Leave the beehive unprovoked

Regardless of the well-rehearsed performances by the hawks within the Bush administration on the Sunday talk shows, where they recited chapter and verse their advocacy of "regime change," scepticism remains abundantly clear.

Even the report of the International Institute for Strategic Studies fell short of providing damaging evidence against Iraq. The Institute's director, John Chipman, told the BBC, "We certainly confirm that it would be difficult for him (Saddam Hussain) in the absence of substantial foreign assistance or the lifting of sanctions soon to be able to develop his own fissile materials.

A question that always seemed to be overlooked in this war of words is the identity of the supplier or suppliers of the much-desired radioactive material or other equipment, like the aluminum tubing which has now gained notoriety.

If some western powers are ill at ease about Iraq's nuclear potential, wouldn't it be more logical to tighten the controls over exports of these materials to Iraq's Saddam Hussein?

Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector who has been leading a praiseworthy campaign against American designs on Baghdad, scoffed at reports that Iraq was trying to buy aluminum pipes that could be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

Speaking from Baghdad, he told a CNN interviewer "I'm going to need a hell of a lot more than some aluminum tubes before I'm convinced there's a case for war." He also recalled that in 1998, the year that Ritter resigned in protest over alleged U.S. intelligence infiltration of the inspection programme, the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iraq had no nuclear weapons capability, "none whatsoever, zero."

Ritter, who is hardly being covered by the press here, continued: "So how suddenly are they now an emerging nuclear threat? We'd better have a heck of a lot more to go on that some aluminum pipes."

President Bush has a tough assignment on Thursday before the UN General Assembly where he is expected to spell out America's case against the Iraqi regime. Whatever charges he will bring up, it will be interesting to see whether he can match the stellar performance of the late U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Adlai Stevenson, who provided incriminating photos of Russian missile build-up in Cuba.

What has also been troubling and surprising about the shift in the Bush administration's foreign policy focus, from a global war against terrorism as was the case in Afghanistan, to "regime change" in Baghdad, is the timing.

What has happened all of a sudden to justify this reversal remains to be answered by the president or his lieutenants especially now that all attempts to link the Baghdad regime with the dreaded Al Qaida or any other terrorist action has fizzled.

Sceptics are wondering whether the seemingly unsuccessful turn of events in Kabul, where President Karzai was nearly assassinated, or the faltering economy at home which has troubled many an American, are the real issues that are bound to influence American voters in November. Hence, the star-studded performance on Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

Obviously, the Israeli cheering for a war on Baghdad cannot be dismissed altogether. Adding Israeli oil to the American fire is the report published on Monday by Ma'ariv, the Israeli newspaper, which revealed that Israel has allowed the U.S. to bring tremendous amounts of weaponry, arms, and ammunition into the bases of the Israeli army - a report that is bound to fuel the anti-American hostility in the region.

Although an unidentified American official has confirmed the report, he maintained that Israel is not involved in any stage of the possible strike against Iraq.

The worrisome part of the American threats is the apparent willingness of the administration to go it alone regardless of the opposition to this venture that is being voiced worldwide.

In this respect, Arab governments have responded honourably in snubbing American cajoling, insisting, as Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said, that such an adventure would simply compound Arab frustration at U.S. policy on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

An American military victory in Iraq is bound to be costly, certainly in human lives, especially if the U.S. military is expected to plunge into the quagmire of nation-building that is likely to be more treacherous than the so far unsuccessful effort in nearby Afghanistan.

Iraq may still turn out to be the beehive that is best left unprovoked for the time being; otherwise the stings may have devastating effects elsewhere. Besides the war on terrorism, a more de-stabilising conflict in the region that merits urgent attention remains the unsettled struggle between Palestinian and Israelis, who must now be frustrated with the failure of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to bring the promised peace and security to his people.