The Gulf war of 1990 provided a major turning point in the checkered and controversial history of Iraq. During that period of bombing blitz the entire world, Muslims and non-Muslim alike, were arrayed in unison against Iraqi aggression, and all were unanimous that such aggression was an affront against all that civilisation stood for. No doubt, Suddam Husein and his regime learnt a bitter and telling lesson from the catastrophic consequences of his invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

Needless to say, that war reduced Iraq to tatters militarily, economically, and even socially. The military capability of what was once the most powerful army in the region was diminished to just a shadow of its former self. Exactly what the Americans wanted, (not to mention Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Israel, and so many other powers in the region.)

Since then much water has flowed under the bridge. In fact, too much for our liking. Thousands of people, men, women, and children, suffered from the aftermath of that war. The moratorium on its oil sales, the deprivation of basic medicines and foodstuffs, and the pressure on other countries to cut ties with Iraq are just a few of the factors that contributed to the suffering of the Iraqi populace. Thousands of children died in Iraq because of this. Mr. John Galloway, a British MP, summed it up in the following words:

Over and above this, the UN were hounding Iraq for years on the weapons inspection issue. Eventually Iraq, out of sheer frustration, gave the UN the boot. They had all the right to do so. There were a few murmurs of dissent from the Americans over this, but on the surface it appeared they were not too perturbed at the expected Iraqi attitude. One might say with a certain degree of accuracy that the Americans confidently believed Iraq had lost most of, if not all its nuclear capabilities.

However, as Fate would have it, this perception changed drastically and dramatically since September 11. We will not rumble through what has surely become one of the most debated catastrophes in world history. The Afghanistan war, or, what Mr. Bush coined as "the war on terror" was the catalyst for a frightening military campaign that never seemed to be on the wane ever since the first salvo was fired.

America, buoyed by what it perceived as military success in this campaign, has now directed its guns at the old foe, Saddam Hussein. However, something seems terribly wrong amidst the beat of the war drums.

Consider these facts: For 10 years Iraq has been dormant, licking its wounds and struggling to rebuild its economy and basic infrastructure; for 10 years Saddam Hussein made no threats of war or terror; for 10 years the country was pariah to the rest, having had no access to normal, routine equipment and resources; for 10 years the Arabian peninsula and its environs experienced relative peace and security. Now suddenly, out comes a call from America claiming that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Now emerges the clarion call for the removal of Hussein. Why now, after all these years, one wonders. In other words, the negative and hysterical hype of the past has been rekindled. The Iraqi bogey has been resurrected by the Americans for a second time.

If the fears emanate from 9/11, then let us repeat what the media has been saying time and again: the supposed hijackers were almost all Saudi Arabian, and not a single one from Iraq. Moreover, even the FBI were loathe to even surmise a nexus between Iraq and the twin tower attacks. What gives, then, one might ask.

Why raise such a massive hue and cry, and threaten military action, just because we "think", "suspect", and "imagine" Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. What about Israel, who has used its weapons of destruction without compunction against the Palestinians? It possesses weapons of mass destruction, and so do Britain, France, China, India, and Pakistan. How come only Iraq is singled out as a threat, when the world has witnessed the passive stance adopted by Iraq over the last few years.

The further we ponder this issue, the more intriguing it becomes. Firstly, we are thankful to The Almighty that sanity prevailed among world leaders. They at least had the presence of mind to oppose the American stance. This column would not be complete without paying tribute to former SA president Mr. Nelson Mandela. He was the only leader who came out openly and strongly against this proposed agenda of aggression by the Americans. One very incisive observation made by Mr. Mandela was his statement that this was "a racist war’. For a certainty, when the battle lines are drawn and a summary is taken of the two sides aligned against each other, one cant’ help but acknowledge that Iraq is being targeted not for anything save its defiant attitude towards the "supreme commander of the world". Why, then, was there no dissent raised against the nuclear capabilities of Israel (noted for its aggression and scant regard for UN law.) Why were India and Pakistan allowed to even test their nuclear weapons while the United States of America stood by looking on. A perfunctory voice of objection came from the White House, and that was it. Now the USA have raised the spectre of nuclear and chemical warfare.

