Ibrahim Nafie questions America's plans for the Middle East Once the Anglo-American forces entered and controlled Baghdad a plethora of American voices began to level threats at Syria. Syria had not cooperated in the war on Iraq, they said, and it may well be subject to punishment as a result. Some went so far as to suggest the use of force in this context, pointing out that America's military is already deployed on Syria's borders; an attack on Syria would therefore not require the transport of additional forces to the region. Many parties in the American administration contributed to these threats, starting with deputy secretaries and ending with President Bush -- a fact that has since generated Arab questions concerning the validity of the claim that Washington has a list of Arab targets to be attacked one by one with the object of reformulating the political map of the region. Such questions are well justified: the threats began prior to the end of the war on Iraq, and the similarity in the statements of American officials at various levels of authority implies that these statements express an integrated vision, something that became apparent during Al- Ahram's visit to Washington. When interviewed, American officials like National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell strenuously denied the existence of such a list, yet statements by Defense Department officials and articles written by deputies like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle clearly indicate that the US administration was indeed in possession of a list of targets. Furthermore, it would employ a variety of excuses for attacking the Arab states in question with the object of overthrowing their regimes or altering the policies of existing regimes to suit American and Israeli interests. This gives the threats levelled at Syria particular relevance. The fact that the charge levelled at Syria has progressed from failing to cooperate with the US, to providing Iraq with certain kinds of arms -- namely night- vision goggles -- and finally to possessing biological and chemical weapons, implies that the circumstances surrounding Washington's decision to wage war on Iraq without a Security Council resolution are now being replicated. Arabs, who had opposed attacking Iraq, are justifiably enraged in the light of their knowledge that, a few kilometres from the Syrian border, Israel possesses not only chemical and biological, but nuclear weapons -- something which Washington has been consistently silent about, cutting off the possibility of intervention on the part of the international community. This coincides with the Iraqi people's rising discontent in the face of the invading forces. Newly liberated from the oppression and terrorism of Saddam's regime, Iraqis took to the streets to demand the withdrawal of the Anglo-American forces. Saddened and infuriated by the destruction and subsequent plunder, they unequivocally feel that they are best left to their own devices, to rebuild their country. They realise their potential in terms of resources and creativity, and are shocked and dismayed at the looting which, according to the European press, was more or less wholly purposeful. The British Observer newspaper, for example, pointed out that the invading forces, having safeguarded the Ministry of Petroleum and the oil fields, did not prevent the damage to museums, banks and other centres of material and cultural wealth, with American officers ignoring the pleas of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Support to protect the Baghdad Museum and the National Bank. The Iraqi people's priorities, I believe, are distinctly different from those of the invaders. First and foremost among them -- and on this all the factions, sects and ethnicities are united, supported by Arab regimes and peoples alike -- is the necessity of the withdrawal of the occupation forces. Two somewhat interconnected issues thus simultaneously emerge: the continued presence of Anglo-American forces in Iraq (and their plans for the country), and developments on the Syrian front (which are likely to be part of the same long-term scheme by which Iraq came to be attacked in the first place). Neither the Iraqi people nor the Arab League will accept a new regime formed in the presence of the invading forces or under their influence; the latter, indeed, will not recognise such an Iraqi state. What is necessary is the withdrawal of the Anglo-American forces. Only this will enable Iraq to be reintegrated into the Arab and international system. In the shadow of the invasion any regime imposed on the Iraqi people would lack legitimacy; and those would-be expatriate leaders that the Americans and the British might bring over from various Western capitals are unlikely to gain the trust of Iraqis. At the same time and along a parallel route, American threats to Syria have shifted Arab attention to their possible causes: the call for an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan heights, which were occupied in 1967; a connection with Hizbullah in southern Lebanon; or the possible existence of weapons of mass destruction. Syria's call for an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan heights is based on UN resolutions and the principle forbidding the occupation of land using force. Despite the legitimacy of the use of force in this context, Syria has sought to achieve liberation using diplomatic means alone. Not a single bullet has been fired for the last three decades, following the 1973 settlements. To claim that Syria supports Hizbullah is not to condemn it, either. For Hizbullah, which has already managed to liberate much of southern Lebanon through the use of force, is working legitimately to drive Israeli forces out of the Shebaa farms area. Following this, Hizbullah would likely transform itself into one of many Lebanese political parties, conducting no military activity. No one can sensibly demand the dismantling of Hizbullah's military structures. Israel, not Syria, is to blame for violence in southern Lebanon. As for the possible existence of a weapons of mass destruction programme in Syria, it is important to point out that Washington is accused by the Arabs -- both governments and people -- of practising double standards in its Middle East policy. It insists on casting Arab countries as rogue states on the pretext of their possession of weapons of mass destruction while blocking any attempts to eradicate the same types of weapons in Israel. While Israel is given every right to possess such weapons, the mere suspicion of their existence in Arab countries is employed as an excuse to impose a range of punishments, from sanctions to invasion. The scenario of weapons of mass destruction has turned into a patently unconvincing, and somewhat boring excuse. Iraq had cooperated with international observers to a large extent, allowing US U-2 aircraft into its airspace; Hans Blix had testified to such collaboration, demanding more time to ensure the complete absence of weapons of mass destruction; and permanent members of the Security Council, especially France and Russia, had refused to endorse an invasion of Iraq. Yet the invasion proceeded; and now that the war is over and no weapons of mass destruction have been found, the British no less than the US government are in a shameful position, with newspapers like The Independent and The Observer asking where the weapons of mass destruction that allegedly gave rise to the war might be and condemning the likes of Donald Rumsfeld. Washington has responded by pointing to the presence of materials that could be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons, proceeding to analyse these materials and sending an exclusively American team of 1,000 specialists to scour the country. All this despite Russia's call for the return of the original international observers. The implication is that, in the absence of true evidence, Washington will fabricate something to make up for the embarrassment of having found nothing. The worst part of the weapons inspection scenario is related to its use as an excuse for implementing the suspected long-term plan of changing regimes and policies of several Arab countries one by one. Now that Iraq has been invaded, Syria is on the cards and Washington is endorsing the Israeli claim that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been transported to Syria. Had this in fact happened, American intelligence, which operates satellites that cover the entire region, would have known about it a long time ago. It is increasingly obvious to Arabs that, each time it decides to invade or otherwise meddle in the affairs of an Arab country, Washington will claim that weapons of mass destruction have been moved there. It is unworthy of Washington, being the foremost world power, to adopt such an approach. Indeed, if the issue concerned eradicating weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, it would be far more prudent to adopt a transparent plan like the one proposed by President Mubarak a long time ago and endorsed by Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Al-Sharaa on his last visit to Cairo.
