On the USA Attack on Iraq
Interview with Koorosh Modaresi on the USA New Global Strategy
Question: The Worker-communist Party of Iran has stated that
the USA war against Iraq must be stopped and that any USA military attack
on Iraq is condemned. How would you explain the difference between the
USA attack on Iraq and its attack on the Taliban; how do you explain
the different positions of the WPI vis- à-vis the two USA attacks?
Koorosh Modaresi: It is not a question of war; it is obviously a
question of a USA attack on Iraq. The attack that the USA is preparing
for is different from the USA-Taliban war. The USA attack on Iraq
is the continuation, or better stated, expansion of the policy the
USA was pursuing during the Gulf War, i.e. the imposition of a New
World Order, which will guarantee complete USA domination. The Afghanistan
war was a war by the USA and a coalition of many countries across
the world to overthrow the Taliban, one of the centres of political
Islam in the region. In that war, the downfall of the Taliban and
political Islam was both beneficial for the people of Afghanistan
and positive for the people of the region and the world. In that framework,
whoever was to replace the Taliban would reduce the suffering of the
people of Afghanistan and weaken political Islam in the region. The
war that the USA is preparing for today, however, is a completely
different issue. The downfall of Saddam Hussein and possibly the Ba'ath
regime will not be the only result of this attack. Before anything
else, this war will secure USA domination, a seriously harmful phenomenon
for the people of Iraq, region and world, and will negatively impact
on people's progressive movement throughout the world.
This war must be looked at from two angles that are certainly related
to each other. One is the issue at hand itself that the USA poses
and the other is the more general strategy that its bourgeoisie's
extreme right is putting forth as a framework for US foreign policy
in today's world.
The USA has presented the issue as one of overthrowing a dictatorial,
fascist and criminal regime. This is not the issue at hand, however;
it is the hue and cry that the USA has raised in order to cover up
the real issue. We have previously spoken extensively on this, i.e.
bringing up the characteristics of the Ba'ath regime, which was incidentally
supported by the USA during most of its tenure, in connection to the
Gulf war and economic sanctions on Iraq. Readers can refer to Mansoor
Hekmat's articles about the Gulf War and my interview in the 'Porsesh'
journal.
In brief, I must say that the issue of Afghanistan had a real and
actual foundation, which separates it from other parts of the world
- political Islam's domination and the expansion of its terrorist
base. On Iraq, however, the issue raised is arbitrary and as such
cannot reflect reality, i.e. the issue that the USA is raising in
this war is not particular to the Iraqi government; the majority of
USA friendly states are such. By separating Iraq, we give the judging
of who is criminal and despotic to the USA. Let me give some examples:
They argue that the Iraqi regime is despotic. But are the regimes
of Saudi Arabia and other US allies less despotic than the Iraqi regime?
By accepting this, we are consenting that the USA determines the despotic
nature of regimes. They argue that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
But doesn't the USA, UK, Pakistan, India, Israel, France, China, etc.
have the same weapons? If we accept this, then we accept that owning
weapons of mass destruction is a crime only if the USA thinks it is.
They contend that Iraq has used these weapons. But isn't the USA the
only state that actually used nuclear weapons in the world? Were not
the defenceless people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims of this?
What about the people of Vietnam? Did the USA have any doubts on using
chemical and biological weapons against the people of Vietnam? Wasn't
the USA and West supporting Iraq exactly when it used chemical weapons,
including against us? Didn't they ignore and silence the protests
and objections raised by us and the people of Iran and Iraq who were
victims of Saddam? Was it not the USA that used depleted uranium in
the very same Gulf War? Haven't hundreds of thousands of children,
young and old become victims of this, according to the UN; has not
the USA used the most horrific weapon of mass destruction, i.e. economic
sanctions, for more than ten years against the people of Iraq? The
truth is that the issue at hand is not having or using weapons of
mass destruction; if we accept this from the USA, then we have officially
accepted that the use of weapons of mass destruction is a prerogative
of a small number of countries and their permission to use it is given
by the USA and its friends.