Amidst all this illogical and unreasonable unfolding of events, there appears to be some pattern. There seems to emerge some method to this madness.

To this sudden belligerence of the Americans, we should add their peculiar stance over Saudi Arabian. This one time staunch ally of the USA has now become its main enemy. Many public members attribute this to 9/11, but those in the know, know better. America was always aware that Saudi Arabia has been the arch supporter of the Taliban during the Russian invasion of the eighties. It was one of only three countries that gave diplomatic recognition to the Taliban government. During the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the common enemy was Russian, so it mattered no great deal to America that the Saudis were pumping in funds to prop up and accelerate the Taliban military campaign. Then came the attacks on the icons of America’s economy and pride, and so friend became foe. When the dust had settled on the Afghanistan blitz, it became painfully clear to the Americans that its once arch chump, Saudi Arabia, was now becoming increasingly distanced, for two major reasons: 1) the Saudis were appalled at what America did to the Taliban; 2) they were even more aghast at the way America was treating Muslims in general and Saudi citizens in particular. In addition to this, the ailing monarch, King Fahd, a loyal American supporter, was relegated to just a patriarchal figure in the rulership and that his brother Abdullah, a strong opponent of American policy, was gradually assuming the reins. Visions of disappearing oil-fields and diminishing petro-dollars transformed into nightmares for the Americans. They had to do something fast, mainly to save face. They had to play out an act that would co-opt all major world players before Saudi had a rulership change and began implementing anti-American policy. That would be the unthinkable for the world’s only super-power.

With a little bit of thought and a coincidence of key factors, they were able to conjure up a useful but dicey program.

The USA first began by roundly condemning the Saudi regime, accusing it of developing and funding terrorists like Usama bin Laden, but stopped short of calling it a terrorist state. They then proceeded to give out indications of stern and strong action against the Saudis, again stopping short of direct reference to military confrontation. In a wonderful sleight-of-hand tactic, they drew out the trump card: Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.

What the world failed to see was simple logic and calculation. America is largely dependent on Saudi investments. When the reverberations of hostilities spread, there was serious talk of disinvestment by the Saudis. Currently the Arab contribution to America’s economy stands in the region of 700 billion dollars. Withdrawing this amount would cause a collapse of the economy even worse than 9/11, and the USA were under no illusions in this regard. It had to now look for a new goose to lay its golden eggs. This is where the Iraqi connection comes in. Having succeeded in installing a puppet regime in Afghanistan, the Americans truly believed that the same could be done in Iraq. Hence the calls for the change of regime and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

That exercise would guarantee them unlimited access to the oilfields of Iraq. But not only that. It would give America a wonderful foothold in the world’s richest region, the Middle East. They would be among Kuwait and Iran, close by to Saudi Arabia, and a stone throw from its arch ally, Israel. And all the time the strings would be manipulated from Iraq. Soon they could spread out their tentacles of greed and covetousness to a Saudi itself.

However, they ran into an unexpected hitch. The worlds leaders, apart from ya baas Britain, all opposed a war on Iraq. The world was now sick and tired of America imposing its military might and technology on weaker countries. The world leaders could clearly see that any attack on Iraq would be totally unprovoked. Quite rightly and sanely, they refused to afford any agreement on the issue.

Our assessment of the situation is that the USA are hell-bent on a war with Iraq to repeat its installation of leadership successfully achieved in Afghanistan. The regime they instate would naturally be one sympathetic to, and heavily, if not entirely dependent on American aid to rebuild what their cruise missiles and smart bombs had rendered to smithereens. The ideal excuse for setting up their bases and military operations in the region. Indeed, USA would provide the stability (sic) needed so desperately (sic) in that zone of conflict.

