 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| After Iraq: Iran or Syria? By Antonio C. Abaya April 8, 2003 Now that the war in Iraq is reaching its not unexpected outcome - the defeat of the Iraqi army and the ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime - attention is focusing on the inevitable question, Who�s next? No one of any consequence believes that the Americans will stop in Iraq. On the contrary, the logic of �messianic unilateralism� demands that the unstoppable American war machine grinds on relentlessly to devour its next victim or victims, no matter what the rest of the world may think about the legality, morality or appropriateness of another invasion of another sovereign state. As in Iraq, the next invasion is to be justified by the target state�s suspected possession of weapons of mass destruction, the alleged atrocities of its undemocratic regime against its own people, and/or its known or suspected connections with, or support of, terrorist organizations. Several names have been thrown into the �next invasion sweepstake�: Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, China. By a process of elimination, we can scratch out several of them: China, because the US would never attack or invade, without any provocation, a country of the magnitude of China - economically, demographically and militarily � which has the capability, no matter primitive, relatively speaking, of hitting back at the US. Saudi Arabia, because there is no immediate need to effect a regime change in Riyadh since the present one, though admittedly one of the most medieval on the planet, is a compliant member of the Coalition of the Willing Accomplices, hosting as it does several thousand American troops and their heavy equipment on its territory, and accommodating as it is to the biggest US and British oil companies. Cuba, because it has been effectively defanged since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 and is no threat to Washington, London or Tel Aviv. Better to just wait for the aging Fidel Castro to go to the Communist heaven and let things sort themselves out. Besides, of what use would a country be to the US that had lots of Negroes and no oil? Libya, because, although blessed with oil and natural gas, it is too far away from Tel Aviv to be an immediate threat to the Chosen People. And North Korea, because it is both oil-less and too distant from Israel to merit the immediate concern of the war party in Washington. Besides, why move 300,000 troops, five carrier battle groups and 1,200 combat aircraft all the way to northeast Asia when there is still unfinished business in the Persian Gulf? So, it will be either Syria or Iran. And my bet is on Iran. ***** Syria has some oil, but not a whole lot of it. It has estimated oil reserves of only 2 billion barrels, compared to Iran�s estimated reserves of 90 billion barrels. (Saudi Arabia�s and Iraq�s are 261 and 113 billion barrels, respectively.) Syria�s strategic value to US and UK oil interests lies in the relatively short distance an oil pipeline would have to traverse through it from the Mosul and Kirkuk oilfields in northern Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea, compared to the long overland route through Turkey. Although Syria shares a land border with Israel, it lost the strategic Golan Heights to the Israelis during the 1967 Six Day War, giving the Israelis topographical advantage over its southern territory. Syria is known to have purchased missiles from North Korea but is not known to have a nuclear arms program. On the other hand, even though Iran is some distance away (Tehran is about 1,600 kms from Tel Aviv), Iran does have both missile and nuclear programs that can in a short time grow to become a real threat to the Jewish state. For years, the ayatollahs of Iran, who are implacably hostile to Israel, have funded the Hizbollah terrorist organization in Lebanon for its incursions into Israel. In addition, the Americans have an old score to settle with the ayatollahs who, at the start of the Iranian Revolution of 1979, roused their followers to seize the US Embassy in Tehran and held hostage dozens of embassy staff for 444 humiliating days. In the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the US supported (and gave initial stocks of anthrax bacteria and botulinum spores to) the Iraq of Saddam Hussein, on the calculation that the ayatollahs of Iran represented the bigger threat to Israel and US oil interests. In an article in the Los Angeles Times, which appeared in Today (April 06), the American writer Bennett Ramberg wrote: �In the post 9/11 world, the US has a strong incentive to use military force (against Iran), given Tehran�s continuing sponsorship of international terrorism and general antagonism toward Washington�.� The American economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote on March 18: �It�s a matter of public record that this war with Iraq is largely the brainchild of a group of neoconservative intellectuals, who view it as a pilot project. In February 2003, according to Ha�aretz, an Israeli newspaper, Under Secretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq the United States would �deal with� Iran, Syria and North Korea. In August 2002, a British official close to the Bush team told Newsweek: �Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.