|
CounterPunch
October
2, 2002
Might Sharon
Nuke Iraq?
How Things Could Go Bad, Very Bad
by
LINDA S. HEARD
Londoners of a certain age may remember an old
gentleman who regularly tramped the streets of the British capital
wearing a sandwich board upon which was scrawled the words: The
End of the World is Nigh.
With his battered Trilby, he was the
epitome of the eccentric Englishman and attracted more than his
fair share of ridicule. He has probably met his maker by now
but if he were still around, few these days would be laughing.
It is no longer difficult to imagine
an end-of-times scenario, especially if the American President
George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. The result
is likely to be that the Iraqi leader will respond by lobbing
missiles at Israel, as he did during the Gulf War. But now there
is one important difference.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has
clearly said that he will retaliate, and has indicated that he
may be prepared to use unconventional weapons. We can only imagine
the reaction of the Arab world to one of their own coming under
attack from the Zionist entity, not to mention the resultant
fury on the Arab street - already enraged at the inhumane treatment
meted out by Israel to the Palestinians.
At the same time, if Saddam Hussein's
life was seriously threatened and he had no back door through
which to escape, he might just decide to take the region down
with him, using whatever means he has at his disposal.
While the U.S. President seems oblivious
to any such menacing outcomes, prominent American politicians
are at last speaking out against war with Iraq, while almost
all of the world's leaders urge restraint.
Last week saw three Congressmen make
a visit to Baghdad for the purpose of seeing the devastation
and the deprivation, which more than a decade of sanctions has
wrought. After they had toured hospitals and talked with ordinary
Iraqis, they were convinced that war should not be the first
option.
Also hosted by the Iraqi government last
week were representatives of the foreign media. They were shown
various Iraqi sites, which had been pinpointed by Western intelligence
as being likely depots for weapons of mass destruction and found
nothing untoward. If we take into account the U.S. military's
gross targeting failures, this is hardly surprising.
The Iraqis are still mourning the 340
people who died during the Gulf War due to two U.S. Stealth missiles
dropped onto a bomb shelter, mistakenly designated by the U.S.
"intelligence" services as a major command and control
centre.
On a more positive note, leading Democrats
are now making their objections to the U.S. going it alone, including
the highly-respected Senator Ted Kennedy who said: "Military
action should be a last resort, not a first response".
Similar sentiments were echoed by ex-President
Jimmy Carter, ex-Vice-President Al Gore and Senate Majority Leader
Tom Daschle.
When thwarted in his aim of being awarded
a blank cheque by the Democrat-led Senate to enable him to use
force against Iraq and other "rogue" states, a frustrated
Bush alleged that the Democrats were not interested in the security
of the American people. This vitriolic outpouring was perceived
by Democrats as a low blow, designed to undermine their legitimate
voices of caution by attacking their patriotism.
In the meantime, National Security Adviser
Condaleezza Rice, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, and Defence
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led a disingenuous politically orchestrated
campaign to once again link Iraq with Al Qaida, announcing that
prominent Al Qaida members had visited Baghdad.
At a Pentagon press conference, Rumsfeld
seemed flustered when reporters tried to pin him down on the
Baghdad/Al Qaida linkage. Again, there was nothing but innuendo
in his statement, and still no smoking gun.
Negligible
While the attempts to fudge Osama bin
Laden and Saddam Hussein into one malevolent entity by the White
House hawks may have swayed U.S. public opinion to a minor extent,
Middle East experts said that the likelihood of the Iraqi government
and Al Qaida being in cahoots was negligible. They point out
that Osama bin Laden once referred to Saddam Hussein as an apostate
and a puppet of the U.S.
Across the pond, similar anti-war sentiments
were being elucidated in Britain's House of Commons, whose members
were recalled to debate the contents of the long-awaited Blair
dossier. The dossier, like the substance of Bush's recent speech
before the UN Assembly, was nothing but a re-hash of Saddam's
past misdeeds.
