The Middle East in Turmoil
A Historical Background on the Origins of the Conflict and future implications for the whole World

Roots of the Present Conflicts
Carve-Up of the Middle East
The Creation of Iraq
British Domination of Iraq & the Middle East
American Postwar Influence in the Gulf
Arab Nationalism & the OPEC
The Nixon Doctrine
Realpolitiks Amongst the Kurds
The Fall of the Shah
The Carter Doctrine and the Rise of Saddam
The Iran-Iraq War
The West Supported Iraq
Irangate
Congress Calls for Sanctions
The White House Support for Saddam
Countdown to the Invasion of Kuwait
Saddam Meets U.S. Ambassador Glaspie
Taking the Blame
The Morality of the Wars against Iraq
• The Gulf War 1991
• The Invasion of Iraq 2003
• Did Sanctions Fail
• Did the US Wanted Sanctions and UN Inspectors to Work?
• Why did the US Wanted to Resolve Both Crisis by Force

The Future of the Middle East

Conclusion

Roots of the Present Conflict

It has been said that the roots of WW2 were planted 20 years earlier at the Versailles Peace Conference of 1919, which was supposed to establish a lasting World peace following the horrors of WW1. The victorious Allies chose to impose humiliating terms & conditions on the defeated German people which were virtually impossible for them to bear, & thus laid the foundation for an even greater & more terrible conflict in the future. Similarly, the origins of the Gulf War in 1991 and the current war after the invasion of the same country by the US in 2003, can be found in various treaties & policies that were arbitrarily imposed on the Persian Gulf region by foreign powers decades earlier. So, to have any clear understanding of why things are the way they are today in the Middle East, knowledge of the history of the area is very important.
The Middle East was a center of civilization while Europeans were still living in mud huts. But for most Arabs, their history begins in the 7th century with the rise of the charismatic prophet Mohammed, the founder of Islam. He had no quarrel with Christians or Jews, but after being rebuffed by both religions, he established his own religion with Mecca as his holy city & built up a following amongst militant Arab tribesmen. Islam's rapid spread from the Middle East to North Africa, Spain, Turkey, India & the border of China is considered to be the most amazing story of conquest in history. Arabic cities such as Baghdad & Alexandria became centers of learning, & Arabic became the language of educated men throughout the World.
Arab World domination & unity ended in the 10th century when the Arab nations came under attack from Turkish Muslims in the North, & the Christian crusaders. Over the next several centuries the Ottoman Turks, who were Sunni Muslims, gradually succeeded in conquering most of the area, ruling it until 1918 when their empire collapsed following WWI.
Up until this time, European influence in the region had been minimal. In the mid-1800s, the British & French brought their influences to the Middle East, establishing various colonies & building the Suez Canal, thus eliminating the long rough sea journey around the Cape of Good Hope.
However, the discovery of vast reserves of oil in the region, particularly around the Persian Gulf, was to drastically change that. Oil was first discovered in present-day Iran in 1908, & an early clue to its future importance came about 1910 when the British Navy, the most powerful of its day, made the fateful decision to convert all its warships from coal-burning to oil burning. Just a few years later, the Allied victory in WW1 left no doubt that oil was going to be the fuel that would power the industrialized economies of the West in the 1900s. As Lord Curzon, then British foreign secretary, put it, The Allies floated to victory on a sea of oil." In a matter of a few years, securing a cheap, reliable source of oil became a major foreign policy objective of the European powers, & since that time, sad to say, Western interference in the affairs of the Middle East has been continual, with often disastrous results.
When WWI broke out in 1914, the Turkish Ottoman Empire, which still controlled most of the Middle East & was in an advanced state of decay, sided with Germany against Britain, France & their Allies. During the war, the British & French, aided by Arab tribesmen, drove the Turks out of much of the region. It was at this time that the first of many deceptive agreements with the Arab leaders was made, & they planted the seeds of animosity & distrust of the West that would later grow to full bloom.
In order to enlist the aid of the Arabs, Britain promised them that if they helped the Allies drive the Turks out, they could have their independence after the war. However, at the same time, unbeknownst to the Arabs, in 1916 Britain & France established the Sykes-Picot Agreement in which they secretly agreed to divide up the postwar Middle East into three zones of influence--French, British & Russian. To further complicate matters, this was followed in 1917 by another secret pact between the British & the leaders of the new Jewish Zionist movement. This was known as the Balfour Declaration, & in it the British agreed to view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." This agreement, which was concluded without the knowledge of the Arab Palestinians, was considered by the Zionists to be a virtual invitation to take over Palestine, & it set the stage for a massive influx of Jews after the war. This eventually led to the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, five Arab-Israeli wars & the forcible dislocation of millions of Palestinians. In a few short years, the European colonial powers had, through their duplicity, shortsightedness & greed, laid the foundation for a conflict that was to plague the region & the entire World for the remainder of the 20th century and continuing into the new millennium.

Carve-Up of the Middle East

In the years following WWI, the true intents of the Allies became apparent. Arab nationalistic aspirations were largely ignored, & the newly-formed League of Nations, dominated by the victorious Allies, awarded Britain the mandates" of Palestine, Tran Jordan (Jordan) & Iraq, while France was awarded Syria & Lebanon. Cooperative Arab sheiks were installed as monarchs & artificial borders were arbitrarily drawn up which largely ignored the wishes of the local population, resulting in many problems which still exist today. Lebanon, for example, was created when several diverse & often antagonistic ethnic & religious communities were united, while the Kurdish people were divided amongst Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey & the Soviet Union, & have since suffered severe persecution at the hands of all of these governments.

The Creation of Iraq

Iraq was perhaps the most artificial of all these mandates. It was composed of three minorities, the Sunni & Shiite Muslims & the Kurds, which virtually guaranteed a future of domestic political violence & has been often cited as the reason why Iraq gravitated towards strong dictators & violent changes of regimes throughout its brief history. (22 coups or revolutions have taken place in Iraq since 1920.)
Some of the artificial boundaries created in the Middle East were the result of Western ignorance or indifference, while others were carefully planned to meet the interests of the colonial powers & prevent the new Arab states from ever becoming powerful. Again, a classic case is modern Iraq, whose borders were established at this time. With the exception of its boundary with Iran, all its frontiers are artificial lines in the sand". The present border with Kuwait was actually decided on in 1922 by the British High Commissioner, who ended an argument on the subject by literally drawing a line in the sand & proclaiming it to be the new frontier.
Britain carefully drew Iraq's frontiers to ensure that many of the known oil fields would fall within its boundaries, while at the same time deliberately denying Iraq a port or any kind of access to the Persian Gulf. The British saw in Iraq a potential threat to their own domination of the Gulf & concluded that the best way to keep Iraq weak & dependent on Britain was to create it as a landlocked state. Thus Iraq's coastline was limited to a mere 26 miles & it was forced to share the mouth of the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers, the Shatt-al-Arab waterway, with its historical enemy, Iran. The city of Basra, about 60 miles inland on the Shatt-al-Arab Waterway, was the only port that Iraq had, & even it could be easily blocked by a hostile power at the mouth of the waterway. By contrast, the tiny sheikdom of Kuwait was awarded a coastline of 120 miles & the largest natural harbor in the region. Small wonder that since this time, Iraq has coveted its small neighbor to the South.
Vital to any real understanding of the Iraqi character is an appreciation of how deeply & bitterly they have resented these unnatural boundaries, & how much these perceived injustices have influenced relations with their neighbors. In particular, the Iraq-Kuwaiti border has been disputed by Iraq almost since the date of its inception, with troop buildups & armed clashes occurring on a semi-regular basis over the years. In 1980, Iraq's quest for a deep-water port largely influenced its decision to go to war with Iran. It wanted to seize control of the Southern Iranian Arabic-speaking province of Khuzistan & the entire Shatt-al-Arab waterway, which would give it a secure outlet to the Gulf.
At the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988, Iraq had not only failed to attain these objectives but its only port, Basra, was paralyzed, as shipping that was wrecked during the war had rendered the Shatt-al-Arab waterway unnavigable. To make matters worse, at the outset of the Gulf War, Kuwait had refused Iraqi warships access to a vital sea channel that they shared, for fear of antagonizing Iran. Iraq was convinced more than ever of the necessity of having its own port, & so turned its gaze on its vulnerable southern neighbor, Kuwait. And if they doubted the righteousness of their cause, the Iraqis most likely looked to their past for reassurance & a precedent. They were fully aware that with the exception of two relatively brief periods in history when the Mongols & more recently the British ruled the region, the territory that is now Iraq exercised at least nominal control of Kuwait for hundreds of years.
Of course, in the eyes of the World, Iraq's perception that its borders were inherently inequitable did not constitute a legitimate pretext to invade Kuwait. But whether the invasion was justified or not, to grasp these deeply-felt grievances is to at least partially comprehend Iraq's outlook on the World, its place in it, & why it has acted the way it has in recent years.



