WELCOME TO IWPR'S IRAQI CRISIS REPORT, No. 04, March 18, 2003

NOTE: READERS FROM OTHER IWPR PUBLICATIONS MUST SUBSCRIBE DIRECTLY TO
CONTINUE RECEIVING IRAQ REPORTS. PLEASE VISIT
https://www.global-list.com/secure/iwpr/subscribe_pop.asp

THE DIE IS CAST War is set to begin, but no one can predict the
consequences it will unleash. By Julie Flint in London.

IRAQI REGIME PREPARES FOR WAR Baghdad readies for street-by-street
fighting, as Saddam Hussein considers his options. By Ghanem Jawad in
London.

ANALYSIS: A WAR FOR OIL US and UK politicians seek to deny the obvious
strategic importance of oil underlying America's commitment to the Gulf.
By Paul Rogers in Bradford.

LETTER: TIME RUNS OUT People in Iraq are fearful of war, and hopeful for
change. By Ali Sindi in Pirmam, northern Iraq.

****************** VISIT IWPR ON-LINE: www.iwpr.net ***************

NOTE: All readers who wish to continue receiving Iraqi Crisis Report after
issue number 4, please subscribe directly, at
https://www.global-list.com/secure/iwpr/subscribe_pop.asp

*******************************************************************

As an educational charity, IWPR depends on grants and donations. To
support IWPR's educational, training and reporting programmes directly,
you can now give online, at: http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?top_donate.html

*******************************************************************

Readers are urged to subscribe free to IWPR's full range of electronic
publications on Afghanistan, the Balkans, Belarus, the Caucasus, Central
Asia and the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal. To manage your own
subscriptions, visit:
https://www.global-list.com/secure/iwpr/subscribe_pop.asp

****************** VISIT IWPR ON-LINE: www.iwpr.net ***************

THE DIE IS CAST

War is set to begin, but no one can predict the consequences it will
unleash.

By Julie Flint in London

Diplomacy has run its course. By Wednesday night, the United States and
Britain could find themselves at war with a regime they claim retains huge
destructive power. The Arab world, for its part, will find itself on the
brink of an era in which the United States has made no secret of its
intention of re-writing the political map of the Middle East as much in
the interests of Israel as in its own.

In an ultimatum issued on Monday night, US President George Bush gave
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq or be overthrown by
force. Saddam, who had earlier threatened to carry any war far outside
Iraq's own borders, refused.

In 1990, the United States and Britain went to war against Iraq - not,
then, against Saddam Hussein personally - with the backing of the United
Nations and a broad spectrum of coalition partners including a number of
Arabs states. In 2003, barring a handful of Australian troops, they will
be on their own, without the blessing of the UN Security Council, the
European Union or NATO and without a single soldier from the Arab or
Muslim worlds.

Arab analysts are predicting dire consequences for the region - from a
descent into civil war inside Iraq to new disaster for Palestinians at the
hands of America's protégé, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Under cover of a war that has not even begun, Israel has already begun
racheting up its military escalation in the Occupied Territories -
targeting not only the military wing of Hamas, but also its political
leaders. In the last month alone, more than 80 Palestinians have been
killed, mainly in the Gaza Strip, and some 2,000 detained. With 8,000
Palestinian cadres arrested and jailed in the last 12 months, the least
Arabs expect now is the "political transfer" - or deportation - of
Palestinian leaders including President Yasser Arafat; the most, a mass
expulsion like that of 1948.

For the West, one immediate consequence of war is that no American - and
probably no Briton - can be sure of being safe anywhere in the world. That
much has been made clear not only by Saddam Hussein, who has spoken of
worldwide revenge by sea, land and air, but also, and arguably more
significantly, by leading scholars of the Islamic world.

In a statement published in Egyptian newspapers on March 10, Islamic
scholars at Egypt's Al-Azhar University called on Arabs and Muslims all
across the world to be ready to defend themselves and their faith.
"According to Islamic law," they said, "jihad - holy war - becomes a duty
for every male and female Muslim if the enemy steps on Muslim land."

