Invasion of Iraq requisite for peace in Middle East

Nabati is a third-year political science student.

By Benjamin Nabati

It is common knowledge that President Bush is intent on invading
Iraq at some time in his term. The only questions for him appear to
be when and how. On his current trip to Europe and Russia, Bush has
faced questions regarding his motives and the consequences of this
endeavor.

Conventional wisdom has led us to believe that the road to
Baghdad goes through Jerusalem. This means that international
approval for an invasion of Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s removal
will materialize only when a final-status truce between Israel and
Palestine has been signed and future animosity is abated. Thus,
Hussein, whose actions have hindered a final-status treaty between
Israel and Palestine, must be removed.

The path to peace in Jerusalem goes through Baghdad. It is
foolhardy to insist that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be
permanently patched up right now, particularly with an invasion of
Iraq on the horizon. Palestinians will intensify attacks on Israel,
which would be preoccupied by probable missile attacks (as occurred
during the Gulf War) by Hussein. Terror and missile attacks
occurring in tandem could spell doom for Israel ““ which is
why Hussein must be removed immediately, especially before any talk
begins of a final-status solution to the crisis in the Holy
Land.

An invasion of Iraq will require support of local Muslim states;
else the prospect that the neighbors of a besieged Iraq will come
to its rescue against the United States utilizing oil-export cuts
or violent resistance.

The United States needs to ponder its entire approach to
garnering Arab support for an invasion of Iraq. Vice President
Cheney’s diplomatic mission earlier this year failed
ultimately because the United States neglected to place plans to
invade Iraq under the umbrella of the War on Terrorism. The
possibility of a U.S. invasion of Iraq as it has been framed to
date has been perceived more as a window of opportunity for
settling old scores than part of a concerted effort against
terrorism, for which the United States gained much sympathy after
the Sept. 11 attacks. The United States must redirect its efforts
to revealing to critical Middle Eastern states, which have so far
opposed such a military campaign, Hussein’s essential role in
the continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As long as suicide bombers know that their families will be
lifted from poverty with a $25,000 check, which is more than the
average annual income of a Palestinian family for six years, they
will continue to become “martyrs” (read murderer) in
the movement to “drive Israel into the sea.”

The United States must promise beforehand that it, along with
the United Nations, would assist in creating a less desperate
economic atmosphere among Palestinians while also pointing out that
exterior influences, such as that of Hussein, have been the main
contributor to the continuing terrorism. However, Saudi Arabia, a
key U.S. ally, has also been found to be among those funneling
money to these families ($5,300 per family, plus $2,000 from the
Palestinian Authority and $500 from the United Arab Emirates and
Qatar). The United States will have to confront its long-time ally
and demonstrate a strong stance against all others willing to
surreptitiously dissolve a lasting peace.

So it would go for convincing Arab states concerned about the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and hopefully the reader, of the need
to launch an attack against the Iraqi regime. But, for others, this
is not enough. Some require a direct threat to the United States
before rallying behind an attack against Iraq.

Granted, there is no proof that Hussein has attained nuclear
weapons. For some, this is reason to just leave him be. However, in
addition to having used chemical weapons against his own people,
Hussein has always pursued nuclear weapons. The world has been
delayed in thanking Israel for destroying a nuclear plant close to
Baghdad in 1981. Hussein has repeatedly bucked U.N. Security
Council demands for transparency measures and inspections. What has
he got to hide?

The moment he achieves nuclear capability, (and it does not
matter whether he attains 10 warheads or 1,000 ““ each spells
a doomsday scenario) a very unstable situation will arise. He could
use them against Israel or other U.S. allies, or, as Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld recently testified, give them to al-Qaeda
insurgents to use on U.S. soil.

Force becomes obsolete against nuclear-armed states. The United
States would face a severe challenge to its hegemony. All options
that would constitute removing Hussein would have to be dismissed
and instead, the United States would have to negotiate with the
same man that models himself after Stalin (even up to his mustache)
and who last month attempted to get other Arab states to
discontinue oil production to the West in protest of the
Israeli-Palestinian situation and whose army invaded and occupied
Kuwait in 1991.

Since then, Hussein has repeatedly challenged the United Nations
and the United States, at times leading to military confrontation
and bombing raids (in addition to causing suffering of the Iraqi
people). He has perpetuated a conflict that rattles the entire
region, which witnessed recent bombings in Tel Aviv, and for which
there is no bright forecast at this juncture. Only when devious
external influences are curtailed, and when the tradition of
incremental steps in the Mideast conflict is replaced by a
comprehensive, international conference to address all problems and
contingencies, will there be lasting coexistence and stability in
the Middle East.