British Domination of Iraq & the Middle East

Britain's rule of Iraq in the 1920's can hardly be considered enlightened. From day one the local population actively resisted British domination, & to subdue them the British were to use the same methods that decades later they would condemn. In one rebellion, the British used artillery shells containing poisonous gas with, as the commander of the British forces reported, excellent moral effect". 9,000 Iraqis died in that uprising. Winston Churchill, at that time Colonial Secretary, consistently advocated the use of mustard gas, but for technical reasons, this never happened.
Mass aerial bombardment, known as police bombing", was much more popular & was used continually during the decade not only in Iraq, but in other areas of the British Empire such as India, Sudan, Trans Jordan etc. Rather than send troops into a village & thus incur casualties, the British preferred to bomb the village into submission. Whole villages were literally destroyed for such serious crimes" as nonpayment of taxes. These bombing campaigns were carried on from 1920 until 1932, when Britain finally gave up & granted Iraq full independence.
During the period between the two World Wars, Britain was the most powerful Colonial power in the Gulf & exercised control over the oil fields that were being discovered almost daily. Although most of the French & British mandates were gradually given their independence, it was with a clear understanding that the British oil companies & military bases in the region could continue to operate freely on their soil.

American Postwar Influence in the Gulf

After WW2, the war that was supposed to make the World safe for democracy, the U.S. supplanted Britain as the most powerful nation in the World as well as in the Middle East. The postwar foreign policy of the U.S. in the region has been characterized as one of “Realpolitiks", which is defined as the ruthless pursuit of national interests without regard for ethical principles". Advocates of realpolitiks, which was popularized in the 1800s in Europe, maintain that great nations do not have permanent friends or permanent principles, but only permanent interests. They argue that a country can achieve its foreign policy objectives by constantly juggling, balancing & manipulating weaker states to serve its own interests.
Rather than championing the cause of democracy, the U.S. quickly established that apart from protecting Israel, oil--in readily available amounts & at relatively low & stable prices--was its only permanent interest" in the region, & that to safeguard this interest it would not hesitate to actively interfere in the internal affairs of the areas' nations. This was vividly illustrated in 1949 when it orchestrated the Arab world's first postwar coup--the overthrow of Syria's parliamentary government. This was the first of many violent changes of government that the U.S. was to participate in.
For the next four decades, the U.S. was to doggedly protect this interest" & in the process betray all the ethical values for which it supposedly stood, & earn the undying animosity of the vast majority of the region's population. While some areas of the World viewed the U.S. as a bastion of democratic government & personal freedoms, the Arab world saw it as a rich imperialistic power intent on supporting feudal monarchs, keeping the lid on any reform movements & shrewdly manipulating local factions so that it could continue to exploit the region's resources.
The extent to which oil dominated the U.S. foreign policy agenda is reflected in a report issued jointly by the National Security Council, the Department of State, the Department of Defense & the Department of the Interior in 1953. It concluded that The operations of the American oil companies in these oil-producing countries--how much oil they produced & marketed & the price they paid for it--are for all practical purposes instruments of our foreign policies toward those countries....What they do & how they do it determine the strength of our ties with the Middle Eastern countries." The fundamental premise of the American oil policy, the paper went on, rested on the presumption that the interests of the oil companies & the U.S. government were parallel; the companies were reliable instruments to achieve the goals of American foreign policy.

Arab Nationalism & OPEC

The first serious challenge to the West's control over the oil fields came in 1951 when the Iranian leader Dr. Mossadegh nationalized Iran's oil fields which until then had been owned & operated by British Petroleum. Two years later, the CIA organized a coup which restored the Shah to power & control of the oil fields to the Western oil companies. For the next decade, until the Arab oil states along with some other oil-producing nations formed OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), the Western oil companies exercised almost absolute control over the World's oil supply & reaped enormous profits as the World's economy became increasingly fueled by oil.
Following the Godahfi-inspired formation of OPEC in 1960, the Arab oil-producing states began to clamor for a larger share of the wealth being generated by their oil. Using collective bargaining techniques, they sought more control over production & prices, while leaving distribution & selling in the hands of the oil companies. Then came the Arab-Israeli war in October, 1973, which was followed by the oil embargo directed by the Arabs against the Western nations perceived as aiding Israel in the conflict. In three months, the price of oil rose 400%.
The U.S. learned from this that it could no longer manage its relationship with the Gulf States through the oil companies. As the direct involvement of the U.S. became more overt, it became clearer than ever before that America was now committed to maintaining the oil fields of the Persian Gulf in hands friendly to the U.S. & its Allies.

The Nixon Doctrine

What evolved became known as The Nixon Doctrine, whereby the U.S. limited its own direct involvement in the region through the promotion of a shared hegemony of the two major powers of the Gulf, Saudi Arabia & Iran. These twin pillars of stability" would continue to assure access to Persian Gulf oil for the West & in return the weapons arsenal of the United States was opened virtually without limit to both nations. A 1972 directive by National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger ordered that Iran be allowed to purchase without restriction the most sophisticated American weapons systems.

