Iraq is not Afghanistan
The first likely target in Washington's expanded 'war against terrorism' is Iraq — but the costs of going to war against Iraq are huge.
Unless Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is linked to Sept 11 or subsequent terrorism, the United States would have to act alone. If it does, it will not be easy. Iraq is not Afghanistan — the opposition is weaker and the regime stronger.
While the rhetoric against Iraq is in line with the White House policy, the inclusion of Iran and North Korea in the same group has come as a surprise and is seen to be a tactical ploy.
It caused surprise because Tehran and Pyongyang have initiated several measures at rapprochement with Washington in recent years, particularly Iran under the reformist regime of President Mohammad Khatami.
Iran's inclusion in the ''axis of evil'' that Bush named in his State of Union address last week may well be a fallout of the episode involving Karine A, a vessel believed to have originated from an Iranian coast, laden with more than 50 tonnes of weapons — ostensibly for the Palestinian National Authority — and seized by Israel.
Under suspicion
The Khatami government has also come under suspicion by Washington for willingly or unwillingly providing escape routes to Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in the recent past, an allegation rejected by Tehran.
The tactical ploy by the US administration appears to be in naming North Korea as well, so that it can placate the Islamic world and say that the war against terrorism is not aimed only at Muslims — and thereby hopefully bring the Arabs on board once again.
The immediate concern and focus, however, is Iraq. The hawkish Bush administration had hinted that Iraq was a likely target as soon as it assumed office, particularly because much of the White House team comprises those involved in the 1991 Gulf War.
That likelihood assumed realistic proportions after Sept 11. But critics — even those who favour toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein — arequestioning the rationale for attacking Iraq without an estalblished link between Baghdad and the Sept 11 events.
Critics see Bush's latest diatribe as an election ploy. With mid-term congressional polls in November, the president of the Arab American Institute in Washington, James Zogby, says: "Conscious that his domestic popularity ratings are at an all-time high, the strategy the White House has developed is to continue to play to Bush's strong suit.''
''Since the American people have not wearied on the war on terrorism, the war speech continues, wrapping both the foreign danger and the nation's domestic threats into one package,'' he points out.
Key differences
But commentators say there are key differences between the war in Afghanistan and the one being talked about against Iraq.
First, they suggest that defeating the well-trained Iraqi army would not be as easy as unseating the unprofessional Taliban forces.
Second, while the ex-king Zahir Shah and the opposition Northern Alliance were readymade allies to replace Taliban, there is hardly a single strong and credible force that could replace Saddam Hussein.
"It's premature. There may be ultimately a reasonable opposition foundation for going into Iraq, but we don't have it. And we certainly don't have the international support," says Richard Wilson, executive director at the Middle East Policy Council.
Third, the crucial factor of the role of the neighbouring countries is uncertain.
During the attacks on Afghanistan, Central Asian countries, Iran and Pakistan backed the United States and its coalition, but the same cannot be expected if Iraq is attacked.
Even when Tehran and Baghdad were hardly close to reconciliation after the 1980-88 Gulf War, many Iraqi aircraft escaped damage by taking shelter in Iranian territory in Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and Desert Fox in 1998.
Common enemy
They have since moved a lot closer and find a common enemy in UnitedStates policy and a common agenda of liberating Palestine from Israel.
Jordan is already campaigning against any US adventure in Iraq, so that the other country that is bound to be in the thick of action in case of an attack is Turkey.
When Ankara went along with the US campaign against Baghdad in 1991, it paid a hefty price. The sanctions on Iraq cost Turkey US$40 billion in lost trade.
Among Turkey's fears this time is that an attack on Iraq might lead to an independent Kurdistan. Whether Saddam survives or not, Kurdish separatists will get a boost. "We don't want those experiences again," says Turkish Defence Minister Sabahattin Cakmakoglu.
Meantime, just as the United States is citing every excuse for a possible campaign against Iraq, Baghdad is beginning to employ every strategy to head off such a possibility.
A few surprises
While the Taliban refused to cooperate with American demands, Saddam has sprung a few surprises in the last few days and has been on a charm offensive to woo the international community.
First, following the release of Iranian prisoners of war, it has held out an olive branch to Kuwait, which it occupied in 1990. This raises the remote possibility of support in its favour not only from Kuwait, but from Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Arab and Islamic worlds.
Second, "Baghdad's announcement that it was reviving its dialogue with the European Union aims at enlisting the European bloc," a diplomat in Dubai says.
Third, Saddam has said he would allow a UN human rights inspector to visit Iraq for the first time in 10 years.
Fourth, Iraq has told the United Nations that it is ready to "unconditionally" resume dialogue with Secretary-General Kofi Annan after a year-long break.
Baghdad has also raised the possibility of re-admitting arms inspectors who pulled out of the country in late 1998. This issue may well become the dividing line between war and peace.
Some experts in the region say the next thing to watch would be thepossibility of the ''rehabilitation'' of Iraq in the coming months, and the fate of Russian proposals for resuming weapons inspections and the lifting of sanctions.