Even before war against Iraq has been joined, commentators in the West and
in Israel are debating which country deserves the next "helping hand"
towards democracy from those who claim to speak in its name: George Bush
and Tony Blair. Some say Iran; others Syria and Lebanon. Almost no-one in
the Arab world believes that Iraq will be the end of it.

The war it supports, and has demanded for the better part of a decade, is
the greatest gamble in a long series of gambles for the US-backed Iraqi
opposition headed by such longtime opponents of Saddam Hussein as Kurdish
leader Massoud Barzani and Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi -
men now widely reviled by Arabs, and by opponents of war, as American
"stooges".

They will not only be blamed for civilian casualties in Iraq. Having
fought for military action to remove Saddam, they have in recent weeks
been fighting to change American plans to run Iraq as a military
protectorate with only the most minimal participation from Iraqis
themselves.

On the eve of war, returning from last minute talks in Washington, a
senior official in the autonomous Kurdish government in northern Iraq told
IWPR the opposition had received reassurances that the US would hand over
power to an "interim national authority" in a gradual manner, starting
within weeks of Saddam's death or departure.

Barham Salih, prime minister in Suleimaniya, said the national authority
would not be composed exclusively of opposition leaders like Barzani and
Chalabi who were nominated to a six-man leadership during a US-monitored
meeting in northern Iraq last month.

"There will be new dynamics," he said. "We will have to recalibrate a lot
of things after liberation."

Julie Flint, a long-time correspondent from the Middle East and a former
IWPR trustee, is coordinating editor of the Iraqi Crisis Report.


IRAQI REGIME PREPARES FOR WAR

Baghdad readies for street-by-street fighting, as Saddam Hussein considers
his options.

By Ghanem Jawad in London

As the Anglo-American net tightens around Iraq, with war seemingly only
hours away, the son of President Saddam Hussein has issued an order
decreeing that anyone smuggling information to opponents of the regime
will face immediate execution.

Sources close to Saddam's inner circle said the order was issued on
Sunday, little more than 24 hours before US President George Bush gave his
Iraqi counterpart 48 hours to leave Iraq - or be removed by force. They
said it was one of a raft of measures designed to strengthen the
protective shield around the regime's inner core as Iraq braces for a
conflict designed to topple Saddam after three generations' despotic rule
and two catastrophic wars.

The sources said the order was signed by Qosay Saddam Hussein, Saddam's
younger son, the commander of the elite Republic Guards and the man with
overall responsibility for Iraq's security forces. It was a clear
indication of concern over the loyalty of some of those around Saddam and
appeared to confirm claims by opposition leaders working closely with the
United States that they have informants in the very heart of the regime.

The sources said Saddam had also placed his half-brother, Barzan Tikriti,
under house arrest. Reports of disputes between Barzan and Saddam have
circulated for years. Since returning to Iraq in 1998, after a decade as
Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Barzan has been
portrayed by some opposition forces as a man positioning himself to
replace Saddam.

Military movements ordered since the drift to war began several months ago
indicate that Saddam intends to fight for his life in the Sunni heartland
of Iraq, from where his regime draws much of its strength and where he has
the vast majority of his command-and-control posts. Republican Guard
divisions have been moved towards the centre, from the Kurdish north and
Shia south, and now form a wall around Baghdad.

Inside the capital, three main militias have been readied for
street-to-street fighting - the Fedayeen of Saddam of Odey Saddam Hussein,
the president's elder son; Qosay's Emergency Forces; and the militia of
the ruling Ba'ath party. Key positions including road junctions and
offices of the intelligence services have been heavily sandbagged.

Saddam himself no longer travels in multi-Mercedes convoys and, once war
has broken out, is expected to hide himself, as he has in the past, among
the people - disguising himself in tribal robes and moving about in
lorries and pick-up trucks.

Although most Arab analysts believe Saddam will portray himself as the
victim of this war for as long as he can, there is growing concern inside
Iraq that he may use the chemical weapons most Western countries believe
he has to halt any ground offensive into southern Iraq across the Kuwaiti
border.