Realpolitiks Amongst the Kurds

During this period, America, always true to its belief in realpolitiks, was not averse to helping its client states destabilize their neighbors, even if it had no vested interest in the outcome. A classic case in point concerns the Iraqi Kurds in the early 1970's. According to a U.S. House Select Committee on Intelligence Activities report prepared in 1976, the Shah of Iran had met with Henry Kissinger in 1972 to ask for help in destabilizing Iraq. Iraq had been harboring an Iranian opposition figure, the Ayatollah Khomeini, & was perceived as coveting the province of Khuzistan. The Shah and Kissinger agreed that to restore the balance" that Iraq was upsetting; the U.S. would covertly support the Iraqi Kurds, then in revolt in Northern Iraq. The Kurdish leader, Mustafa Barzani, indicated his willingness to participate, but only after he had first received specific American assurances that assistance would continue until the Iraqi government was overthrown.
However, the report states: Documents in the Committee's possession show that President Nixon, Dr. Kissinger & the Shah hoped that our clients (the Kurds) would NOT prevail. They preferred instead that the insurgents simply continue a level of hostilities sufficient to sap the resources of Iraq. This policy was not imparted to the Kurds, who were encouraged to keep fighting."
The uprising had its desired effect, at least on Iraq, for in 1975 Iran & Iraq met in Algeria & signed a treaty ending their border dispute, thus restoring a balance in the region. On that very day, all U.S. aid to the Kurds was terminated--a decision that was imparted" to Saddam, who immediately launched a search & destroy operation in Kurdistan that has been going on ever since. Barzani left the area, never to return. Later he was to express his great bitterness, stating that he never would have taken the Shah's word, but he hadn't expected that the U.S. would betray him. Kissinger observed at the time that, Secret service operations are not missionary work." The Kurdish aid program was, he explained, merely an instrument to dissuade Iraq from international adventurism". In an interesting footnote, the man who became director of the CIA in early 1976 when this operation was being wound down & covered up (George Bush), is the same man who has recently proclaimed that Saddam was suddenly worse than Hitler".



The Fall of the Shah

Although this relatively small sideshow appeared to be a victory for the advocates of realpolitiks, in the long term, America's attempt to arm Iran as the gendarme of the Gulf" was doomed to disastrous failure. Iran was simply overwhelmed by the massive social upheaval that resulted from the rapid modernization schemes of the Shah. Inflation hit the poor hard & many were uprooted from their traditional rural settings & values. Along with the arms buildup came spectacular corruption & political repression. The U.S. not only turned a blind eye to the excesses & injustices of the Shah's autocratic regime, but some have alleged that the U.S. actually trained the Iranian secret police (SAVAK) in methods of torture & repression, thus earning the undying hatred of the millions of Iranians who suffered from its barbaric treatment. Given all of the above, it is not hard to see that when a charismatic religious opposition leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, came along in the late 70's clamoring for an Islamic fundamentalist revolution, he found a ready following amongst the common people. In early 1979, the Shah was deposed, & American strategy was exposed as having been built on sand.
Literally overnight, America's most reliable ally in the region became its sworn enemy. The mullahs who led the new Revolutionary government in Iran had repudiated not only the Shah, but also the very idea of modernization. Instead of emulating the West, they completely rejected it & proclaimed their intent to spread their revolutionary Islamic fundamentalist gospel beyond their borders to the oil rich, but militarily weak, Gulf States.

The Carter Doctrine & the Rise of Saddam

The U.S. reacted by proclaiming what became known as the Carter Doctrine, whereby the U.S. guaranteed the security of its last remaining ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, against any external aggression. Loathe to be directly involved in containing Iran, the U.S. looked around desperately for a new local strongman that it could employ, & found him in the new leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. They saw in him the lesser of two regional evils, someone who could be what the Shah had been & bring peace & stability to the region. And so, for the next decade, the U.S. adapted as its policy in the region a corollary of realpolitiks, an old Arab adage which states, The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Looking back, it is safe to say that until his defeat in the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein virtually owed his position & military strength to the Western coalition allies that were pitted in combat against him. With the virtue of 20/20 hindsight, Senator Claiborne Pell of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would much later assess America's role thus: Our policy has been characterized by wishful thinking, greed, & appeasement."

The Iran-Iraq War

The first visible evidence that America had tilted towards Iraq came in 1980, in the months preceding the outbreak of the Iraq-Iran war. At this time, Iraq was coveting the Arab-speaking Iranian province of Khuzistan. By seizing it, Iraq could gain that long sought-after prize of access to the sea. Iraq had formally relinquished its claim to this region in 1975, but seeing Iran in a weakened state & ill-equipped to deal with an external threat, Saddam reasoned that the time was right to break the treaty & seize Khuzistan in what hopefully would be a war lasting only a few weeks. He also wanted to portray Iraq as protecting the weaker Gulf States from being subverted by Iran's Islamic revolution. Success in this venture could give Iraq de facto regional superpower status.
At the same time, the U.S. was in the process of being humiliated by the new Iranian revolutionary government. Iran was still holding American diplomatic personnel as hostages in Tehran, a rescue attempt had failed miserably, & Iran was publicly declaring America to be the great Satan. The U.S. was also very concerned that Iran would export its Islamic Revolution to the fragile monarchies & emirates of the Gulf oil states, upsetting the delicate status quo in the Gulf. The U.S. thus saw in Iraq a proxy which could indirectly punish Iran for its betrayal of America & at the same time serve as a strong secular regional counter-balance to the militant forces of Islam.
Today, Iranians of all factions are convinced that the U.S. actively encouraged Iraq to attack them. Admiral Stansfield Turner, who was then director of the CIA, admitted that at the least, the CIA had known of an impending invasion & had advised President Carter accordingly, who did & said nothing.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security advisor to President Carter, had stated publicly the view that Iran should be punished from all sides & that he would not mind an Iraqi move against Iran. A fall 1980 report in the Financial Times of London took things a little further, reporting that U.S. satellite & intelligence data, which purported to show that the Iranians would crack easily if attacked, had been made available to Saddam through third party Arab governments. Interestingly enough, these third parties" were Kuwait & Saudi Arabia.
All the evidence points in a single direction, that the U.S. knew that Iraq was planning an unprovoked assault on a neighboring country & at the very least, took no steps to prevent it, & at the most, encouraged Iraq to attack, promising logistical & intelligence support. Gary Sick, who was then responsible for Gulf policy at the National Security Council, stated that, we didn't think Iraq would take ALL of Khuzistan in 1980." The unspoken inference is, of course, that they were expecting Iraq to take some of it. But again the U.S. miscalculated, & what had been planned as a short, clean war became an eight-year war of attrition that inflicted over one million casualties on both sides. It was to be the bloodiest war in the Middle East since the Mongol invasion in the 1200s.
It is important to realize that whatever support or acquiescence the U.S. accorded Iraq; it did so with the full knowledge that, according to international law, Iraq was clearly the aggressor & in the wrong, as it had formally relinquished any claims to Khuzistan in 1975. One can only ask, given the stated moral justification for the Gulf war, why this attack on Iran was not, in U.S. eyes a violation of international law, an act of naked aggression that would not stand", as they claimed when Iraq invaded Kuwait.