The debate lasted well into the late
hours and one after the other members of the House from all parties
condemned any unilateral, non-UN sanctioned aggression on Iraq.
The most outspoken were from Tony Blair's own party.
Unfortunately, it appears that neither
the British government nor the Bush administration is in any
mood for listening. Instead, they have been busy working on a
new UN resolution, which gives Saddam just seven days to declare
his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and allow weapons
inspectors access to all sites of interest - including his palaces
- along with an armed security force. In the case of non-compliance,
the next step would be military action.
France, Russia and China, three permanent
members of the Security Council with a right of veto, fail to
see any reason for a new UN resolution on Iraq since there are
several applicable resolutions already on the books.
Reason is obvious
In reality, from the point of view of
the U.S. and the UK, the reason is obvious. Bush and Blair know
that such a resolution would not be acceptable to Iraq and once
rejected (as it has been in advance), they have a perfect pretext
to follow the new Bush doctrine of pre-emption.
Of course, Bush has said repeatedly that
in the event of any failure to get the UN on board, the U.S.
is prepared to put together its own coalition - currently an
alliance of two.
What is patently clear is that the Bush
administration is determined to go to war with Iraq and soon.
The last thing it wants is the resumption of weapons inspections
muddying the waters. Does anyone seriously imagine that Saddam
Hussein has the capability of launching chemical, biological
or nuclear weapons on U.S. cities, even if he possesses them?
When asked this question, the Washington
hawks say that Saddam could supply a dirty bomb or a suitcase
nuke to terrorist groups. True. He certainly could. But then
so could any of America's other enemies who have such weapons,
including Iran and North Korea.
Are they next on the list? Why does the
Bush administration have such a seemingly irrational obsession
with Iraq? Is it because the U.S. sincerely believes that it
is vulnerable to attack by the current Iraqi leadership and that
Saddam has the intent to aggress the U.S. without provocation?
If that were so, then why has Saddam
kept a relatively low profile for the past 11 years? He hasn't
attacked anyone during this period, and in fact, has tried his
best to rejoin the world community, mend bridges with his former
foes, and get the punishing <U.S.-UK> led sanctions lifted.
If America is so concerned about Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction, one can only wonder why Donald Rumsfeld
failed to speak up when he was President Ronald Reagan's envoy
to Baghdad in March 1984. On the very day that Rumsfeld was holding
talks with the Iraqi leadership, Iraq launched a chemical weapons
attack on Iranian troops. Why did it take Rumsfeld some 18 years
to voice an objection to Saddam's chemical stockpile?
Such hypocrisy on the part of Washington
and its flagrant disregard for the opinions of the rest of the
world is glaring, as is the zeal with which it pursues its warlike
aims. What could be the real agenda here?
U.S. control of Iraq's vast oil and gas
reserves, perhaps? The setting-up of yet more American military
bases in the region close to Iran, that other "Axis of Evil"
member?
The removal of Israel's enemy number
one, leaving Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon free to pursue
his dream of a Greater Israel which involves the ethnic cleansing
of the West Bank and Gaza? Or is the diversion of U.S. public
interest away from America's worsening economy and corporate
scandals the goal?
All of the above could represent the
Bush administration's motives for ousting Saddam and imposing
a pro-Western regime but there is one other little-known scenario,
based on the American leadership's theological belief system.
Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and
Attorney-General John Ashcroft are all self-professed Evangelical
or Born-Again Christians, and like their co-religionists could
well believe in the Bible's end-time prophecies to the letter.
Messianic prophecies
Such Messianic prophecies include the
stipulation that before the Messiah can return to earth, there
will be a major East-West war and the Jews must rebuild their
temple in Jerusalem. Just one "minor" point! The temple
must be built at the site where Al Haram Al Sharif - one of Islam's
three holiest sites, encompassing the Al Aqsa Mosque and the
Dome of the Rock - currently stand.
As to whether Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft
are driven by religious ideology and fervour to usher in Armageddon
remains in the realm of speculation. Let's hope that it remains
so, and the message on the sandwich board was just fantasy after
all.
