U.S. unlikely to give diplomacy a chance

The U.S. and Britain view Iraq's acceptance of the unconditional return of UN inspectors as a ploy and have sought the passing of a resolution by the Security Council to force Iraq to comply with all the previous UN decisions.

The U.S. Congress has approved President George W. Bush's demands to carry out a military strike against Iraq if it does not comply with these international resolutions.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave a speech before the House of Commons, submitted a dossier accusing Baghdad of possessing weapons of mass destruction, and sought approval to participate in the forthcoming attack. The following is the Arab press's discussion of these developments.

All the political signs indicate that Iraq's agreeing to the unconditional return of the UN inspectors will not lead to any result since, in the end, the door will remain open for Washington to carry out its threats in spite of the strong objection from Russia, France and other countries, writes Rajih Al Khouri in Akhbar Al-Arab.

The most important sign is that Bush has managed to convince the Congress to issue a decision that supports his demands in relation to Iraq. The approval of the Congress means that Bush has succeeded in crossing a major bridge since convincing the UN will be very easy for him.

Those that oppose the attack won't succeed in convincing the Americans and other members of the Security Council to wait until Saddam complies with the international resolutions, adds Al Khouri.

Incorporate clause

At least it will be easy for the U.S. to incorporate a clause on punitive action in the Security Council resolutions, so that if Saddam contravenes these, Washington will strike Iraq.

It is important to note that Saddam will not succeed in complying with the international resolutions even if he puts in his best into that effort because Washington's interpretation of these resolutions is different from Baghdad's and Washington will not allow him to succeed so that it can implement its clause on punitive action, says Al Khouri.

This is not an imaginary scenario as it is based on the different American declarations such as Colin Powell's statement regarding imposing strict criteria to prevent Saddam's ploys.

Also, the U.S. demands were not confined to disarming Iraq as their other accusations against Iraq include the absence of democracy, discriminating against minorities and supporting terrorism, adds Al Khouri.

This means that in the short duration of a month, Saddam has to transform Iraq into another Sweden or Norway. Otherwise, Bush will strike against Iraq to bring about such a transformation even if this entails destroying the country in the process, says Al Khouri.

Moreover, the military signs prove that the preliminary stage of war has already started. In fact, the American and British planes that fly daily over Iraq's no fly zone have increased their raids so as to destroy Iraq's radars and ant-missiles defences, adds Al Khouri.

Also, the Pentagon has announced the U.S. readiness to transport the fourth and largest cargo of weapons and equipment to the Gulf region. Thus, it is not an exaggeration to say that war has begun long before Iraq agreeing to the return of the inspectors, concludes Al Khouri.

The U.S. stand on Iraq and the unconditional return of inspectors only confirms the popular view that this return is only a pretext to implement its strategic plan in Iraq in order to get hold of Baghdad's huge oil resources, writes Abdullah Al Ayoubi in Akhbar Alkhaleej (Bahrain).

With Iraq's unexploited oil - the second largest reserve in the world - the U.S. will enhance its capabilities to manage its relations with the other international powers. Also, with such a stand, the U.S. has revealed its intention to topple the Iraqi regime and install another leader (similar to the Afghan leader. Hamid Karzai) who will ensure the implementation of its objectives in Iraq, adds Al Ayoubi.

Europe knows that it won't get anything when the U.S. implements its plan as only the American companies will benefit from Iraq's oil resources while the European companies will get only tidbits at the most, says Al Ayoubi.

In fact, the implementation of the U.S. plan will result in the instability of the Gulf and Arab regions and the emergence of disputes that will have dangerous repercussions.

For this reason, all those concerned with the safety and security of this region should activate opposition to the U.S. strike against Iraq, especially since this opposition is evident in other continents whose people view this strike as an assault against the rights and freedom of nations by and large, concludes Al Ayoubi.

There are many points worth examining in Blair's dossier about Iraq and his speech given at the House of Commons. Apart from acting as mere pretexts to announce a war against Iraq, the 55-page dossier and the enclosed evidence does not provide any concrete evidence about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, says Al-Khaleej (UAE) in its editorial comment.

Moreover, the dossier looks like a fabrication by British or American intelligence agencies. The confidential information in it comprises mere words that lack evidence in spite of the enclosed photographs.

Actually, this information has been given repeatedly by the media and American officials and is based on reports made by the American intelligence agency, adds Al-Khaleej.

Political objective

Although the British dossier appears to be an intelligence report, its actual objective is political as it is being used to influence the British public opinion that opposes the participation of Britain in the U.S. strike against Iraq, says Al-Khaleej.

The dossier mentions Iraq's ability to develop a nuclear weapon within a year or two, its attempt to obtain the technology and equipment needed for such development, its continual production of chemical and biological weapons, and its attempt to develop ballistic missiles. But all these mere accusations that have no value since Iraq has announced its readiness to allow the international inspectors to visit all the sites mentioned in the dossier, adds Al-Khaleej.

Although the context of Blair's speech did not differ from the contents of the dossier, it followed the same pattern of the steps taken by Bush in threatening Iraq with a strike and repeating the accusation of Iraq's contravention of the international resolutions.

In all this, Blair has fallen in the same trap of double standards as he talked about disarming Iraq while not referring to Israel's weapons of mass destruction, concludes Al-Khaleej.