The West Supported Iraq

The quick victory that Saddam had gambled on failed to materialize as the Iranians defended their homeland with unexpected ferocity, & the conflict settled into a lengthy stalemate, punctuated by massive battles. Although America's help had been covert at first & it officially remained neutral throughout the war, when events began to go badly for Saddam in late 1981, the U.S. concluded that American interests in the region would be seriously harmed if Iraq were to collapse. It therefore began to help Iraq more openly by providing satellite intelligence & spearheading an international arms embargo against Iran. The other Western powers joined in & from that time on, the floodgates of military & economic aid to Iraq were opened.
The degree to which the West armed Iraq was nothing short of massive. Financed largely by generous donations" from the other oil-rich Gulf states who were eager to underwrite the cost of the war to contain Iran, but unwilling to shed their own blood, Iraq bought from the West & the Soviets the latest in military technology. Between 1982 & 1989, Iraq purchased about $43 billion worth of arms. In 1984 alone, according to the Stockholm International Peace Institute, Iraq spent about $14 billion, or half of its gross domestic product on weapons. Every year since 1985, Iraq was the largest importer of weapons in the World, accounting for more than 9 percent of the World's arms purchases. France alone sold Iraq over $16 billion worth of arms, continuing long after the war ended in 1988 & only stopping a few months before the invasion of Kuwait because Iraq had fallen behind in payments. By 1990, Iraq had the 4th largest standing army in the World.
Although the U.S. was not a major supplier of arms to Iraq, all these sales were quietly sanctioned by Washington, as it had concluded that the purchases were essential to keep Iraq from losing the war with Iran. However, the U.S. did not alter its policy after the cease-fire took effect in 1988. This U.S. policy of indulgence also encouraged shady companies from Western Europe to offer Baghdad expertise, technology & raw materials that Iraq could use to produce chemical or even nuclear weapons. The now famous WMD.
Economic aid grew tremendously during the 1980's as well, so much so that by 1990 Iraq was a virtual client state of the U.S., with only Mexico receiving more guaranteed food credits. The U.S. government provided loan guarantees to underwrite the purchase by Iraq of billions of dollars of American wheat, rice, corn, chickens, dairy products & manufactured goods. As Congressman Dan Glickman of Kansas later put it, The U.S. basically provided Iraq with all the food they needed for five years, at subsidized prices."
The U.S. also moved on the diplomatic front to strengthen relations with Iraq. Diplomatic relations, which had been cut off after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, were restored in 1984. Iraq was also taken off the terrorism list, despite the fact that it was common knowledge that some of the more radical Palestinian terrorist factions, including those who masterminded the deadly attacks on the Rome & Vienna airports in 1985, made their headquarters in Baghdad. Noel C. Koch, then the Defense Department's director for counter terrorism, explained that Iraq had not been removed from the list because it was any less of a haven for terrorists. No one had any doubts about Iraq's continued involvement with terrorism," Koch said. The real reason was to help them succeed in the war against Iran."
The U.S. largely turned a blind eye to all sorts of reports of Iraqi atrocities, such as the Iraqi gassing of Kurdish civilians, the jailing & routine torture of political prisoners & the summary trials & swift executions that were common. Apart from mild reprimands, the relationship continued largely business-as-usual, right up until the Aug. 2nd invasion of Kuwait. Geoffrey Kemp, then the head of the National Security Council's Middle East Section, explained the logic of the American policy planners at the time. The memory of the U.S. hostages in Iran was quite fresh; the Ayatollah was still calling us the Great Satan & attempting to undermine governments throughout the Gulf States. It was not that we wanted Iraq to win the war; we did not want Iraq to lose. We really weren't naive. We knew Saddam was an S.O.B., but he was OUR S.O.B."

Irangate

At the height of the Iran-Iraq war, when the American aid to Iraq was at its zenith, some high-ranking American officials indulged in a sideshow of realpolitiks that probably amazed even seasoned masters of intrigue such as Saddam. Irangate, as it became known, took place secretly in 1986, & involved high-ranking members of the Reagan Administration illegally selling arms to Iran, partly in exchange for the hoped-for release of American hostages in Lebanon. The proceeds from the sales were then covertly funneled to buy arms for the Nicaraguan Contras, another illegal act.
The participants of this scheme alleged that they had President Reagan's unofficial blessing, & agreed with their Iranian hosts that there is a need for a non-hostile regime in Baghdad", & that we can bring our influence to bear with certain friendly Arab nations" to get rid of Saddam. All this was being said privately, while publicly the U.S. was leading an arms embargo against Iran, & letting it be known that it would not countenance an Iranian victory! Small matter that these tactics of double dealing on the part of the U.S. were perpetrating a war in which tens of thousands of young Arabs & Persians were dying on the battlefield. All this back-stabbing must have driven home two important lessons to Saddam: The first was that the U.S. would intrigue against him when he was weak; the second was that it would grovel before him when he was strong.
This lesson was dramatically confirmed by two events the following year. In early 1987, Iran threatened to attack Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Gulf, which were carrying much of Iraq's oil to market. The U.S., still smarting from the humiliation of the Irangate exposure & eager to do damage control" with Saddam, offered to re-flag" the Kuwaiti ships & ensure their protection by giving them a military escort through the Gulf. In the same year, an Iraqi warplane accidentally" fired an Exocet missile which hit the American warship U.S.S. Stark, killing 37 sailors. Saddam moved quickly, apologizing effusively, & promising compensation of $27 million to the victims' families. The event was soon forgotten. Interestingly enough, after the August invasion of Kuwait, it was revealed that Iraq never actually made compensation.

Congress Calls for Sanctions

Although the Iraq-Iran war ended in stalemate in 1988, Iraq did not demobilize, but rather continued its military buildup unabated. In the spring of 1990, Saddam began making threatening statements about Israel, vowing to burn half the country" if Israel took any hostile action towards Iraq, as it had in 1981, when it bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor. This threat was taken to mean that Iraq was willing to use chemical weapons, & coupled with the gas attacks which had already been perpetrated on the Iraqi Kurds, caused some members of the U.S. Congress to call for sanctions to be imposed on Iraq.

White House Support for Saddam

The Bush administration, however, motivated by political expediency, actively opposed any form of sanctions & instead counseled forbearance & appeasement of Saddam, literally until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. With Iran's potential for exporting revolution largely crippled by the costly war, the White House now saw in Saddam a possible counterweight to the last remaining radical Arab strongman in the Middle East, Haffez Assad of Syria. The Administration also hoped to exert a moderating influence on Saddam in the hopes that he would eventually forsake his hard-line rejectionist stance towards Israel, America's premier client state in the region. As one Administration official subsequently recounted, the policy was essentially, wean the Iraqis away from nuclear & chemical proliferation, tie them economically closer to the U.S. & the Western world; try to use carrots, rather than sticks, in moderating their behavior."
In December of 1989, Congress voted to end Iraqi access to loans from the Export Import Bank, due to Iraqi gassing of civilian Kurds a few years earlier. In January 1990, President George Bush vetoed this ban, citing America's national interest". In February, 1990, the Voice of America called Iraq a police state. Secretary of State James Baker instructed Ambassador April Glaspie to apologies to Saddam.
In the spring of 1990, Saddam began making veiled threats to his Gulf neighbors, & staged military maneuvers in the neutral territory on Kuwait's border. Iraqi resentment toward Kuwait & the other Gulf states had been building since the 1988 cease-fire. In Saddam's eyes, the rich Arabs, & indeed the World were not sufficiently grateful for Iraq's sacrifice in the war. Iraqis had bled & died in Iran in a war that had protected the sheikdoms from subversion & conquest by the non-Arab Persians. Deeply in debt (primarily to Saudi Arabia & Kuwait) as a result of the Gulf war, Saddam warned them that they must forgive his debt & furnish more aid or suffer reprisals. He also warned Kuwait that it must stop over-producing oil, as this kept oil prices down, thus robbing Iraq of much-needed income. And finally, he accused Kuwait of stealing Iraqi oil from the Rumaila oil field, which straddled the Iraq-Kuwait border. In March, Saddam gave a hint of what the future held when he abrogated all border agreements between the two countries.
President George Bush, alarmed by these inflammatory statements & actions, sent a Senate delegation to Iraq, which apologized again for the Voice of America criticism & conveyed Bush's desire for better relations. Senator Howard Metzenbaum told Saddam, I am now aware that you are a strong & intelligent man, & that you want peace." Senator Bob Dole, in reply to Saddam's charges that there was a campaign against him in Europe & the U.S., reassured him, Not from President Bush", & added that the President would veto any congressional sanctions. Senator Alan Simpson said that, I believe your problem is with the Western media, which are spoiled & conceited." After the meeting, Dole reported back to Bush that Saddam is a leader to whom the U.S. can talk."


