Saddam Hussein’s regime has seen its last day in power.
The new challenge is restoring order and providing a framework for
transition towards a new Iraqi administration. But what next?
In order to assess what the future holds, we must examine how
things have changed. On March 19, U.S. foreign policy moved toward
a more proactive stance in preventing looming catastrophe. Also,
the cases of Kosovo and Iraq have proved that any attempt to impose
binding international law on the use of force will invariably
fail.
However, it is not yet the time to take a bulldozer to the
United Nations building. If the new Iraq is to be internationally
recognized, satisfy native expectations, and succeed as a model for
what lies ahead elsewhere; the United Nations’ participation
is critical over the long haul. The United Nations’ greatest
accomplishments have transpired in situations of dire civilian
need. Why not utilize this strength while allowing the military to
operate elsewhere?
The Bush Administration has pressed the Syrian government; this
perhaps preludes what awaits. Indeed, Syria has a record of
abetting Iraq’s former regime. Syria has welcomed
Hussein’s cronies and is likely storing chemical weapons. The
only questions for the United States involve timing and the method
of challenging this accomplice.
Undoubtedly, converting the momentum of victory that coalition
forces currently possess is a tricky undertaking that requires
careful consideration. But let us consider the realities and
dangers that U.S. forces may face in Syria. Damascus has
historically harbored terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah
and Hamas, with entrenched fighters willing to commit suicide
bombings against U.S. forces. These attacks would hamper progress
in overthrowing Syria’s current regime.
If the going gets tough in Syria, goals for changing Iran would
have to be shelved until another opportunity materializes. But
preventing the nuclear ambitions of an Iranian regime (the Bushehr
nuclear reactor is close to completion while uranium mining
continues in central Iran) is considerably more pressing than the
escape of the irrelevant Iraqi regime. The Iranian regime claims
this nuclear plant is intended solely for peaceful purposes. Why
would a country with immense oil reserves require yet another
source of energy?
Clearly, Iran presents a much stronger case than Syria. Gaining
international support will be much easier against the troublesome
Iranian regime than against those hiding out in Syria. Indeed, the
United States must remain consistent in its freshest foreign policy
initiative: removing dictatorships, while preventing the spread of
weapons of mass destruction.
Moreover, the young and vibrant Iranian population, of which
more than two-thirds are under age 30, would benefit from the
freedom the Iraqis now enjoy. The exuberance of the Iranian
opposition, as evidenced in the recent Wilshire Boulevard protest,
will make for a scene of appreciation akin to that recently
witnessed on the streets of Baghdad if effectively supported by
coalition forces against the authoritarian ayatollahs.
In addition to Iran’s possession of weapons of mass
destruction, discussion of this menace as preventing a lasting
peace between Israel and the Palestinians is important. Throughout
the Islamic world, the most touchy issue concerns the
Palestinians’ suffering. Iran, a known financial and tactical
supporter of international terrorism, is to blame for the
Palestinians’ pain. By supplying funds, weapons and
personnel; countries like Iran forestall a comprehensive, peaceful
solution to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian crisis. In order to
achieve a lasting solution between Israel and the Palestinians,
exterior forces must be prevented from interjecting their parochial
will.
Saudi Arabia must also be confronted and neutralized.
America’s relationship with Saudi Arabia makes any
confrontation tricky. This is due to the United States’
relative dependency on Saudi oil, as well as the power that Saudi
princes wield in OPEC to temper the rise of international oil
prices. However, once the United States cultivates Iraqi and
Iranian oil fields for consumption, becomes less dependent on the
Saudis’ chief commodity, and allows time for a blossoming
Iraqi prototype, the time for reckoning will arise against this
dictatorial regime.
Therefore, Iran must be next in the campaign to resolve the
ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and transform the Islamic
world. Thereafter will arise the final frontier: the House of Faud.
Once the regimes of Iran and Saudi Arabia tumble, thus empowering
the Saudi and Iranian people, the Syrian regime will become
isolated and the target of a brave domestic populace.
As for Kim Jong-Il, the nuisance of North Korea, the victory in
Baghdad and swift tumble of the Hussein regime ought to send him a
resounding message not to toy with U.S. power. Heavy pressure by
Washington and Beijing will precipitate a nuclear-free
Pyongyang.
Rescuing the Islamic world from political dysfunction and
disabling worldwide proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
(thereby crippling international terrorism) are key parts of an
ambitious but attainable goal of combating international threats.
The Iraqi campaign began this dramatic transformation.
The time has come to welcome the rich culture of the Islamic
world to the predominant trend of globalization and democracy. Of
course, this challenge is more a process than an event. Certain
cases of cultivation, which will include the introduction of a
representative and responsive government, will be rather arduous.
However, the ultimate result is considerably worth the trouble. A
day when constructive cooperation replaces conflict and
destruction, is a future that the world’s superpower is
slowly but surely building toward.
Nabati graduated in 2002 with a degree in international
relations.