• Home
• Video
• Books by Ikram Sehgal
• About

Persian Gulf options

The dark clouds conjured up by Saddam Hussain have some silver linings, a surprised Iran being the recipient of the first windfall in the form of a unilateral Iraqi (1) acceptance of 1975 Algiers Accord (2) withdrawal from all captured Iranian territories and (3) release of all prisoners of war. Devastated by wanton chemical attacks, the Iranians had reluctantly accepted a ceasefire nine years into a war treacherously launched by Iraq to seize the oil-rich Iranian Khuzestan Province, the Iraqis having miscalculated the advantages that the convulsions in Iran gave them after the Shah’s exit. With unbearable casualties (more than 500,000 dead, about 2 million injured) and continued horrific destruction, Iranians bitterly bit the bullet. The economic might of the western world against them, the socialist world having armed Iraq to the teeth and the rich Arab countries (with Kuwait in the forefront) contributing to the Iraqi war effort with generous grants and credits, the Iranians were alone and really did not have much choice. They called Saddam Hussain a Hitler, a brutal sadist, murderer, a power hungry dictator, a menace to the region, etc, etc, all to no avail. Isolated because of extremism by part of its hierarchy, to Iran’s anguished cries against Iraqi chemical warfare, the western world generally turned a blind eye, giving proforma attention only, even after a stinging indictment by UN enquiry. What is happening now is poetic justice, the same epithets about Saddam are now being repeated by the western world which once indulged him.

Given the circumstances, issues have been raised necessitating a role for Pakistan, quite happy previously as spectators. Saddam has mixed luck as an international brigand, what he tried a decade or so ago, grab oil-rich territory and thus enhance Iraq’s net worth, he has tried again, both times he has had initial success, then has been surprised rudely by the reaction. Against Iran he was spurred on by the cheering of deep-rooted Arab animosity for Persians (and vice-versa). In the annexation of Kuwait, a country to which he was beholden and in debt to, Saddam was governed only by the golden urge of outright greed, we have been subjected to umpteen reasons by Iraq in the last 3-4 weeks as to why Iraq has had to annex Kuwait, none seem to hold, they are in any case subject to change. In gobbling up a fellow Arab country, he went past a psychological Fail-Safe line (1) triggering-off fears in the western world that he was after the whole oil-rich Persian Gulf region including the Eastern Provinces of Saudi Arabia and (2) driving the fear of God into the Arab monarchies who suddenly found themselves defenceless against his vast, battle hardened war machine (mostly bankrolled by them) and (3) upsetting traditional Arab leader nations like Egypt and Syria who found themselves left suddenly with intermittent influence in the Arab world.

The Arabs look down upon the rest of the Islamic world, never really accepting them as equals, an anathema to a religion that prides itself on equality. Oil money in the hands of the monarchies made the poor Muslims of the impoverished nations even more servile in their eyes (Saddam did not touch that sensitive chord in isolation). The invasion of Kuwait happened while the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) was in session in Cairo, instead of using the occasion to consider the situation as an Islamic problem, the Arab League went into separate session, then divided along their usual lines, basically Monarchist and non-monarchist, except for the hapless King Hussain of Jordan, forced by circumstances to side with Iraq, giving truth to his own adage expressed as the title of his Book “Uneasy lies the Head”. Egypt and Syria went with the Monarchies that bankroll them, condemning the Iraqi invasion, Syria more because of bad neighbourly relations. Pakistan has been fighting an uphill battle for the Islamic Cause in OIC sessions for the last decade, it is no mere coincidence that the same countries (except Jordan) that have generally opposed the Mujahideen cause in Afghanistan, are opposed or indifferent to the cause of Muslims in Kashmir, are now supporting Iraq directly or indirectly. We should have supported Iran more fully in its confrontation with Iraq, the spirit and dedication with which they are rendering support to us over Kashmir against India shames us. We could have also played a more active role in dispelling suspicions and misgivings between US and Iran, to an extent both countries are at fault for adopting hardline positions in sheer contrast to George Washington’s admonition “not to have inveterate friends or foes” among nations. Basically it is a misunderstanding of perceptions that have hardened because of prevailing circumstances and personalities.