Saddam Was America's Thug

George Bush then President of the United States, often referred to Saddam as a ruthless dictator, a modern day Hitler, a thug etc., & the Western media's portrayal of Saddam could lead one to believe that this is why the war was fought. However, even if Saddam is guilty of half the accusations leveled against him, one must remember that the U.S. knew full well that he was all of these things for years. They not only knew it, but actively supported, armed & protected him while he committed all these alleged atrocities. The World is full of thugs, tyrants & dictators, many of which are much worse than Saddam, yet the U.S. has not felt the need to mount a crusade to forcefully destroy them.
Noam Chomsky, a professor of linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology & a long time peace activist, explained it thus: The cynicism* is transparent. The only Third World forces regarded as legitimate by the U.S. are those who understand & serve U.S. priorities. Until August 1 (1991) Saddam Hussein was a favored ally & trading partner. His criminal atrocities were easily overlooked; others whose records are as unsavory as his continue to be amiable* friends. In reality, Saddam Hussein became the new incarnation* of Hitler & Genghis Khan when he revealed himself to be a `radical nationalist' who rejected the doctrine that the energy reserves of the Gulf are to be controlled by the U.S. & reliable client states. At that point, his monstrous record can be invoked as a propaganda device. Similar examples of a quick transition from amity to enmity include General Manuel Noriega of Panama, who had been aided & supported by the U.S. until he ceased to serve its interests."

So despite all the sensational publicity to the contrary, it cannot be argued persuasively that the U.S. invaded Iraq because Saddam was evil. That he may be evil probably makes the average American feel better about the decision to go to war, but it should not be confused with the real reason for why they chose to go.

Countdown to Invasion

On July 21, 1990 the CIA reported that Iraq was massing troops near the Kuwaiti border, but most officials dismissed it as saber-rattling on the part of Saddam, designed to intimidate the Kuwaitis with whom he was having negotiations concerning his grievances. On July 24, State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutwiler stated that the U.S. was committed to supporting the individual & collective self-defense of American friends in the Gulf, but that, we do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait, & there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." Nevertheless, the U.S. chose to hold naval exercises with the United Arab Emirates.
Only 6 days before the invasion, the U.S. Senate voted against agricultural trade sanctions, aimed at curbing Baghdad. At that time, Assistant Secretary of State for Middle East Affairs John Kelly, lobbying against the sanctions, stated, it would be the American farmer & the American exporter who would be punished by sanctions. The administration remains opposed to broad-gauged sanctions." Senator Richard Lugar, another supporter of the Bush administration said, Sanctions would badly undercut any possibility we have of influencing Iraqi behavior."

Saddam Meets U.S. Ambassador Glaspie

On July 25th, when Saddam was already advanced in his plans to invade Kuwait, he had the now infamous meeting with U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie. A transcript of the meeting released by Iraq & not disputed by the State Department until several months later, after the war, reveals that Saddam began by impressing upon Glaspie Iraq's needs & desires concerning his dispute with Kuwait, reminding her that the U.S. has been sympathetic to these complaints in the past. He also protested the naval exercises being held by the U.S. in the Gulf, & threatened to unleash terrorists on America. He further mentioned that he hoped that President Bush himself would read the account of this meeting. Knowing that all her comments would therefore be very much on the record", Glaspie's first reply was:
I clearly understand your message. We studied history at school. They taught us to say freedom or death. I think you know well that we as a people have our experience with the colonialists".
What she was in effect saying, was that she realized that a major problem in the Gulf was the fact that the borders were drawn to conform to a now-obsolete British colonial diagram, a reality that had been the essence of Iraq's grudge against Kuwait for decades. For Saddam Hussein, who has been agitating against the colonialists for most of his life, the American Ambassador's reference to Patrick Henry, one of the founding fathers of U.S. independence who said, Give me liberty, or give me death", in this context had to be more than he hoped for. Saddam further questioned her on the meaning of the statement made in Washington by State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutwiler the day before. Glaspie reassured him:
We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue, & that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."
From some other comments made during the meeting, Saddam could easily have come to the conclusion that oil was the principal concern of the U.S., & that as long as the price was right, America did not really care who owned the oil. He stated several times during the meeting that:
We clearly understand America's statement that it wants an easy flow of oil." To which Ambassador Glaspie responded,
My own estimate after 25 years of service in the area is that your claims should receive strong support from your brother Arabs....I would only ask you to examine the possibility of not charging too high a price for oil".
Saddam reassured her with; we do not want too high a price. $25.00 a barrel is not too high."
Glaspie agreed. We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil producing states."
Glaspie also went on to reaffirm that, I have a directive from the President that I should work to expand & deepen relations with Iraq," & that, President Bush is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."
In retrospect, this meeting looked remarkably like an invitation for Saddam to go ahead & do as he pleased with Kuwait.
A few days later, Ambassador Glaspie left for a long-scheduled vacation.
Perhaps what is even more revealing than the above conversation is a comment made by Glaspie some months later in an interview with The New York Times. While discussing this above meeting & the possible signals that it was sending to Saddam, she disclosed that, I didn't think--& nobody else did-- that the Iraqis were going to take ALL of Kuwait."
This sounds remarkably similar to the sentiments expressed by American policy experts 10 years earlier, at the outset of the Iran-Iraq war. We didn't expect Saddam to take all of Khuzistan". The unspoken affirmation was that they did expect him to take some of it. Apparently Saddam's only sin was that he had miscalculated how much was being offered to him, & perhaps took more than he should have. He had concluded that, with America still trying to appease him, & public assurances that it had no commitment to defend Kuwait, the way was clear for him to assume regional superpower status. In one bold move, he reasoned: Iraq could assert its historical claim to Kuwait, reverse the territorial injustices imposed by Britain so many years ago & finally gain access to the sea. It would also cut the Gordian knot of debt & simmering discontent left by the war with Iran & give vent to the widespread resentment in Iraq that the Gulf Arabs had lived in luxury throughout the war while Iraqis had bled & died to protect them.
In a sense Saddam had been color blind. He had seen a green light, when what was actually being displayed was a flashing amber--proceed with caution. The evidence does seem to clearly indicate that in yet another case history from the textbook of realpolitiks, a revised" Iraq-Kuwait border, in which Iraq would keep a limited amount of disputed territory, was part of the price that the U.S. & the other Arab states had agreed to pay in their longstanding effort to make a pet of Saddam Hussein.
On July 31, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly, testifying at a public Congressional hearing, was asked what U.S. forces would do if Iraq invaded Kuwait. He replied that the U.S. had no formal commitments to defend Kuwait.
On Aug.2, Iraq invaded Kuwait.


