This war is not about terrorism.
This war is not about weapons of mass destruction.
This war is not about democracy in Iraq.
This war is about something else.
As for terrorism: Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator, but the idea that he might be connectedwith Osama bin Laden is ridiculous. Sadam heads the Iraqi section of al-Baath, a very secularparty. Bin Laden is an Islamic Fundamentalist, and al-Kaida aims at the destruction of allsecular regimes in our region. The official who invented this particular lie is either anignoramus or a cynic who believes that one can fool all the people at least some of the time.
As for weapons of mass destruction: the USA supported Saddam when he used deadly poison gasagainst the Iranians (and their Kurdish allies in Iraq). At the time, America was interestedin stopping the Iranians. Today there are chemical and biological weapons in most of thecountries of this region, including Egypt, Syria and Israel, and one of them has nuclear arms.
As for democracy: Americans don’t give a damn. Some of their best friends in the Islamic worldare dictators, some more, some less cruel then Saddam. As the old American adage goes: “He is ason-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch.”
If so, what is the war about?
In one word: oil.
There is a strong smell of oil in the air. Without smelling it, one cannot understand what isgoing on. But once one grasps what it is all about, the actions of Bush & Co., while cynical andhypocritical, are utterly logical.
These, then, are the American war aims:
- To take over the immense oil reserves of Iraq, among the world’s biggest.
- To ensure American control of the nearby huge Caspian Sea oil reserves
- To reinforce indirect American control of the oil in all the Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran.
Control of most of the worlds oil reserves will free the Americans, at long last, from the whims of the oil market. Their hand, and theirs alone, will be on the tab. They, and they alone, will fix the prices of oil all over the world. If they will want prices to rise, they will rise. If they will want them to go down, they will go down. With one single movement of the hand, they will be able to deal a crushing blow to the economies of Germany, France and Japan. No country in theworld will be able to stand up to them in any matter. No wonder that Germany and France oppose the war. It is directed against them.
It follows that the Americans do not intend to enter Iraq, establish democracy and leave. Thevery idea is ridiculous.
The US enters Iraq in order to stay there, for years and decades. Its physical presence in theArab and Muslim world will create a new geo-political reality.
Of course, this is not the first time that a great empire uses its military power to promote itseconomic dominance. History is full of examples. Indeed, one could say that all of history isan example. But there has never been a super-power like the US, with no rival left, using itsimmense military might in order to ensure its domination of the world economy for generationsto come.
From this point of view, the coming war on Iraq – a “small” war, militarily – will have historicsignificance.
For sure, Bush will try to set up some native Iraqi government, in order to disguise and lendsome legitimacy to the American occupation. There are any number of volunteers, ready toserve as Quislings. Then again, Bush may prefer some new Saddam Hussein, a dictator appointedby them.
But war is war. War usually starts with a well-prepared plan, but even the “best” plan, backedby the mightiest military power, can go awry. The Arab masses may rise against theirAmerican-supported, corrupt, lackadaisical governments. The Turks may perpetrate amassacre in the north of Iraq in order to break the Kurds once and for all, and no one can know howthis will end. The holy places of the Shiites in the south of Iraq, next to Iran, may causetrouble.
How will this affect Israel? Or, to use the old phrase: “Is it good for the Jews?”
The relations between Bush and Sharon are almost symbiotic. In Sharon’s view, the massivepresence of the US in our region strengthens Israel and will enable him to implement his hiddenagenda.
But, as one says in Hebrew, “the fat tail of the sheep has a thorn in it”. The permanentoccupation of Iraq turns the US into a kind of “Arab” power, with a vital interest in thestability and tranquility of the region. It will want to prevent by all means chaos in the Arabcountries – before, during and after the war.
Sharon and his generals are, on the contrary, interested in as much chaos as possible, in orderto use it to “transfer” millions of Palestinians to the other side of the Jordan. There is adefinite conflict of interest between Bush as Sharon.
Sharon, an extremist but prudent person, knows that he must not under any circumstancesinfuriate Bush. He will act cautiously. He has lots and lots of patience and lots and lots ofstubbornness. He will try to obtain from Bush permission to transfer (at least some)Palestinians, to murder of Arafat (“If Sadam, why not Arafat?) and to break the Palestinianpeople.
Bush, on the other hand, will want Israel to stay quiet, very quiet. At thee time, he may use theIsrael threat in order to ensure that the Arabs, too, will stay quiet, very quiet. He willthreaten the Arab rulers, who are mortally afraid of an uprising of their peoples, that if theydo not behave, he will let Sharon off the leash.
Is all this good for Israel? From the economic, social and security points of view, the answeris negative. We are entering an era of adventurism, with the adventurer No. 1 at the helm of ourstate. The earth will shake in our region, and nobody can foresee the dangers approaching us.Only one thing is certain: this will not bring peace.
I do not belong to those who can speak about war with equanimity. I have seen war, I know its face.I see the thousands who will be killed, the tens of thousands that will be wounded and maimed,the hundreds of thousands that will become refugees, the ruined families, the sea of tears andhuman suffering.
I join the millions all over the world the say NO.