Posted on: Sunday, May 4, 2003
COMMENTARY
Rationale for war fails to fly in Gulf
By Fereidun Fesharaki
I have just returned from the Persian Gulf and have come away witnessing much emotion about the war in the region.
Though there are no uniform views, virtually no one understands or accepts the United States' reasons for war with Iraq.
In general, people in the region have a hard time accepting the weapons of mass destruction argument used by the United States. The idea of an al-Qaida link between Iraq and terrorists also doesn't fly.
Most often cited are two reasons for the war: oil and Israel. The idea that the United States is in Iraq to bring democracy is seen as something of a joke. How can an occupying power be democratic, they ask.
Moreover, Iraq is made up of three groups: Shiite majority, Sunnis and Kurds who simply cannot live together. Giving them democracy equates to a civil war. Giving them democracy would embolden them to ask the United States to leave right away.
A possible U.S. attack on Syria is further evidence to people in the Persian Gulf that U.S. policy is mostly devised to assist Israel's domination of the Middle East.
As long as the United States continues its open and unconditional policy of support for Israel, no one in the Muslim world will accept that the United States has noble intentions for democracy and freedom in the region.
While no one in the Gulf sheds a tear for Saddam Hussein, there is popular opposition to the war in the Arab countries in the region — United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, as well as the three countries with large U.S. military presence: Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait. Even the Kuwaitis who dearly wanted to see the end of the Saddam regime are uncomfortable with the U.S. reason for war.
In the Persian Gulf, wherever any government has friendly relations with the United States, the people are opposed to the U.S. policy and negative toward their own government. In contrast, when a government opposes the U.S. policy vehemently, the people often are in support of the United States.
In non-Arab Iran, deemed by many people in the United States to be a major foe, a recent public survey showed that more than 75 percent of the people supported diplomatic relations with the United States. Despite the government reluctance, the most popular question in Iran is, "When will the Americans come to liberate us?"
Indeed, Iran is today perhaps the most pro-American country in the region, if not the world. This raises interesting policy questions for the United States. Should the United States just surround Iran with pro-U.S. governments and pressure the Iranian regime, hoping for a collapse? Should the United States use its leverage to negotiate a deal with the current Iranian government? Or should the United States contemplate military action to bring down the regime in Iran?
Some people theorize the fall of Saddam Hussein will bring American-style prosperity and democracy to the region, but this outcome is in no way guaranteed.
It took 20 years for the theocratic regime in Iran to lose its credibility with the people. The rise of religious fervor in Iraq today would certainly bring the United States into conflict with Iraqi religion leaders freed from years of suppression by the secular government of Saddam Hussein.
There is no easy way out of the current confusion.
The outcome may be different from that expected by the Bush administration. The only silver lining may be that Iran, the largest country in the region, will be once again in the United States' corner.
Fereidun Fesharaki, senior fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu since 1979, was born in Iran and served as energy adviser to the prime minister of Iran. He is a specialist in energy policy and planning and the global energy outlook.