Taking the Blame

Ever since the invasion of Kuwait, the U.S. steadfastly refused to take any of the blame for the conflict, placing the sole responsibility for the war squarely on Saddam's shoulders. This was part of the reasoning behind their decision not to negotiate in any way with Saddam. They felt that they were so clearly in the right, that to compromise at all would be to send a signal to the World that, crime pays".
According to accepted norms of international law, Iraq was in the wrong, but as we have seen, such law has been more often than not casually brushed aside by the West when it was politically expedient to do so. So was the U.S. right in blaming Saddam?
John Major, then the new Prime Minister of Great Britain, argued against negotiations with Iraq, reasoning that when a burglar commits break-ins, the police don't negotiate with him. He is clearly in the wrong, & the job of the policeman is to stop him. This analogy is somewhat simplistic, given that millions of lives were at stake, not a simple burglary. Mr. Major also overlooked one key factor in the comparison. Saddam was largely a creation of the West, the powers that be, & if he had risen to the point where he felt he could bully smaller neighbors with impunity, it was to a certain extent because he felt his powerful sponsors would look the other way, as indeed they had in the past.
So, to pursue the analogy of Mr. Major, would the case against the burglar be so clear cut if it were subsequently learned that he had been schooled in the craft of robbery by the very people who were now accusing him? If it were disclosed in a court of law that these same people had encouraged him to commit other crimes & had supplied him with the tools of his trade for several years, the accusers of the burglar would themselves stand accused of the crimes of aiding & abetting a criminal, counseling a crime & being an accessory after the fact.
Charges of aiding & abetting a criminal can be laid against someone who does not actually commit a crime, but who knew that the crime was going to be committed & did something to assist the criminal. If you, for example, supplied weapons to someone who was going to commit a robbery, then you would be just as guilty of the offence as the actual robber. Counseling a crime applies to someone who encourages another person to commit an offence. Again, such a person is considered just as guilty as the criminal. An accessory after the fact is someone who knows a person has committed a crime & comforts receives or assists him in any way to make an escape.
Given the policy of the West towards Iraq from 1980 to the early 1990, could not a case be made that they were guilty, on a much larger scale, of all the above crimes? Did they not finance & arm Saddam & make it possible for him to commit the crimes that he did? Did they not counsel him on how to defeat his opponents? And did they not stand idly by & turn a blind eye & actually defend him while he was committing all the past atrocities that he is now accused of? And finally, when they knew that he had intentions to invade at least part of Kuwait, did they not purposely & in a public manner let him know that they would not oppose him, even if it inevitably meant bloodshed & the violation of the sovereignty of Kuwait?
Can it really be believed that if the U.S. had wanted to prevent aggression, it would have failed to issue an ultimatum to Saddam? So should not the U.S. bear responsibility for the disastrous chain of events that their amoral cold-blooded miscalculations (We didn't think they would take ALL of Kuwait.") Should not the U.S. be held responsible for the subsequent suffering of the people of Kuwait & Iraq?--Not to mention the ecological nightmare that the region went through with the burning of the oil fields and the use of Depleted Uranium ordinances?
Much has been made of President Bush's claim that Saddam was worse than Hitler". A more accurate comparison could be made between the legendary Dr. Frankenstein & the monster that he created. Dr. Frankenstein applied all the powers of science to concoct an improved kind of being, only to create a monster. Like a modern day Frankenstein, the politicians, businessmen & military leaders of the West have generated the frightening figure that Hussein has become.
The U.S., Britain, France, Germany & the Soviets attempted to impose their political will on Iraq while amassing enormous profits from the sales of their killing machines, & they begat a creature that they were no longer able to control, so they had to destroy it. They all had a hand in creating him, & should have been held responsible for the catastrophe ensued.

The Morality of the Wars Against Iraq

The Gulf War 1991
One of the particular characteristics of the Gulf war was that it was unclear why it was being fought. From the very beginning, President George Bush emphasized that he did not consider this to be a war to control the Middle East oil supply, but rather a clear-cut struggle between the forces of good & evil:
This we do know: Our cause is just. Our cause is moral. Our cause is right....It is a just war. Every war is fought for reasons but a just war is fought for the right reasons, for moral, not selfish reasons....There can be no face-saving...there can never be compromise, any kind of compromise, with this kind of aggression...We are dealing with Hitler revisited. I don't believe that Adolph Hitler ever participated in anything of that nature ... This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait."
A wide variety of Americans, including many Bush supporters, saw a different set of priorities guiding the U.S. Of course it's about petroleum", said Secretary of Commerce Robert Mossbacher. Crass or not, it's oil that keeps everybody going."
Secretary of State James Baker observed, an economic recession worldwide, caused by the control of one nation--one dictator if you will--of the West's economic lifeline, will result in the loss of jobs for American citizens."
A few weeks after the invasion, a White House official explained, In terms of directional clarity, this has all been an easy call. Even a dolt* understands the principle. We need the oil. It's nice to talk about standing up for freedom, but Kuwait & Saudi Arabia are not exactly democracies, & if their principal exports were oranges, a mid-level State Department official would have issued a statement & we would have closed Washington down for August. There is nothing to waver about here."
Congressman Les Aspin, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee,* wrote just after the August invasion, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait has done more to change strategic realities than any other military action of the postwar era. It's odd that some Third World dictator could do this. The reason is simple, however, it's oil. He has placed a knife beside our jugular.*"
Russell Baker, columnist for the New York Times, voiced the sentiments of many when he wrote, the big men, of course, say that oil is not the only explanation for our war footing. Saddam is said to be another Adolf Hitler...This call to serve principle & international morality is ennobling,* but if no oil were at risk, would we really be putting armies & navies into Arabia? Drop the oil from the equation & the thuggish Saddam's seizure of Kuwait would be, to the United States, just another incident in the tiresome tribal quarrels that divided the Arabs of the old Ottoman Empire...
It's hard to believe that before the Middle East & oil became synonymous, the United States would have even wasted a note of reprimand on a small-bore chieftain like Saddam for brutalizing one of the weaker tribes."
The Washington-based Middle East Report in its December 1990 issue stated, this intervention is about oil. Iraq's invasion challenged the political hierarchies that have controlled the wealth & resources of the region for most of this century...The U.S. troops are in Saudi Arabia in order to prevent the emergence of a regional power which, unlike Saudi Arabia, might choose to exploit & mobilize those resources in ways that conflict with the agenda of the U.S."
So who is right & what was that war fought for, oil or morals? Was this a just war, a principled war, or was it fought to protect the more down-to-Earth vital interests of the U.S. & its allies?

The Invasion of Iraq 2003

The principal reason given by both the US and the British Government was their absolute certainty that despite the 12 years of draconian and crippling Sanctions, Iraq was still in possession of WMD in defiance of UN resolutions. Such weapons posed and immediate and present danger to Iraq neighbors as well as to the United States. President W. G. Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rusted, Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and then Secretary of State Powell as well as the British Government Leaders all repeatedly assured the World of the certainty and righteousness of their cause.
As we all know all those assumptions were wrong and even after independent enquiries on both sides of the Atlantic found the intelligence and conclusions flawed no one has been found ultimately responsible for what amounts to a colossal intelligence failure resulting in the estimated deaths of close to 130.000 people.
Since no WMD were found the rational for the war has shifted to extolling how much better the world is without Saddam and more recently to the noble idea that Democracy is spreading throughout the Middle East.
So who is right? Why was Iraq invaded?

Did Sanctions Fail?