Iraqis contacted by telephone in the southern city of Basra report being
told to leave the area "or face serious consequences" - a reference, they
believe, to chemical weapons. Saddam has warned repeatedly that anyone
trying to remove him from power will inherit "a land without people".

Fears that chemical weapons may be used in a final, cataclysmic show of
Ba'athist power have been strengthened by the appointment of Saddam's
cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, to head the key southern sector under
emergency war plans announced on Saturday. Al-Majid is known to all Iraqis
as "Chemical Ali" for his role in the 1988 campaign against rebellious
Kurds in northern Iraq in which thousands of Kurds died, many in chemical
attacks.

Once war begins, Saddam is expected to appeal to the Arab and Muslim
worlds to declare a jihad - holy war - against America, Britain and any
power supporting them in any way. Such a call would increase the fear of
terrorist attack and be of deep concern to Gulf states who have provided
the US with logistical facilities for war. It could cause turmoil in the
Arab street, threatening the stability of governments perceived to have
stood idly by as one of their own comes under attack. But it would be
unlikely to influence the behaviour of the Iraqi people and Iraqi fighting
forces, who have direct experience of Saddam's atrocities.

Reports from inside Iraq suggest that neither the people nor the military
will put up much of a fight as the prospect of liberation from Saddam
looms. Many senior officers have already signalled their intention not to
oppose the invaders either in the Kurdish north or in the Shia south. If
anywhere, it is in Baghdad itself that the Anglo-American forces will meet
resistance and casualties could be high.

There is also concern that Saddam might try to slow the pace of war by
creating a humanitarian tragedy that he believes will increase popular
opposition to the war in the West and force the war planners to
re-consider. Kurds fear this might take the shape of a chemical attack
against them, Saddam's oldest and most hated opponents.

But reports from Baghdad suggest that this tragedy might take place in the
capital itself - within range of the television lenses of an army of
journalists. A well-informed source in the western suburb of Amariya
reported yesterday that a new command-and-control bunker has been set up
underneath a children's orphanage, setting the stage for a replay of the
1991 disaster when hundreds of civilians died in Amariya when two US
missiles hit a building being used as an air raid shelter. The Allies said
the shelter concealed a command-and-control post - fiercely denied by
Baghdad, which depicts the incident as a humanitarian outrage.

Opinion is divided over what Saddam will do when - if - the war against
him enters its end game. Some believe the great survivor will appeal to
the Arab world for asylum; others that he will escape, in one of his many
disguises, and become a new Osama bin Laden. - on the run and dangerous.
But the clue to his final stand may well lie in a 27-page analysis he
wrote in 1979 after the overthrow of the Shah of Iran.

His conclusion: that the Shah's big mistake was leaving the country. Had
the Shah held his ground, Saddam wrote, his rule would have continued.

Ghanem Jawad is a human rights activist who has worked closely for many
years with UN special rapporteurs for Iraq. He is head of the culture and
human rights department of the Al-Khoei Foundation in London.


ANALYSIS: A WAR FOR OIL

US and UK politicians seek to deny the obvious strategic importance of oil
underlying America's commitment to the Gulf.

By Paul Rogers in Bradford

Attempts to relate the coming war with Iraq to control of oil resources
are routinely dismissed by politicians in the United States and in
Britain. But the longer-term history of the region leaves little doubt of
the crucial importance of oil. The Persian Gulf is where the oil is, and
what has to be done, in US thinking, is to make absolutely sure that the
Gulf is securely controlled for many years to come.

Until 1970, the United States produced just about all the oil it needed
from its own oilfields, but by the early 1970s it was beginning to have to
import substantial quantities from abroad. This was one reason the US was
affected by the October 1973 embargo by the Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC). The subsequent 400 per cent surge in oil
prices greatly increased appreciation of the strategic importance of Gulf
oil.

Concern over the OPEC embargo was exacerbated by concern over Soviet
intentions in the region. There was an assumption that any major East-West
conflict would involve an immediate attempt by the Soviet Union to take
control of much of the Gulf, aided by its regional allies. But the Iran of
the Shah, with its sizeable army, was seen as a counter to the supposed
Soviet threat to Gulf oil supplies and a stabilising partner in relation
to regional threats.