Linda S. Heard
is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be reached
at: freenewsreport@yahoo.com
Yesterday's
Features
Benjamin Shepard
On the
Road Again:
IMF/World Bank Protest
Reveal a Revived
Movement for Global Justice
Dr. Susan Block
Cockfight
at the
Baghdad Corral
Krystal Kyer
Growing Union Opposition
to War
Ron Jacobs
Born Without a Spine
Scott Loughrey
Mysteries
of 9/11
Jeremy Brecher
Collective
Security is Working
Brenda Norrell
Troy
Black Feather on
the American Flag
Sam Bahour
Wake Up
and Smell
the Occupation
Richard Harth
Contrary
to Reason:
Adieu, Hitchens, Adieu
Carol Norris
Rumsfeld
the Surrealist:
Things Related and Not
Ben Tripp
Lists Upon
Lists
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- Hunting Commie Perverts:
The Scarlet Professor
- DC's Best Political
Mind; DC's Most Dangerous Man;
- Dershowitz the Torturer:
Guess Why He Wants Clean Needles;
- Lese Majeste: That's
Against the Law Too;
- The Greatest Endorsement
AAA Will Ever Get;
- Merle Haggard on Civil
Liberties;
- Dullness Hailed: The Press on the Defeat of McKinney,
Traficant and Barr;
- National Review Puffs
into Town.
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
October 2,
2002
Uri Avnery
Manufacturing
Anti-Semites
October 1,
2002
Benjamin Shepard
On the
Road Again:
IMF/World Bank Protest
Reveal a Revived
Movement for Global Justice
Dr. Susan
Block
Cockfight
at the
Baghdad Corral
Krystal Kyer
Growing Union Opposition
to War
Ron Jacobs
Born Without a Spine
Scott Loughrey
Mysteries
of 9/11
Jeremy Brecher
Collective
Security is Working
Brenda Norrell
Troy
Black Feather on
the American Flag
Sam Bahour
Wake Up
and Smell
the Occupation
Richard Harth
Contrary
to Reason:
Adieu, Hitchens, Adieu
Carol Norris
Rumsfeld
the Surrealist:
Things Related and Not
Ben Tripp
Lists Upon
Lists
September
30, 2002
Rep. Barbara
Lee
Alternatives
to War
Kurt Nimmo
Iraq: The
Vision
of the Velociraptors
Zeynep Toufe
"We
Own the World, We Ignore the Children"
Dave Marsh
The Troubador's
Highway
Tariq Ali
Taking
It to London's Streets
Neve Gordon
Bush's
War of Self-Adulation
September
25 / 29, 2002
Alexander
Cockburn
The
Dogs of War,
the Bears of Wall Street
Ben Tripp
Hunting with George
Jeffrey St.
Clair
Haywire: Boeing's New Navy Fighter Fails Bomb Tests
Joanne Mariner
Naming Genocide
James T. Philips
Riding to Maine
Anis Shivani
Life of a Bum
David Vest
Too True North
Jacob Levich
Case of the Missing Terrorist
William MacDougall
British Immigration Tests
Edward Hammond
Pentagon Develops Illegal Chemical Weapons Capability
Molly Secours
Bush's "I" Words:
Intervention & Impeachment
Edward Lazarus
Civil Liberties After 9/11
Lee Sustar
Employers Attack
Anthony Gancarski
Ledeen's Mad World
Krystal Kyer
Bush the Magician
David Wiggins
West Point Grad:
Bush Threatens World Peace
September
24, 2002
Chet Batsmack,
American
The American
Century
Paul de Rooij
Smear Mongers
George Szamuely
International
Kangaroo Courts
Jack Wheeler
Janet Reno: America's Saddam?
Linda S. Heard
Portrait
of Uncle Sam
Gary Leupp
Random
Thoughts on Anti-Americanism
Wayne Madsen
Germany
Leads the Way
William Hughes
George
Will: War Pimp
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|