�� ***** APRIL 20 UPDATE. In the past ten days, the US has turned on the heat on Syria, accusing the Assad Regime in Damascus of a) giving refuge to members of the deposed Saddam Regime, b) sending military equipment to Baghdad, in particular Russian-made night goggles, during the brief war, and c) developing weapons of mass destruction. It will be recalled that the invasion of Iraq was justified on the grounds that Iraq was a threat to its neighbors, the US and the rest of the world because of its weapons of mass destruction, none of which have been found even after one month of US occupation. But only the Americans (and possibly the Israelis) are getting hot under the collar over Syria. Both the United Kingdom and Spain � the principal US allies in Iraq � have declined to support the US over Syria. And the six member-states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and Oman), most of whom collaborated with the US over Iraq, have issued a statement urging the US to stop making threats against Syria and expressing �regret (of) any infringement of Syria�s security.� However, it was the Syrians themselves who provided the perfect squelch to the Americans by announcing their intention to introduce a resolution at the UN Security Council (where Syria is currently a non-permanent member) calling for the entire Middle East to be declared a �zone free of weapons of mass destruction.� Since Israel is the only state in the region that is known for certain to possess WMD, the US would have to use its veto against such a resolution, thus exposing its double standards and eroding its credibility as an honest broker. But the more relevant question may be �After Iraq, Iraq again?� Barely two days after a US Marine wrecker pulled down that statue of Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Shia Muslims were holding a demonstration in the Baghdad suburbs telling the Americans to get out of Iraq. This was followed by another, even bigger demo the next Friday, April 18, with the same Get Out message. This could well become a standard weekly event, after Friday prayers, until the crowds are whipped up by their mullahs to insurrection against the Americans. It should be kept in mind that Shia Muslims make up 60% of the Iraqi population, with the balance almost equally divided between the politically dominant Sunnis and the tribal Kurds. Long suppressed by the Sunnis of Saddam Hussein, the majority Shias are not likely to continue to accept a minority position in the post-Saddam era. They are more likely to assert their numbers and their dominance in such key places as Basra, Nasiriyah, Karbala, Najab, Al Kut and the eastern districts of Baghdad. If the democracy that the Americans are trying to impose on Iraq requires that the will of the majority must prevail, then the Shias must and will prevail: they want an Islamic state modelled on the theocracy of Iran (which is also ruled by Shias), they want the Americans out of their country, and they are implacably hostile to Israel. If the Americans, like Saddam, were to suppress the Shias, they would have a revolution in their hands. If they goad the Sunnis and the Kurds to resist the Shias, they would have a civil war. Welcome to Iraq. ***** The bulk of this article appears in the April 19 issue of the Philippines Free Press magazine. |
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �After Iraq: Syria or Iran?� AS ALWAYS YOU make some interesting points. For the sake of argument, let me put the following questions to you. Lets say that Iraq is a test case for future interventions in the Middle East. Lets say that the US succeeds in installing a more moderate, Western friendly and secular state in Iraq and that it intends to do the same in Syria, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia and other arab states. What if, in addition to this real effort is made at putting in place a roadmap to long term middle east peace that will allow Israel to coexist peacefully with an independent palestinian state and its arab neighbors? Lets say this leads to more open societies where women will finally have the same legal rights as men and ordinary arab people and not just the ruling elites can benefit economically from the billions of oil revenues that these states generate. What's wrong with that? Ricky Carandang [email protected] April 21, 2003 MY REPLY. In general, I am not comfortable with justifications for imperialist adventures on the grounds along the lines of �what if something good comes out of it?