The Arab world must be a far more forgiving place than we have been led to believe. How else can we explain the current unity of purpose shared by the Arab world in defense of Iraq -- when only a decade ago competing factions fought each other in the Gulf War?
In a bold strategic gamble, Yasser Arafat allied himself with Saddam Hussein when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Unfortunately for Mr. Arafat and his dreams of pan-Arab unity, the rest of the Arab world joined the United States-led coalition to force the Iraqis from Kuwait. Indeed, Muslim soldiers from nations like Egypt and Jordan were the first to re-enter Kuwait upon its liberation, not Americans. In a war among Muslim states, Mr. Arafat chose the loser. Arafat and Hussein even hugged and kissed one another on television, cementing their alliance. In retaliation for support of the enemy, Kuwait expelled a quarter million Palestinians following the war. It was flagrant and wrong, yet Egypt, Jordan and other Arab nations lodged nary a complaint. Relations between the Palestinians and the Arab world don't seem to have improved much since the ethnic cleansing. Only two years ago, the Arab League promised a gift of $1 billion to help rebuild the Palestinian economy but delivered a paltry $30 million, withholding the balance because of "corruption concerns." Corruption is endemic in the nations that pledged the money, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Never say that the Arab world lacks a sense of ironic humor.
Over the past decade, pan-Arab unity has been non-existent. Yet recently, relations among the Palestinians, Iraqis and the rest of the Arab world have been turned upside-down. Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah greeted Iraq's Presidential Envoy Izzat Ibrahim warmly at the recent Arab League conference. When Vice President Cheney recently toured the Middle East, the leaders of Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia told him that military action against Iraq was objectionable. Because it will likely affect our ability to defend ourselves, the infant harmony among Islamic states in the Middle East is a cause for concern for the United States.
It is not intuitively obvious why the Saudis and most of the Arab world are so closely allied with the Palestinians and Iraqis, a duo that a decade ago fought against them. Is it because there has been a substantial change in U.S. policy towards Israel? Or have the Palestinians apologized to states like Saudi Arabia for siding with the enemy in the Gulf War? Neither of these explanations is correct.
A proverb sums up the situation well: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." In the Gulf War, there was a good chance Mr. Hussein wouldn't stop with Kuwait and would take over the unprotected Saudi oilfields. With the wealth generated from the theft of oil, Mr. Hussein could have bullied neighbors and become the dominant power in the Middle East. Consequently, Iraq's neighbors, with a bit of American prodding, banded together with the alliance to defend Kuwait and themselves.
Contrast the situation of 10 years ago with that of today. Mr. Hussein is weak. He couldn't occupy his neighbors today if he tried. He knows it and they know it. As a result, the biggest threat to many Middle East governments is pressure from their own people for freedom. If one dictator is removed and a new democratic nation with basic freedoms is established in Iraq, that would further delegitimize the ruling families and tyrants in nearby nations. Currently, there are only two democracies in the region: Israel and Turkey. Turkey is already a threat to other Arab states because of the successful secular model it sets, but this threat is mitigated somewhat by its geographic and cultural distance from much of the Middle East. A free democratic Iraq would be far more threatening because it could become a beacon of success in the heart of the Islamic world.
Why does this history of pan-Arab politicking matter? The U.S. is looking for a "regime change" in Iraq. In State Department parlance, that means Mr. Hussein will leave office. Mr. Hussein is a dictator, and a rather ruthless one at that, so it is unlikely this change could be achieved without military action or his death.
"But wait!" the Arab world tells us. We are told it would be imprudent to act against Iraq until the Israeli-Palestinian issues are settled. This argument is unclear. Since the Saudis fought alongside the United States in attacking Iraq a decade ago, it seems odd that they would object now. The Israeli-Palestinian "question" was not resolved in 1991, nor is it near resolution now.
The real reason nations like Saudi Arabia and Jordan are trying to link the two conflicts is because their real arguments against attacking Iraq are too weak to withstand scrutiny. Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction. He has previously used nerve gas against his own people; does anyone doubt that he would use weapons of mass destruction against an enemy like America? It is abundantly clear that Mr. Hussein threatens our security. It is also clear that a democracy in Iraq would threaten the security of many of the ruling families of other Arab nations. Therefore, by linking the Iraq problem to a more intractable one, the despots and dictators will attempt to stave off change throughout the region. America must remain resolute in protecting her security. That means we must ignore the pleas for inaction from the kings, emirs, sheiks and dictators who would be threatened by our action.
I don't wish to demean the seriousness of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict nor gloss over the legitimate grievances of each side. But whereas the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is longstanding and seemingly intractable, the problem of Iraq is not. The threats to U.S. national security posed by Iraq have a much clearer solution: an end to Mr. Hussein's despotic reign. We should not allow the Arab world to muddy the waters by introducing the divisive Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the debate on this comparatively simple issue.