Iraq is grievously at fault over Kuwait, its criminal aggression was without any justification whatsoever, that Kuwait was not able to defend itself against the Iraqis colossus even for one day despite its modern arms and equipment does not really say much for Kuwaiti military prowess, however inferior numbers may have been, an indicator of the parade-ground quality of the Armed Forces in the region, honourable exceptions excepted, despite the amount of money spent on them. Be that as it may, the Iraqis overwhelming superiority and swift success rang alarm bells throughout the world, suddenly Saudi Arabia and the littoral Gulf states were seemingly vulnerable, up for grabs. The presence of large Iraqi tank forces on the open Saudi Arabian borders neighbouring their vast oil-rich Eastern Provinces created an anxious world situation, thus ceasing to be only an Arab or Islamic problem, oil has a major effect on industry and commerce in the world market and loss of Saudi oil could create a world-wide recession. Iraq’s constant litany of changing excuses for invading Kuwait has added to the West’s resolve to intervene. Dissension in the Arab ranks towards resolute action, Egypt’s initial prevarication and King Hussain’s dilemma took the situation to where it is today, US troops on Saudi Arabian soil, making for the bulwark of a planned multi-nation force. Saddam’s vociferous protests against allegations of casting covetous eyes on its other rich neighbour evoked no sympathy, his credibility has been irretrievably shot by his move into Kuwait. The tragedy (and farce) is that Saddam Hussain, who started the whole fracas as a good old Mongolian invader of the old school has now turned around and adopted a holier-than-thou mantle of a Salahuddin-type of the Arab world, wielding his sword against the favourite enemies of the Muslim masses. He has cleverly stoked Arab and Islamic fears about “infidels” on the sacred earth of the Kingdom, he has intelligently exploited the long unjustifiable Israeli occupation of Jordanian and Syrian lands by linking the evacuation of Israelis from those territories with his withdrawal from Kuwait, he has evoked the age-old suspicion among the Islamic masses that western countries foster quarrels deliberately among Muslim countries (1) out of their own vested capitalist interest (2) to keep Muslim countries weak and (3) to keep Israel strong and in the end he has played the mass resentment among all the Muslim masses (Arab and non-Arab) of the playboy image of disparate Arab princes and wealthy citizenry. All this may or may not be sheer nonsense but the Muslim masses do not think so, as time passes the voices in the streets will effect the resolve of key countries, not Syria so much which has a neighbour’s wariness of fellow Baathist Iraq but definitely Egypt, a key nation in the region. Even in countries like Pakistan, there is growing general skepticism about US intentions, the interested logic believing that if the US had to make a stand against aggression, why not against Israel’s continued occupation of lands acquired by aggression? The Intifada has showed up Israeli brutality against the Palestinians. These are real concerns that have to be addressed, it undercuts US credibility in the region.

At this point, we have US Forces arrayed against the Iraqis, luckily neither have really made any hostile moves. The US may be vastly superior in the air and the sea, Iraqis have overwhelmingly superiority on the ground with battle hardened mechanised troops. The use of chemical weapons by Iraq remains a possible wild card, occasioning the use of the “clean” neutron bomb, by the US against Iraq’s massed tank forces (the neutron bomb “only” kills human beings in a macabre, graveyard description, it leaves material and equipment intact). The US will have to decide whether it is ready to accept heavy casualties both among its troops and its expatriate nationals in Kuwait and Iraq, held criminally as hostages by Iraq.

Pre-emptive air strikes are best when surgically rendered, despite US (and Israeli) air superiority the dispersal of Iraq’s Air Force does not allow this, inviting indiscriminate retribution. Whether the US wants Israel to come into the conflict or not, Iraq will encourage Israeli participation, thereby giving the whole issue an Arab-Israeli tinge, where will it leave all the Arabs (and the non-Arab Muslims) in the Multi-national force defending Saudi Arabia? The involvement of the Israelis on their side will be the kiss of death for the Saudis. Saddam may go down in flames, the Arab monarchies will not be far behind, (Hector and Achilles?). The Middle East will be Lebanised, the whole area a region of permanent fluid tension and centrifugal forces in disparate competition for extremism of various kind. Conflict is no solution, there will be no winners (except India maybe), only losers. The addition of Soviet Union into the forces against Iraq may be a happy world occasion, it will only serve to give truth to long-term Muslim suspicions, that the Superpower confrontation with Iraq is being managed to pre-empt further Islamic inroads, Saddam Hussain has very happily grasped the Islamic banner, he is going to cling onto it for his life and his throne.

Into this cauldron has been drawn Pakistan. On the 3rd of August, 1990 it made great sense to make a unilateral airlift of troops (even a token force) to Saudi Arabia and UAE, the delayed action has meant that we are now tarred and feathered as part of a greater US plan, that Bangladesh has joined in protection of the Holy Places in Mecca and Medina cuts no ice with the detractors, somehow we have ended pleasing only hard realists. On the other hand India is content to continue the good relations with Iraq, withdrawing the Indian Embassy from Kuwait (being the only country to do so voluntarily) to Basra is full and tacit recognition of Iraq’s claim over Kuwait, the reward being the freeing of all Indian nationals without any reservations by Iraq is only one public indicator of India-Iraq rapport. What else has been agreed upon God only knows. India’s secular interests coincide with Iraq, Saddam Hussain has only recently rediscovered Islam. As a maritime power, India knows that Iraq’s browbeating of its neighbours is greatly to India’s advantage, after all how long can the US Navy keep steaming up and down the Persian Gulf? By default, India becomes a surrogate Superpower, at least in the region. UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Doha, Oman, etc would be well-advised to take another look at Indian duplicity on moving its Embassy away from Kuwait. Make no mistake, India’s sympathies lies with Iraq, Iraq’s softness on the Indians is certainly not because of their blue eyes!