It now remains to be seen whether America will adopt any further underarm tactics to twist the arms of world leaders in order to elicit their consent to war against Iraq. The USA’s record in matters of this nature is ominous. God alone knows what other hidden agendas lurk within the dark chambers of the White House.

I used the word ‘unprovoked’ just now, and I truly hope I had not spoken too soon. For I would not put it past the Americans to create a provocative catastrophe, as some writers claim happened with the twin towers on 9/11, just to give it valid reason to go to war. That, only time will tell. We will go on praying, in the meantime, that good sense prevails and further war is averted.

In support of our theory, we end of with an article from a political analyst in America, Carla Binion.

September 19, 2002——A recent Boston Globe article says the Bush war hawks want to attack Iraq in order to "reshape" the Middle East, primarily for oil and domination of the Gulf region, and not because of any actual threat from Saddam Hussein.

The Globe says certain Washington think tanks and hawkish hard-liners have wanted to reshape the Mideast for years. Now that some of those hawks hold key positions in the Bush administration——Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith in the Pentagon, John Hannah and Lewis Libby on the vice president's staff and John Bolton in the State Department——analysts say the restructuring might happen.

According to the Globe, Raad Alkadiri, an Iraq analyst with PFC, a Washington-based energy consulting organization, said: "The goal is not just a new regime in Iraq. The goal is a new Middle East. The goal has been and remains one of the main driving factors of preemptive action against Iraq.'"

Iraq is home to the world's second-largest oil reserves. Installing a U.S.-friendly regime would make Saudi Arabia's oil less important when it comes to setting oil prices. According to the Globe, a new U.S.-allied regime would "diminish the influence of OPEC, long dominated by Saudi Arabia, over oil supplies and prices."

A senior US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Globe, ''There are people invested in this philosophy [reshaping the Mideast] all throughout the administration. Some of the strongest voices are in State."

Some of the hawks claim they want to create "democracy" in the region. However, according to the Globe article: "Jessica T. Mathews, president of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington policy group, said that installing a democracy in Iraq, much less the rest of the Middle East, would be extraordinarily difficult, if not out of the question. She contended that change in Iraq is more akin to building a wall brick by brick and will require the support of allies."

Matthews said, ''The argument we would be starting a democratic wave in Iraq is pure blowing smoke . . . You have 22 Arab governments and not one has made any progress toward democracy, not one."

"After an ouster of Hussein," the article says, "the United States will have more leverage to act against Syria and Iran."

Let's take a look at what this news report means:

The Bush administration is lying to the American people, to Congress, to the UN and to the rest of the world about its motives for attacking Iraq.

The real intention of the Bush administration hawks is to keep this country at war for many years, attacking first Iraq and then possibly other nations, including Syria and Iran——primarily to reshape and dominate the region and control the region's oil.

The Bush war hawks have no concern for the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of human lives these wars will cost. They don't care that many American soldiers will die for oil or world domination, and they don't mind lying to those soldiers in order to recruit them.

The Bush administration will squander billions of dollars on their misbegotten wars——money that could instead be spent on a national health care system or other human needs.

Because this will be a war of aggression, and not a just war by any definition, the war hawks' plans amount to premeditated, cold-blooded murder of many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and American soldiers, and possibly the eventual murder of innocent Syrians, Iranians and others. This nation has never before launched a preemptive attack on another country.

The Bush hawks' plans will likely cause large numbers of terrorists to retaliate and possibly harm innocent Americans.
The administration's plans to keep this country at war for years, which will drain our national treasury, murder Iraqi and other civilians, risk setting off a powder keg of Middle East resentment against this nation, and send American soldiers into harm's way, all for oil and world domination, should be denounced loudly and clearly throughout the world.

The world should realize this: If the Bush war hawks go ahead with their plans to attack Iraq and other nations without just cause, the Bush administration itself will be committing acts of terrorism against those nations. Contact members of Congress. Protest. Stand up and oppose these acts.