There is only one fact in light of the hue and cry that the USA has
raised. The USA can overthrow anyone that it determines to be contrary
to its interest. Today the 'change of regime' is aimed at the fascist
regime of Iraq. With this same reasoning, if this is established,
then tomorrow, the USA can remove any regime or system it considers
contrary to its interest under the slogan of 'regime change'. A 'regime
change' in Iraq is most certainly the demand of any decent human being
but in reality this is not the issue at hand for the USA. Raising
this is merely a propaganda war to secure a special role for the USA.
The second angle that must be considered, and which I believe is
the main pillar of explaining USA policy, is the debate about the
new USA strategy in the contemporary world, i.e. the New World Order.
We are witnessing a fundamental change in the philosophy of the USA's
international policy. Up until now, even at the height of Reaganism,
the official USA international policy was that the USA must be so
powerful militarily so as to deter the enemy, particularly the Eastern
Bloc, from militarily attacking the US and use this to defend its
political, economic and military domain. This policy was called the
'Deterrence Policy'. Today, however, we are witnessing the pronouncement
of a new policy by the extreme right of the US bourgeoisie called
the Pre- emptive Strike Policy. The White House has recently announced
this as the basis of USA foreign policy. According to this policy,
the USA must not allow the shaping of any competitor, be it economic,
political or military, that can ignore or threaten USA interests;
the USA must be able to suppress the shaping of such a power by use
of military force. Adopting this policy does not require United Nation
or any other state's backing, but rather requires that the USA act
unilaterally by relying on its own power and independently of others.
This is the basis of the USA policy towards Iraq. Upon establishing
this policy, from tomorrow, people anywhere who demand certain freedoms
that threaten USA interests will face the military might of this state.
By adopting this policy, the USA is turning the world into its own
backyard. It is doing what it has done over the past century in Latin
America - coup d'etats, military interventions, and maintaining states
that guarantee USA interests. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel are
contemporary examples in the Middle East.
We must also, however, take into account the human dimensions of
this adventurism in USA policy. Economically speaking, Iraq is a much
more complicated country than Afghanistan. Attacking Iraq will again
mean the destruction of its economic foundations, from its electricity
grids and water networks to bridges, roads, etc., examples of which
we saw in the Gulf War. One pillar of the USA war against Iraq will
be the destruction of its infrastructure and economic basis. Also,
the USA has shown that it is willing to kill thousands of innocent
people to prevent even one casualty on its side. Furthermore, this
time, the Iraqi regime will be dragged into a war of life and death.
Does anyone have any doubts about the brutality of the Iraqi regime?
Can anyone guarantee that Iraq will not use chemical or biological
weapons? If it does, what will happen? In the last war, Iraq was officially
warned that if it uses chemical weapons, nuclear bombs would be used
against Baghdad. In this case, the regime is facing its overthrow
and no retreat has been left for it, therefore, the possibility of
its using chemical weapons is more probable and real; what would they
do then? Would they not bomb Baghdad with a nuclear bomb? Do they
have any moral dilemma with this? Did they not do it in Hiroshima,
Nagasaki and Vietnam? By attacking Iraq, the USA will begin a war
of lunatics! The people of Iraq will be the first victims of this
war. The USA-made government, which is to replace the Iraqi regime,
is an interesting one - a collection of tribal leaders and generals
who should be in tried next to Ba'ath leaders, Islamists who have
been one pillar of political Islam in the region, and so on. The war
hasn't even started and Jalal Talebani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan
and Masud Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party are talking and planning
the ethnic cleansing of Karkuk.
The result of the arbitrary separation of Iraq from other reactionary
states and alongside the brutal incursions of the Israeli state will
be the expansion of political Islam in the region. Islamists will
once again have an audience for their bleak propaganda. This policy
will give them legitimacy. It will encourage fascism vis-à-vis fascism.
The 'Pre-emptive Policy' will be used against regimes unacceptable
to the USA and not against despotic regimes. In its opposition, this
policy will promote various kinds of corrupt and foul ideologies such
as political Islam and nationalism. In a single sentence, the outcome
of the USA attack against Iraq will be nothing but deprivation and
corruption. Do not forget that the formation and development of Al-Qaeda
was the result of the first Gulf War, which defined itself in reaction
to it. This time however more foul groups will come to the fore.
The above is the translation of an interview first published in International
Weekly number 125 dated 27 September 2002. It was first published
in English in WPI Briefing number 75, dated 2 October 2002.