By Khaled Dawoud A majority of Iraqis believe the US and Britain will strike again, if not immediately, then after Eid Al-Fitr, which marks the end of the holy fasting month of Ramadan. However, their common reaction is, "So what? We've been through this before. It couldn't get any worse." "Personally I don't care," says Yassin Jassem, a 40-year-old Iraqi driver. "But what angers me most is the effect of the missiles on my children. They get terrified and they can't sleep." During last month's four-day US and British air strikes on Iraq, Jassem claimed he had to give his children small doses of valium to help them sleep before the missiles started falling. "What scared them most is the sound of the missiles when they hit the ground," Jassem said. "Our doors shook and the windows opened simultaneously when a missile struck the house just behind us." For outsiders, however, Baghdad does not look like a city preparing for war. Except for increasing security around government buildings and vital installations, life seems to be going on normally. Most Iraqis interviewed by the Weekly say they are more concerned about providing food for their families than worrying about US missiles. "We have been living in a state of war since the fighting broke out with Iran in 1980," said Harith Hamdoun, a university student. "Then came the Gulf War. We are now used to missiles, bombs and anti-aircraft artillery." In contrast to Jassem who wanted his children to go to bed early, Mazen Milad, who works at the government-run information office, said he used to take his children onto the roof of their house every night to watch the missile strikes during the recent US and British attacks. Many Iraqis, at least in private, say they are not happy and cannot understand why President Saddam Hussein has kept them in a state of war for nearly two decades. But they are also not willing to support the opposition. "Who are these members of the opposition?" asked Jassem. "We don't know them and have never heard of them before. They sit in London enjoying their lives while we are the ones living here and suffering the most," he added. On the other hand, Saddam seems to be preparing himself for the worst, simply because, as most observers note, he knows that he is the number one target in any coming US strikes. Baghdad is again on a collision course with the US, and speculation on a renewed attack comes amid increasing tension in the region following hard-line Iraqi statements criticising Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and repeated confrontations between Iraq and the United States in the no-fly zones in the north and the south. Since the US and British strike ended on 19 December at least seven confrontations, according to the official Iraqi count, took place with American and British aircraft monitoring the no-fly zones. Iraq insists that the no-fly zones were imposed by the United States and not by the United Nations. As a result, they see attacks against US and British aircraft in these two areas as legitimate. Iraqi parliament members, who ended a two-day emergency session on Sunday, also asked their government to reconsider its acceptance of all United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted after the 1991 Gulf War, including the resolution which demarcates Iraq's border with Kuwait. The request was enough to cause panic in neighbouring Kuwait which declared a state of emergency. "We will do everything to end the embargo against our country," said one Iraqi parliament member. "We have been patient for eight years but to no avail. We either get rewarded for our compliance or there is no reason to continue with this humiliation that we have been going through all these years," he added. Iraq's Foreign Minister Mohamed Said Al-Sahaf reiterated in a news conference on Sunday the same sentiments shared by the 250 parliament members. Iraq, he says, is complying with all its commitments according to UN resolutions while Kuwait is taking part in the "aggression" against Iraq. So why, the thinking goes, should Baghdad remain committed to its obligations? Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz also rejected a reported Saudi proposal to partially lift the eight-year-old embargo against Iraq. Saudi Arabia said it wants to lift the trade sanctions in order to allow Baghdad to buy more food and medicine, while maintaining military sanctions preventing Iraq from rebuilding its weapons arsenal. Riyadh said the proposal was made in sympathy with the Iraqi people and not the Iraqi regime, a line of thought which Baghdad vehemently rejects and considers insulting. Aziz claimed that the proposal was aimed at covering up Saudi Arabia's participation in December's attack and insisted that Baghdad will not be satisfied with anything less than a total lifting of the sanctions. Government-controlled newspapers also said the Saudi proposal was aimed at finding a new system that would maintain the sanctions indefinitely. With reference to the coming Arab League foreign ministers meeting on 24 January, Aziz said, "Any Arab meeting which does not decide to totally lift the embargo against Iraq and condemn [the latest US and British] aggression will not be a genuine Arab meeting which expresses the will of the Arab nation." Iraq has yet to announce whether it will take part in the meeting. As for Egypt, Babel and Al-Musawer newspapers, controlled by Saddam's son Uday, continued what even many Iraqis see as a slur campaign against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Still, in response to a question by the Weekly, Sahaf said, "It is better to keep the dialogue and the exchange of views, no matter how different they are, on a reasonable level, without any personal attacks. I hope that all concerned parties will adhere to a certain level of mutual respect and objective exchange of views." But it appears Uday does not share the same view.