Before the first Gulf War of 1991 and since then until the invasion on March of 2003 Iraq was under very stringent and all encompassing sanctions.
The sanctions imposed on Iraq by the U.N. were unique in the history of such economic weapons in the 20th century. They cut off virtually all of Iraq's trade & financial dealings with the outside World, & had a cohesion & possible longevity never before seen. And yet, just 4 months after they were imposed, the U.S. declared them to be a failure & lobbied the U.N. Security Council to authorize the use of military force in what is now called the Gulf War. Many people who opposed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, asked if the sanctions had been given more time, could they have forced Iraq to withdraw?" & did the U.S. really want to give sanctions time to work?"
Kimberly Elliot & Jeffrey Schott, researchers at the Institute for International Economics, have documented a history of sanctions. Writing in the Washington Post, they maintain that a review of 115 cases since 1914 shows that success was achieved forty times when economic sanctions were threatened or imposed on individual countries. Historically, when the sanctioning country or group accounted for half or more of the target's trade, the sanctions had a 50% chance of achieving their goals. In the average successful sanctions case, the boycotters* accounted for 28% of the target's trade, far below the Iraq situation. These comparisons strongly suggest that, given time, the U.N. economic boycott could have achieved by peaceful nonviolent means what President George Bush & his advisors decided to win by force, death & destruction.
According to Elliot & Schott, the sanctions imposed on Iraq were among the strongest & most complete ever imposed against any country. It was almost a textbook case of how sanctions could work. There was international cooperation on a scale never seen before. The boycott had three to four times greater coverage than the average in all previous sanctions cases. Iraq was far more vulnerable to economic coercion than target states in other sanctions actions. It was geographically isolated, with virtually no coastline, & dependent on one product, oil, for 90% of its export revenue. Without oil exports, Iraq was losing $100 million a day in hard currency, & without hard currency, it couldn't import because it was essentially bankrupt.
Added to this was the unprecedented financial reimbursement to smaller nations who suffered due to the loss of trade with Iraq, & the extensive naval & air blockade.* Many experts predicted that Iraq would have been forced to give in by the Summer of 1991.
A former U.N. diplomat, who declined to be identified, said, this was a case of the strongest application of sanctions in the 20th century. There had never been a situation like it, where the entire World was acting in solidarity against a single pariah* state. Over the period of a year or a year-&-a-half we could have done sufficient damage to the Iraqi economy, given the absolute solidarity of the World, that we would have driven Saddam into a negotiating position to get out of Kuwait without losing so many thousands of lives."
CIA director William Webster also felt that sanctions could have worked, had they been given more time. Webster told the American Congress that the sanctions had succeeded in cutting Iraq's exports by 97%, & its imports by 90%, & that they had been surprisingly effective.

After the end of the hostilities Iraq remained under draconian sanctions and was forced to pay exorbitant reparation to Kuwait. The UN supervised teams proceeded to dismantle its weapon programs. With its infrastructure in total ruin and isolated from the world the Iraqi standard of living rapidly deteriorated and it is estimated that close to 500.000 people, mostly children, died from causes directly related and caused by the sanctions. The United States continually opposed the lifting of sanctions and their effectiveness was such that the UN Humanitarian Aid representative resigned calling the sanctions and their effect Genocide.

In retrospect we now know with certainty the following:
• The Sanctions succeed in destroying what was left of the Iraqi infrastructure.
• Hundreds of thousands die as a result.
• The UN inspectors accomplished their mission and all weapons and programs of WMD was destroyed.
• Iraq posed no military threat, and had no connection to the September 11th Terror attack in New York.
• Sanctions were not successful in producing the Regime Change wanted by the US

Did the U.S. Want Sanctions and the UN inspectors program to Work?

There are those who say that the U.S. gave only lip service to the idea of sanctions. Admiral William Crowe, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman during the Reagan & Bush administrations, said, I don't think the President ever wanted sanctions. I think the argument to continue them was more intellectual than serious."
Elisabeth Drew, White House reporter for The New Yorker, is convinced that sanctions became just a box to check off on the road to war. From my talking to White House officials, it certainly looked to me as if some policy-makers felt all along that it would come to war, & maybe that was the best thing in order to stop this man now, so that he wouldn't become a menace in the future. The steps that the administration took before the war, the diplomacy & sanctions, were so they could say, `We tried these things.' But they didn't really expect them to work."

Just as in the days leading to the Gulf War, the United States pursued a policy of intransigence and confrontation in the days leading to the final invasion of Iraq in 2003. Although the UN inspectors had been in the country doing their job and had asked for more time to finalize their search the US declare unilaterally that time was up and presented the Iraqis with an impossible ultimatum.


Why did the United States wanted to resolve both crisis by force
Many theories have been advanced. Noam Chomsky believes that the U.S. wanted to show its military muscle to the World:
The industrial World, the West, they want the Third World held under control, & these guys (the U.S.) will be their enforcers, they'll be the Mafia. And of course, you've got to show that force is the way things run, not diplomacy, we're not good at that.
The important thing is the lesson. It's not enough to reverse the aggression, its not enough to reach a political settlement. What has to be done is to show that it is done by force. That's what is important. One, because force is the way to rule the World, that's what we're good at. Two, because the Third World has to be taught a lesson. You act independently & you're really going to suffer. It's not just that you're going to go back to where you were, but you're really going to suffer, & others better remember that."
An editorial in the Jan.11, 1991 issue of The Middle East International speculated that the U.S. was seeking to reestablish its own preeminence in the World. If the economic squeeze on Iraq were allowed to work, the post-Cold War `New World Order' might have been a peaceful one in which America would be a second-rate power behind Europe & Japan, with its vast military capabilities largely irrelevant, & the necessary conversion of military industries, causing great economic pains.
On the other hand, a successful military solution might establish the primacy* of military power over economic power, & the U.S. could occupy a position of unchallenged predominance."
The Nation magazine developed this idea further. In the real World of the 1990's, those who defended the oil fort will have the de facto control of an Arabian treasure beyond the dreams of Aladdin....Any country that succeeds in dominating the region would probably exercise plenary power over the price of oil....As a source of supply, Middle Eastern oil is far more important to Europe & Japan than it is to the U.S. Precisely because of this, the Americans' unique ability to project power within the region confers enormous leverage in its negotiations with the Allies over, for example, American commercial access to Western Europe or Japan."
One church leader with extensive contacts in the Middle East said that Christian & Muslim religious leaders in the region believed the U.S. wanted the war. In their eyes, The U.S. viewed military action as its best chance of maintaining influence over the Middle East & its massive oil reserves. The U.S. actually feared a diplomatic solution to the Middle East conflict because it would mean some less hawkish European countries might end up with more influence in the region."
Many other Middle East observers, including Iraqi exiles opposed to Saddam, speculated that America was intent on not only forcing Iraq out of Kuwait, but also permanently destroying its ability to threaten its main ally in the region, Israel. The Israelis stated repeatedly throughout the crisis that a diplomatic solution to the problem was what they feared most, as it would leave Iraq free to fight another day. They consistently voiced their view that the only acceptable outcome was if Iraq was destroyed militarily.
As the Gulf war progressed, it became clear that this was indeed the hidden agenda" of the Western Allies, to use the liberation of Kuwait as a cover to destroy Iraq both militarily & economically, so that it would cease to be of any importance in the region. Martin Woolacott, writing in the Associated Press, commented, The hidden agenda--destroying Saddam & wiping out Iraq's war potential--is not, of course, remotely a secret from Arab members of the coalition, or from countries like Iran & Jordan. It never has been."

All unfinished objectives left over from the Gulf War were taken care by the invasion of Iraq in early 2003. Again the United States adopted a belligerent and intransigent position that prevented any peaceful resolution. Recent revelations have now confirmed that intelligence “was fixed to corroborate military action” and that many months in advance the decision to go to war had already been taken by President G. W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair.



