By Salama A Salama Oil remains the principal element in the Middle East political game. It lies behind the American president's maniacal eagerness to bomb Iraq and eliminate the regime of Saddam Hussein. The claims of the American media, endlessly reiterated -- concerning Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction that pose threats to US interests, the need to replace the present dictatorship with a truly democratic order -- are no more than colourful confetti, thrown with the intention of diverting attention away from Washington's real objective, which is no more, and no less, than to secure access to Iraqi oil, and to ensure that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries no longer produce organisations like Bin Laden's Al-Qa'eda. Such motives were made crystal clear in a report produced by the American defence apparatus, sections of which managed to leak out and generate debate. The report addressed American- Saudi relations, and in language that was perhaps a little too frank. The Pentagon's strategists outlined the practical bases on which to justify the proposed US attack on Iraq. And the central issues turn out to be not so much Washington's distaste for the current Iraqi regime, and certainly not for the reasons cited in the American media, but the desire to replace Saddam with a regime amenable to Washington's every whim, along the lines of the government installed in Afghanistan. This would secure the flow of Iraqi oil to the West as well as lessen Washington's dependence on Saudi Arabia for its oil supplies, enabling the US greater manoeuverability in confronting those elements it sees as giving rise to religious extremism in the Arab peninsula. The new right, represented by the Bush administration, believes that the route to the Middle East inevitably passes through Baghdad. And once the regime there is replaced, in the manner Japanese and German regimes were replaced following World War II, Washington believes its troubles in the Middle East will have come to an end. And at the given time, one can be certain, dissident voices such as those heard in France, Germany and Russia, will fall silent. The sanction of the international community -- represented by, among other bodies, the UN Security Council -- will miraculously become available. Washington's efforts to justify its attack on Iraq now follow a methodical pattern. The priority is to unite, in collaboration with Britain, Iraqi opposition forces, a rainbow of ideological and political tendencies that encompasses Shi'ites, Kurds, Sunnis and simple opportunists. The basis for Washington's plans is, quite naturally, the American experience in Afghanistan, where Northern Alliance actions, American air raids and intelligence operations were closely coordinated. Bases for military operations against Iraq are already being prepared, in Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, in the Persian Gulf and the Diego Garcia Base. America will take no notice of Arab opposition to the attack, beyond, perhaps, promoting some temporary compromise between Israel and the Palestinians in the next few weeks. No doubt Washington assumes that Arab countries will all, in the end, adopt the position of Qatar, publicly opposing the proposed attack on Iraq while actually facilitating it. The only weak link in the American plan is the splintered Iraqi opposition, with its numerous, opportunistic factions. Their recent meetings in Washington were, therefore, only a preliminary step, and it is telling that Dick Cheney approved only a video conference with them. They will have to pass a lot more examinations before they move to the other side of the camera. These, then, are America's plans. What are the Arabs'?
