Creating fertile ground for future conflicts

What would be the consequences of a possible U.S. military strike on Iraq? What would be the region to emerge in its wake and who would be the beneficiaries? Will the world be a safer place in its aftermath? And how can the U.S., which turns a blind eye to the daily crimes of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the occupied Palestinian lands, talk of Saddam Hussein's crime?

These are few of the many questions being asked in many circles in the region, as elsewhere in the world.

As things are, the U.S. is likely to go ahead with its "regime change" programme in Iraq and, assuming Saddam was removed or killed, his regime toppled and a new pro-U.S. regime installed in Baghdad, that would govern and maintain law and order in the country known for its centuries old and deep rooted religious, ethnic and tribal conflicts.

This is not an easy task in a volatile country like Iraq with its vast territory. Will the U.S. employ its soldiers to do this job?

A daunting task involving high risks! Isn't it? And what would be the fate of hundreds of thousands of Saddam's armed forces - carefully screened and recruited from amongst Bathist members? Eliminate them as they did in Afghanistan?

Certainly the new regime will not be able to exercise control beyond Baghdad, as in the case of President Hamid Karzai's government in Kabul.

Hundreds of thousands of people whose loved ones were eliminated by Saddam's oppressive security forces may try to exploit the opportunity to take revenge - as happened in Iran in the aftermath of the Islamic revolution in 1978 - and turn the country into a killing field.

Frightened Iraqis will flee in their thousands causing refugee problems in the neighbouring countries - already Jordan had taken preventive measures.

Initially the U.S. will solely depend on its airpower to minimise its casualties and to make the campaign effective. The result will be fierce, massive and indiscriminate bombing will kill hundreds of thousands. But the total casualty figures will never be known, as in Afghanistan last year and during the Gulf War 12 years ago.

It is not known to what extent the new government in Baghdad will be able to wield power over the South, dominated by Shi'ites or the North, by Kurds. In fact Iraq was virtually divided into three - Kurds in the North, Sunnis in the Centre and the Shi'ites in the South - ever since the no fly zones were introduced in the aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991.

Since then the Kurds have enjoyed a relative period of calm and prosperity and they are scared that a regime change would turn this into a short lived dream.

In the event of the Kurds and Shi'ites enjoying little more freedom, the Kurds in Syria, Iran and Turkey may be tempted, or encouraged, to ask for more autonomy from their own countries triggering off bloody conflicts.

The Shi'ites in the South have always had their hearts closer to Tehran, which may try to forge closer links paving the way for new developments and challenges in the Gulf.

A regime change in Baghdad will also place both Syria and Iran in very vulnerable positions. Iran will be sandwiched between U.S.-installed governments in Kabul and Baghdad while Syria too, known for its radical views which were not so friendly to U.S. and Israel, will be squeezed by Baghdad and Israel.

Already Iran is having problems with its Afghan border. Iran's Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani accused the U.S. of inciting Afghan bandits to create trouble along Iran's eastern fronts. A weakened Syria can also be blackmailed to tighten the Shi'ite fighters in South Lebanon, to the benefit of Israel.

And, if provoked, cornered Iran and Syria, with their proven capacities to unleash violence and wreak havoc, may resort to such activities with unpredictable consequences. Frightening scenario? Isn't it?

The importance of Egypt and many other countries in the region will be minimised, changing the political map of the Middle East overnight with Israel emerging as the strongest power to further destabilise the entire region for years to come.

After all, in its current U.S. campaign against terrorism and its military designs for the region the U.S. hardly cares for or respects Arab opinion. For they realised that, contrary to all predictions, Arab streets did not explode - as predicted - following the outbreak of the second intifada triggered by Ariel Sharon's visit to Masjid Al Aqsa premises accompanied by more than 2000 policemen supplied by then Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

All these developments are bound to have very serious repercussions on the geopolitical situation of the entire region including the Gulf.

Battered, traumatised and starved Palestinians will be the biggest losers as Israel will intensify its oppression, increase new colonies for Jews and force Palestinians to flee. Already this year more than 80,000 people have left the West Bank and Gaza. Ideal breeding grounds for future conflicts and violence! Isn't it?

The regime change will have its own, open and secret, economic dimensions as Iraq, the second largest oil producer in the world, could be manipulated to change its oil policies to suit U.S. and Israeli designs and interests as against the GCC economies.

Thus the united Arab voice against a military strike in Iraq is understandable, though in many ways Saddam has proved a great blessing to the West and the U.S. - a 45-minute BBC documentary on Saddam in October 2000 spoke in detail about the role played by CIA in bringing him to power.

By unilaterally tearing up the 1976 Algiers Agreement between Iran and Iraq to share the Shatt al Arab waterway and declaring war on Iran in 1980, Saddam only helped the West in its effort to arrest the rising tide of revolution in Iran.

The eight year war, ended after killing more than a million people, besides billions of dollars of damage to the economies of the two leading oil producing countries, was described as the richest war in history as only the enemies of the Arabs benefited.

It also made the eastern front safe for Israel and encouraged it to invade Lebanon.

In the aftermath, when the Iraqis began to recover from their long sufferings, Saddam once again dispatched his troops to Kuwait and destabilised the entire Middle East paving the way for the U.S. to get a foothold in the region.

Once again who benefited? The U.S., Europe and Israel.

Now the U.S. which, managed to subdue the countries in the region under the guise of fighting terrorism, is trying to exploit the opportunity to change the regime in Iraq and redraw the political map to suit its, and Israel's, interest. Already President George Bush has warned that "action will be unavoidable" if the UN fails to disarm Iraq.

Earlier during their Camp David summit Bush and the British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared that the "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein should leave the scene paving the way for a new government in Iraq". But so far the world is not convinced, as there is no proof to substantiate this claim.

Warning the U.S. of military strikes, former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter said "Iraq is not a threat to its neighbours, as it is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside its borders." This was confirmed by the UN inspectors who, during seven years of their intensive inspections, found no evidence to show that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.

Reiterating this view David Albright, former consultant to the UN nuclear weapons inspectors, said the "evidence now discussed is ambiguous at best and it is not strong enough to make a case for pre-emptive mi