All that changed with the Iranian revolution. With a hostile regime now in
power in Tehran, President Carter established the Rapid Deployment Force,
which gave the US the ability to intervene rapidly in the region and
thereby ensure the security of oil supplies. When Ronald Reagan replaced
Carter in 1981, the Rapid Deployment Force was expanded into Central
Command (CENTCOM) - covering the whole of the Middle East, North East
Africa and South West Asia - and was built up into a force that could call
on 400,000 troops, scores of warships and hundreds of planes.

During the 1980s, major bases for the Saudi Air Force were built, far
larger than the Saudis required. These formed the springboard for the war
to get Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991.

By the late 1990s, the US had gone as far as re-establishing the Fifth
Fleet in the Gulf and had the capability for very high levels of military
action if required.

The obvious question is, "Why go to all this trouble?". The answer is oil.
Today the Gulf states possess two-thirds of all the world's oil. It is of
a high quality and is easy to access - far more so than North Sea or
Alaskan oil. The United States, meanwhile, is rapidly running down its
easily extractable oil reserves and now imports 60 per cent of all its
needs, including some from Iraq.

Those who deny the importance of oil in the current conflict point to the
Caspian Basin and elsewhere. But if adding the Caspian Basin reserves to
those of Siberia, then to US reserves including Alaska, and to the North
Sea and West Shetland reserves, still amounts to less than that of Iraq on
its own.

Put another way, Iraq has about four times the oil reserves of the United
States, with much more thought remaining to be discovered under its
western desert region.

Saddam Hussein's regime has been much weakened by the 1991 war and
subsequent sanctions. But it is still seen to have regional ambitions and
to be endeavouring to develop chemical and biological weapons that could
limit US actions in the region, one that is of crucial geopolitical
importance to the United States. This is unacceptable to the Bush
administration with its oil connections and its belief in the need for
long-term supplies of cheap oil.

Replacing the Iraqi regime with a client regime, and establishing a series
of large US bases in Iraq, is seen as helping to ensure just such a
supply, as well as limiting dependence on Saudi oil, with all the
uncertainties that Saudi Arabia now demonstrates. After the war, the
United States will have a string of bases from Oman to the Turkish border
in northern Iraq. The Fifth Fleet will be patrolling the Gulf itself.
Long-term stability and control will be guaranteed.

This, at least, is the view from Washington. There is no recognition that
such a situation will be an absolute gift to al-Qaeda and other groups,
confirming all they have been telling their supporters about foreign
control. Nor will it do anything but encourage the Iranians to work as
hard and fast as they can to develop some kind of deterrent - quite
possibly a nuclear deterrent - to ward off US action against another part
of the "axis of evil".

In the very short term, a victory in Iraq will be lauded across the United
States. In the longer term, it could be the most dangerous foreign
adventure the United States has ever undertaken.

Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies at Bradford University and
international security correspondent for openDemocracy.net.


LETTER: TIME RUNS OUT

People in Iraq are fearful of war, and hopeful for change.

By Ali Sindi in Pirmam, northern Iraq

I am not a reporter or a writer. But I am writing for those who want to
listen to a story from inside Iraq.

It is now around three a.m. in the town of Pirmam where I live, 400
kilometres north of Baghdad and 40 kilometres north of the closest Iraqi
troops.

The temperature outside is about minus 5 degrees. The cold doesn't matter
if you have proper heating, but what if you only have electricity for
eight hours a day? And what if the fuel smuggled in from the Iraqi side is
mixed with water? And what if you can only use one of the five heaters you
have because you donšt have enough of even this watered-down fuel?

Last night, my wife and I decided to take our three daughters and the
orphan boy who is living with us to bed as early as possible to keep them
warm. But in the middle of the night I decided to write to someone - and
you are my victims.

Yesterday, driving back from my office in Erbil, I saw more than four
wedding parties. We Kurds like to marry in spring. We believe that the
beginning matters and so it is better to choose the season near the
beginning of the Kurdish year. You can see the dancing and hear the music
all across the countryside. I was surprised. I asked myself: How can these
people still be in the mood for music and dressing up and dancing? Are
they crazy?