In a world of confusion and intangibles we must study all the issues, we are affected by extremes but we must make the right decisions, war-gaming pragmatically may lead to real situations out of a combination of various options. Let us go over the hometruths, Pakistan must (1) protect the Holy Places of Mecca and Medina with all its might, a token force of 5,000 (independent composite brigade) is not enough (2) protect the UAE and other littoral states out of an obligation rendered by their years of support to us (3) fulfil an obligation to the US because of their massive economic and military aid to us in our time of need, let us not be ingrates about this (4) enhance our strong relationship with Iran and Turkey by moves for association in military fields (5) endeavour to bring the war in Afghanistan to a swift, satisfactory solution (6) work as an intermediary to allay mutual suspicions in the region (especially in Iran), continued Superpower interest of the US in this region remains in Pakistan’s interest (7) ensure that Israel is not seen as an ally with which Iraq (and India) will try and label us with (8) coordinate the non-Arab Muslim world’s potential to support of the status quo in the Middle East as it existed pre-August, 1990 (9) prepare ourselves to repel threats directly or indirectly from India (10) economically gird ourselves to face any further deterioration of the world situation (11) bring our own domestic house in order and (12) take the initiative to emerge as a dominant force in the region to the exclusion of India.

Any pre-emptive strike by the US, other than the tactical impossibility of surprise and effectiveness, will make Saddam into a martyr that will have grave repercussions, similarly Israel must be encouraged by the US to open negotiations to abandon its occupied Arab lands forthwith, the Israeli connection may be militarily necessary for USA in the short run, politically it is a disaster, for the US and for those who believe that the US represents a sure guarantee for peace in the region. Israel must have a place in the sun secure behind their own frontiers but they have to give up the lands occupied by them in 1967. Is not their peace with Egypt holding even after a decade? US forces are presently placed in a position in the Middle East where if they were to suffer a reverse they would not only be damned but world order would be affected and if they win, they are still damned, whereas Mr Damnation himself may walk off relatively scot-free, a martyr in the eyes of Arab masses. Saddam’s psychological profile works out to that bearing a Masada Complex, let’s please not satisfy his dreams to become a martyr, history is replete with Saddam as a hero will be hard to swallow.

The route to go should be one of (1) economic (but not food) starvation by total blockade and (2) replacement of US ground troops by an Arab-Islamic Multi-national Force, this Force must have at the minimum four armoured and four mechanised infantry divisions with integral artillery. Troops can be contributed by the Arabs (1) Egypt, 2 Divisions (2) Syria, 2 Divisions and contingents drawn from Morocco, Algeria, etc on the one hand and on the other by Non-Arab Muslim countries (1) Pakistan, 2 Divisions, (2) Turkey, 2 Divisions, (3) Bangladesh 1 Division, with small contingents from others. Since Saudi Arabia may be averse at this time to Iranian troops and vice versa, Iranian Navy can enforce the blockade in the Persian Gulf, the Iranian Air Force (provided they get spares and equipment) can give air cover from Iranian forward bases. United States and other western countries can provide naval support and carrier-based air cover, maintain a General Reserve in the vicinity to intervene only if and when required. Given a credible deterrent one doubts the Iraqis will attempt further adventure, if at all that was ever their initial intention. Americans going home in body bags does not help anybody, the supreme tragedy is that their sacrifice won’t be even appreciated by the people they are defending, on the other hand there are deep feelings in the region which will be salved by their replacement by an Arab-Islamic Multi-Nation Force (AIMF) which will do the same job without getting their feet cut at the knees labelled as Israeli and American stooges.

Naturally the formation of this AIMF will cost, definitely many times lower than the present US$ 29-30 million per day for the US contingent. The cost of equipping, arming and maintaining this Force can be contributed by the Western and oil-rich Arab countries, it can even serve as a semi-permanent force of moderation in the Middle East. The bottom line is that as everyday dawns the US position vis-a-vis the masses in this region is becoming untenable, given the circumstances it is tragic but true. Given casualties, it may not be acceptable to even the US public for long, if President Bush gets bogged down like Carter, everyone will be up the creek. A credible military deterrent is the answer. Such situations cannot be met by rhetoric or naive romantic notions but by practical assessment of the situation and pragmatism in actions thereof. Even though its presence draws flak, the US move into a “Desert Shield” was the only option for the time being in the circumstances, people who say otherwise should see it from a global perspective with economic ramifications, the fallout of world-wide recession may result in losses to many in the west, to us it will mean misery, starvation and utter deprivation. In the long term, sophisticated knowledge of regional aspirations is important to formulate a lasting policy that ensures peace, enforced by the trained troops of moderate Muslim countries.

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.