The future of the Middle East

Two years after the invasion of Iraq the Middle East is still awash with problems and uncertainty. Iraq is still shaken by uncontrollable violence. The Coalition of the Willing is slowly fading as individual nations pull out of the quagmire. One after the other the pivotal events that the Allies thought will turn the tide in their fight with insurgents have come and are gone with little effect. The optimism of the fall of Baghdad , the killing of Saddam‘s sons, the capture of Saddam himself, remember the “we got him”?, the turn over of sovereignty in June 2004, the conquest of Fallujah, the January 2005 elections are but a faint memory. Today, three months after the elections the new Government still does not have a full functioning cabinet and violence is out of control and Terrorist have embarked in a bloodshedding campaign against their own people.
Despite the eloquent rhetoric Democracy is not really spreading throughout the Middle East and elections under occupation both in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly do not reflect true Democracy. Virtually everyone agrees that a key element for stability in the region is a lasting solution to the Palestinian question. The Road Map process has been resuscitated after Arafart ‘s death but the big problems still remain such as the future of Jerusalem, the Palestinian’s right to return, the threat of terrorism from Palestinians militants, the expansion of Israeli settlements, the dismantling of the wall.
On other fronts, unfortunately not just figuratively speaking, conflicts seem to loom closer by actions and words. The US has reaffirmed its sanctions against Syria and labeled such a country as an “extraordinary threat to the US” by its alleged support for terrorism, alleged efforts to destabilize neighboring Iraq, pursuing of WMD, and acquisitions of missiles. Further to East, Iran maintains its position in the Axis of Evil by not bowing down to International pressure in their Nuclear Research. Some believe that a military strike against Iran is on the table either by Israeli forces, in the process of acquiring Bunker Busting weapons from the US, or by US forces in the region.

By all indications peace is not really being nurtured in the Middle East and current conditions are a breeding ground to more terrifying wars. Wars that will bring misery and death to thousands as well as the ominous economic ripple effect of escalating oil prices.

Honestly speaking current approach to world problems will only bring more disasters. Promoting Democracy and extolling the virtues of Corporate Globalization by all means including bombing and invading people or opposing such ideas by distorted and perverted religious and political ideas as well as the use of terrorism is a recipe for disaster.

How then can we avoid such an abyss?
Arnold Toynbee, the famous historian, expressed this point perfectly when he said, “By forcing on mankind more and more lethal weapons, and at the same time making the world more and more interdependent economically, technology has brought mankind to such a degree of distress that we are ripe for the deifying of any new Caesar who might succeed in giving the world unity and peace.”
Former secretary of NATO, Paul Spaak, added, “We do not want another committee; we have too many already. What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all people and to lift us out of the morass into which we are sinking. Send us such a man, be he God or the Devil, and we will receive him.”

Does any current world leader fit such a description? Not really! Actually today’s leaders are either unwilling or incapable of finding solutions and keep repeating their favorite mantras.

Ironically these leaders with all their hatred towards each other and opposing positions have a lot in common. The question is what do Osama bin Lade,Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, President Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair etc, have in common?
They are all extremist and ideologically driven leaders whose judgment is impaired by their preconceived ideas and interests as well as their polarizing positions. They also share in their disregard for human life as their actions have caused death and injury to hundreds of thousands the world over.

From all that the scriptures indicate, it looks like a special man is indeed coming. A man who will rise to power by peace, by flattery and clever deceit. Endued with a supernatural craft, and wisdom, this man will use cleaver political maneuvers to temporally solve today’s pressing military, political and economic problems, and will be instrumental in a remarkable Peace Pact between the conflicting ideologies and religions in the World. Of course, only in desperation would nations ever sign such and agreement. Only under desperate and last resort circumstances would for example Israel and the Arabs agree to share Jerusalem, or competing economies and alliances would agree to share dwindling oil resources.

Conclusion

The Middle East is the focal point through which the future of the whole world has to be viewed. Mesopotamia as the cradle of Civilization continues to play is part by hosting the origins of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic Religions. Besides these cultural and moral contributions the Middle East also holds the worlds greatest oil reserves. All these factors together tie the world inextricably to the events in those lands. Fortunately we do not have be ignorant of important events that will affect our lives regardless of where we live. The Holy Scriptures, in particular the Bible cover these current events and those soon coming with detailed information and this knowledge will give us faith to face the future with trust and confidence. We do not need to be in confusion and in darkness, wondering what is going to happen like the many, “whose hearts are failing them for fear” Luke 21:26, we can know exactly what is going to happen. We may not like it and it may even look pretty bad, but we know the happy ending.
Are you prepared? Do you know what to do? What sort of spiritual, mental, emotional and even physical and practical preparation can you take?

To say the least, we are living in exciting times and are on the threshold of some cataclysmic changes!

Seeing how prophecies from thousands of years ago accurately predicted world conditions today should encourage your faith in a number of ways. First of all, it's assuring that God not only has the power to foresee the future, but that He cared enough about us to tell us what is going to happen in advance. As Jesus said, "And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe" (John 14:29).

Similarly, when you realize that the current state of the world was foretold so specifically, it stands to reason that the biblical prophecies which have not yet been fulfilled will also come to pass. A one-world government with a bestial leader and enforced credit system will arise. Persecution of those who refuse to cooperate with the Antichrist regime will take place. But then God will intervene when Jesus Christ returns to rescue His people, defeat the forces of evil, and establish His everlasting Kingdom of love on earth.

No Need to Fear

As these awesome final events of the Endtime begin to unfold, you don't have to be in fear or confusion, wondering what's going on. Although Jesus warned that in the very last days "men's hearts would be failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth" (Luke 21:26, NKJV), He also said that those who know and love Him could face these same events positively and victoriously.

He made it clear that as the final signs of the end came to pass, His return to rescue His people was that much closer: "Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption [deliverance] draws near" (Luke 21:28, NKJV). We may not like everything that is happening, and some of it may look pretty bad, but at least we know the happy ending.

If you have faith in God and His Word, and you are living close to Him, then even if there's war and turmoil, confusion and chaos on the outside, you can have peace on the inside -- in your own heart -- through the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ.

The Best Preparation for the Future

You can prepare for the future -- and for all eternity -- by receiving Jesus as your Savior. He loves you, and will be with you and will guide you through whatever perilous times you may encounter.

The Bible tells us that "God is Love" (1 John 4:8). He is the very Spirit of Love itself, and He loves you and wants you to know and experience and revel in His love. But God is so great, so almighty, He is far beyond our finite human understanding. This is why He sent Jesus, His Son, to the world; to show us His love and to help us understand what He, God Himself, is like.

"For God so loved the world [you and me], that He gave His only begotten Son [Jesus], that whoever believes in Him should not perish [be separated from God's love], but have everlasting life" (John 3:16, NKJV). God loves you so much that He gave Jesus to die in your place, to take the punishment that you deserve for your wrongdoing, so that you can have His forgiveness and free gift of eternal heavenly life.

If you don't yet know Jesus, you can receive Him and all the wonderful things He has to offer you right now. Even if you have questions and doubts about Him, He understands, and if you reach out to Him, He will make Himself real in your life. He says, "I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock. If you hear My voice and open the door, I will come into you" (Revelation 3:20).

Will you give Him a chance? He's waiting for you. Just sincerely pray the following simple prayer:

Dear Jesus, I ask You to come into my heart. Please forgive me for all the wrongs I've done, and give me Your gift of everlasting life. Help me to love You, and help me to share Your love and truth with others. Amen.

Jesus said, "I am come that you might have life, and that you might have it more abundantly" (John 10:10). Receiving Jesus not only guarantees you a brighter future, but a more fulfilled present. May His presence fill and bless your life in every way.

Back to page top