I called the office which registers marriages and asked for figures for
marriages this year. The woman in the office said the number is increasing
every day, and is far higher than in previous years. I asked her why.
"People think they are running out of time," she said.

On the CNN web site it says: "Evacuation in Jordan . . . Deployment in
Saudi Arabia . . . Preparedness in Kuwait". The chance of war breaking out
in the next few days is very high. The big concern among Kurds is that
Turkish troops may move into Iraqi Kurdistan. Although the Iraqi threat is
still there, and no one knows what Saddam might do during his last
minutes, there is a feeling that whatever he does will affect a limited
group of people for a limited period of time. The Turkish intervention
will affect more people for a longer time.

In recent days, many Kurdish forces have moved toward the Turkish border,
reacting to Turkey's decision to send thousands of troops, artillery
pieces and vehicles to the main entrance to Iraqi Kurdistan. Iraqi Kurds
now believe that Turkey might intervene unilaterally, without coordinating
with the United States. If they do, Kurds will fight.

Kurds are also asking why the United States hasn't provided us with gas
masks and protection against chemical attack. They say Saddam still has
weapons of mass destruction and in the event of war we are going to be
their allies. Are they doing nothing because they know we won't be
attacked? Are there any secret measures to protect us?

When the sun rises, we talk about war, about our own concerns as Kurds and
as Iraqis, and about the concerns of the Turks, the French and Germans,
the Americans and finally of the millions who have demonstrated against
war. It is so complicated. Who is right and who is wrong?

The Turks want to occupy northern Iraq and take its oil because it was
part of the Ottoman empire nearly 100 years ago. They will try to prevent
Iraqi Kurds having their rights after a regime change because they donšt
want to recognise the rights of the Kurds in Turkey. France and Germany
want to prevent a unipolar world. The United States wants revenge against
al-Qaeda and whoever might look like a supporter of al-Qaeda. It's also
looking for oil, just like everyone else.

As for the millions of anti-war demonstrators we have seen in recent
weeks, they didn't stand against Saddam Hussein. They weren't in the
streets in 1988 when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds in
Iraq. I don't want to be the victim of their slogans. I do want this
miserable life under this regime to stop.

I hope there will be a change of regime in Iraq with a minimum of lives
lost. I hope Turkey won't move its troops to Iraqi Kurdistan, even under
U.S. leadership. I hope the elites of the world will demonstrate and ask
Saddam to leave Iraq in order to spare us war. I hope you will forgive me
for taking this space to say what I wanted to say.

Ali Sindi, a graduate of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, is a
Kurdish surgeon and former deputy minister of health in the Kurdish
government.

****************** VISIT IWPR ON-LINE: www.iwpr.net ****************

The reports are also being published on the Web in English, Arabic and
Kurdish.

This project is supported by the Polden Puckham Charitable Foundation and
International Media Support. IWPR also thanks the following for
institutional or development support which has assisted in the launch of
this project: the Dutch Foreign Ministry, the Ford Foundation, the
Ploughshares Foundation.

For further details on this project, other publications and IWPR
educational and media development programmes, visit: www.iwpr.net

Iraqi Project Coordinating Editor: Julie Flint

IWPR Project Development and Support -- Executive Director: Anthony
Borden; Director of Operations: Alan Davis; Managing Editor: Yigal Chazan;
Senior Operations Manager: Duncan Furey; Associate Editor: Alison
Freebairn

The Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR) is a London-based
independent non-profit organisation supporting regional media and
democratic change.

Lancaster House, 33 Islington High Street, London N1 9LH, United Kingdom.
Tel: +44 (0)20 7713 7130, Fax: +44 (0)20 7713 7140 E-mail: info@iwpr.net
Web: www.iwpr.net

The opinions expressed in Iraqi Crisis Report are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent those of the publication or of IWPR.

Copyright (c) 2003 The Institute for War & Peace Reporting

IRAQI CRISIS REPORT No. 04