� One can thus justify the Japanese conquest of Southeast Asia on the grounds that it could have led to a �co-prosperity� with the conquered lands, as they had promised. One can justify Hitler�s conquest of Europe on the grounds that it would have broken the Jewish control of Europe�s banking system. Etc. In particular, US invasion and occupation of Iraq will not lead to the emancipation of Iraq�s women as they have been emancipated decades ago, under a succession of secular dictators. Iraqi women have been allowed functional equality with men long before the American invasion, they could pursue professions as doctors, lawyers, architects, etc which their counterparts in some US allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia) could not even to this day. The US championship of �democracy� rings hollow in the face of the fact that it has supported dictators whenever and wherever it was in their national interest to do so: the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, the sheiks in Kuwait, Qatar, etc, the Communist government in China, Marcos in the Philippines, Batista in Cuba, Duvalier in Haiti, etc. ������������������������ SINCE THIS IS just a guess I think Syria. Iran has an embryonic civic culture who are tired of ayatolahs. Syria is apure thuggish regime and easier to zap. May Assad, his heirs and assigns go to hell. Ross Tipon [email protected] Baguio City April 21, 2003 �������������������������� AT 12:56 AM 4/21/03 +0800, you wrote: >So, it will be either Syria or Iran. And my bet is on Iran. That would be correct if the motivation for attacking Iraq had been oil. But the blueprint for this attack and the general "cleansing" of the Middle East was written years ago by the foaming at the mouth-zionist Wolfowitz, with generous help from Likudniks like NuttyYahoo and ilk. And their #1 motivation is not oil, but getting away with grabbing land. Syria is the bigger thorn for them. Oil is only a consequential benefit for the Americans, albeit a big one. For oil alone the Iraq invasion would not have happened. But for Israel's security alone it would have. The scandal lies in the fact that this "shittly little country" (French Ambassador to England Daniel Bernard deploring the fact that Israel threatens world peace) can yank America around at will. And the reason for THAT is hidden behind a huge pile of money. Jesus Christ fought this battle already 2000 years ago, with a known result. Now this menace has grown into a worldwide, globalized monster. But the fight is exactly the same. Regards, from a friend who doesn't want to be mentioned. ������������������������� (Through the CebuPolitics email group): elr: IMHO, the most immediate concerns of the US would be where WMDs are being surreptitiously obtained or developed. at this point, my bet would be that the US would do pre-emptive raids on the suspect facilities rather than do another iraq - unless of course it is being lead by somebody who has a record for human rights abuses. if so, then this would put syria and north korea, not iran, as the most likely targets of the new US foreign policy of reigning in high probability threats, then hope that the threat of pre-emptive attacks would be deterent enough to make such states think twice about pursuing such goals. if you noticed, officials of the defeated baghdad regime have recently surfaced and were arrested. i see a connection here with the recent pressures the US put on syria. just my personal opinion on the matter. hizbollah and hamas are both supported by iran and syria, respectively. but there is a noticeable shrinking of such state-level support in recent days. on china, she is not currently posing as a threat to the US. the US also does not want to waste the gains made by this "communist" country in its march to capitalism. KSA and cuba are not current threats either. libya's distance from tel aviv is not "the" factor to consider here, but rather its support to terrorist groups. if libya resumes its training camps for muslim extremists, then libya would win the race of being "who's next" on the military balance between israel and her arab neighbours, you fail to state that most of the surrounding arab states support the PLO stand in its desire to annihilate the state of israel and "push it to the sea." the US sides with israel because it holds the same values as the US, and it is a democracy in a sea of repressive regimes�� (And also because Bush�s new doctrine of pre-emptive strike was drafted in the mid-1990s by a group of neo-conservative intellectuals who happened to be mostly Jews: Paul Wolfowitz, David Perle, Douglas Feithe, Eliot Cohen. ACA.) Eben Ramos [email protected] April 21, 2003 �������������������������� (Through [email protected]) (in reply to Eben Ramos above) BUT IS AN ATTACK on another country justified when the US still needs to produce the smoking gun for its invasion of Iraq? Months or years of looking for the WMD would have been understandable under the UN inspector system before the war. But now, the US controls Iraq. After Saddam failed to use his WMD to protect his regime, I now doubt if he ever had it just before the war. The dictator could have been telling the truth after all while Bush was all the while just after Iraqi oil, not the non-existent WMD, which never threatened US in the first place. Anol [email protected] Cebu City April 21, 2003 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |