposed the Iraqi war and is considered to be the only Arab leader capable of such militant support. So Americans wish to wipe out any such ideas from Syrian leader’s head, and they will achieve either by threats or by military machines.
The government of the young president, Bashar al-Assad, gained widespread popular support for its heated oratory against the United States over the war against Iraq. Indeed, hundreds of Syrian and other Arab volunteers rushed to fight in Iraq’s defence.
But now Syria finds itself caught between burnishing its pan-Arab credentials by criticizing America and facing a new, painful fact: the United States is now on Syria’s doorstep, across the border in Iraq, and the American administration has already shown that it is ready to flex its muscles again even before the battlefield smoke clears.
Some reflective souls still muse about the chances of change in Iraq rattling the Baath Party’s iron grip in Syria, but the debate on possible American military action garners more attention.
The president of Iran has clearly stated that Iran would not remain neutral if Syria is attacked. ‘We will not engage in military confrontation with the Americans but will apply all our non-military facilities to prevent such an attack or to support Syria’, said a top Iranian official. During the Iran-Iraq war, Syria was the only Arab country which supported Iran. But their friendship is more stronger because of Hizbullah factor. Hezbollah is seen by Syrians and by a huge majority of Lebanese as a very legitimate resistance movement — in fact as the guerrilla force that got rid of the Israelis after 22 years of occupation (of Lebanon).
“Hezbollah arose after Israel 1) invaded Lebanon in what Israelis themselves call “a war of choice,” 2) aided a group of thugs who “raped, tortured, mutilated and massacred” hundreds, if not thousands, of unarmed Palestinian civilians at Shabra and Shatilla, and 3) began treating the local Shiites like crap,” writes Monkey Media. “And now people are suggesting that the United States should take on the job of dealing with the mess Israel created for itself”. Absurd. “Hezbollah is not a threat to the US — it’s a threat to Israel (or at least northern Israel on the border with Lebanon), but it’s not a threat to Americans’. But as things stand, American feel that a threat to Israel is a threat to America and thus Hizbullah is under strong American criticism. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage says Hezbollah “may be the (terrorists’) A-team, while al-Qaeda may be actually the B-team,” Same is said by Sen. Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “In my judgment that’s the No. 1 threat” to America, Graham told the St. Petersburg Times. “That threat should be our first priority.”
The government of Iran with Syria, is a supporter of Lebanon’s Hizbullah “The Syrians... permit the Iranians to channel through Damascus airport the arms required by Hizbullah in south Lebanon,” notes Andrew Green, a former UK ambassador to Syria. “These are regarded as potential levers in negotiations with Israel for return of the occupied Golan Heights. They also give Syria some measure of influence over the Palestinian and Hizbullah resistance. This is tough diplomacy, Middle East style; it hardly amounts to being a rogue state.” America, however, considers it as a serious crime. Thus Iran was considered as a part of ‘Axis of Evil’ even much before attack on Iraq, and apparently is the next American target after dealing with Syria.
Now Iran is being accused of sending thousands of trained and armed guerrilla fighters through Basra and Al-Amara into the Najaf and Karbala regions to mingle with the pilgrims and manipulate the mood of the crowds from within. Secondly, the delivery of weapons, explosives and cash to Pro-Iranian Iraqi leaders, arming them to fight Pro-American or even modern elements in Shia community.
The Bush administration has started giving warnings to Iranian government, one such warning being that the Iranian government should stay out of Iraq and not interfere with the country in its “road to democracy,” While not explicitly confirming reports that Iranian agents were making their way into Iraq, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, “We have concerns about this matter. “We have well-known channels of communication with Iran, and we have made it clear to Iran that we oppose the outside interference in Iraq’s road to democracy. ... Infiltration of agents to destabilize the Shiite population would clearly fall into that category.”
“The fall of the mullahs in Tehran would send a devastating message to the entire Islamic world: Theocracy has been tried, and it has failed,” writes neocon Michael Ledeen. “The most important thing is our leaders’ words to the Iranians. We want the fall of the regime. That is what the war on terrorism is all about. To remain silent is to be complicit in the repression of Iran. There is no diplomatic ‘solution.’ We want a free Iran. Don’t we’” Indeed, one State Department official says a debate is emerging within the Administration along the lines of, when do we start shifting our policy toward isolating Iran and toward bringing down that regime as well? The most likely answer is, not anytime soon. For a start, obvious American pressure on the theocratic hard-liners in Iran would make the position of liberal reformers there untenable, forcing them to choose between nationalism and the perils of appearing to be US lackeys. Second, the US would have no allies in a war against Iran and powerful enemies arrayed against it. The British, who maintain diplomatic relations with Tehran, have made it plain that they would not join in any such campaign. London points out that there is no record of UN Security Council resolutions condemning Iran as there was for Iraq, and there is no international consensus that the mullahs pose a threat outside their borders. Russia has important economic ties with Iran and has a vital national interest in seeing that the oil-rich Caspian Basin is not dominated by those who are beholden to the US. The Americans are also accusing Iran of having hidden nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and spreading terrorism through Hizbullah and only time will tell what these accusations really lead to?
Pakistan, from the dawn of its creation was in trouble because of belligerent India. Indians were too cunning and too quick to inflict any harm they could to this new born state, and Pakistanis were always very slow in realising and reacting to the threat. However, after 14 years of the first nuclear explosion by India, they did manage to exhibit their nuclear capabilities in May 1998, becoming the seventh country of the world and the first Muslim country to have exploded the nuclear bomb. This capability was basically for its protection from Indian bullies which had already cut Pakistan into two and was threatening loudly for worse consequences. And it is this nuclear power which has ensured three decades of ‘no-war’ in south east Asia. However, the possession of this capability by a Muslim state is considered as a crime by west. And the spreading of this technology among Muslims is likely to put Israel on a track not acceptable to Israel and America. May be Americans also have fears that those deep in slumber (Muslim rulers), may end with renaissance of Islam because of the nuclear power. Thus Pakistan’s nuclear programme was always seen by west with a malicious eye.
The Bush administration has imposed two years sanctions on Khan Research Laboratories (KRL). This punitive measure was taken in response to Washington’s own accusation that Pakistan exported its nuclear technology to North Korea. Pakistan denied and called these sanctions as unjustified, particularly as no evidence was provided by Americans to support their allegations. These sanctions on KRL would amount to Washington’s first ever accusation that Pakistan is exporting nuclear technology. These sanctions would actually establish in Washington a ‘paper trial’ against Pakistan’s nuclear programme, which can be invoked against Pakistan whenever Pak-US relations get bad. Today, when there is absence of confrontation between the Bush and Musharraf governments, the sanctions may appear harmless. It also may be tangibly inconsequential. Yet politically it points to US attempts to keep each Pakistani government under pressure on the nuclear issue.
Chemical weapons inspection team visiting Pakistan is another factor putting pressure on Pakistan. Although the government of Pakistan is calling it a routine affair, but it certainly is not all routine. Shares on the Karachi Stock Exchange fell 3.5 percent on fears sparked by news of the inspection. Pakistan signed Chemical Weapons Convention in 1983, and the treaty was enforced in 1994. The treaty bounds the world to destroy the whole stock of chemical weapons by 2006. When still there are about three years to destroy, if at all we have any weapons, why inspect our installations at this particular moment? This inspection is being carried out for the first time and in his remarks Brig Tipu Sultan, Director Disarmament and Head of National Authority on Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), did not tell the media as to who had raised suspicions about Pakistan, which has led to this inspection. The things become more serious in view of the fact that, firstly, there could be limitless places where one can doubt said weapons, it could take many years, as it happened in Iraq. Secondly, Americans never gave us a reason when they blamed us for transfer of nuclear technology, so who will stop them when they actually blame us for possessing chemical weapons without any proof.
Some might argue that Pakistan is a partner of American terrorist campaign, and also a front line state, so why should America be angry with us. Such thinkers have to remember that Americans are more ruthless in pursuit of their interests than one would like to believe. They were our partners in SEATO and CENTO but refused help against Indian attack, they were our allies in war against Soviet Union but imposed sanctions on us immediately upon its collapse, General Musharraf took a complete U-turn on Afghanistan but Americans still applied sanctions on KRL during his tenure, and this list could really become very lengthy, but the point to remember is that Americans will not hesitate, if their or Israeli interests demanded so, to attack us. Some consolation for Pakistan could be because of soft American attitude towards North Korea. It is because North Korea possesses nuclear weapons and has world’s fourth largest Army. Americans would certainly get a strong reply in case they attack that country. Americans abhor a victory with too many body bags? which may be the truth if North Korea is attacked. Thus underlining a well-known lesson for us, that in military and economic strength lies the safety of our nation.
