Iraq, Iran May Have Set Latest Mideast Fire

It has been said that the recent suicide bombing blitz against Israel was in retaliation for the assassination Nov. 23 of Mahmoud Abu Hanoud, a key Hamas operative. That Israel’s relaxing of its closure of the territories as a gesture to the visiting U.S. envoy, Anthony C. Zinni, provided terrorists the opportunity to act.

This may be so. But it is impossible to ignore the fact that the turmoil caused by continuing violence is very much in the interest of regional adversaries of the United States, most of all Iraq.

Baghdad and several other Middle East governments tend to view Washington’s revived interest in achieving a cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinians as a prerequisite to taking the next step in the war on terrorism.

The collapse of the Taliban has meant that the Afghanistan problem may be closer to being resolved than realized. Already a debate is raging in the Bush administration over the next move.

However, it is said that the U.S. has concluded that any subsequent military initiative against terror-supporting regimes in the Middle East could only be undertaken after the Israeli-Palestinian front has been pacified.

Without an end to the violence, the Arab members of the coalition supporting the U.S. would defect, making the U.S. campaign look more like a war against Islam.

In this scenario, as long as there is fighting between Israel and the Palestinians, the likelihood of the U.S. taking on Iraq is rather low.

In general, Yasser Arafat has little interest in the U.S. vanquishing Iraq because Saddam Hussein has been supportive of the Palestinian cause. For instance, in August, Israeli security forces arrested 15 Palestinians who were funded, trained and run by Iraq.

Arafat also knows that without Hussein in Baghdad, Israeli hands would be freer to deal with his 15-month-old offensive.

Conversely, were Hussein given enough time without interference from the outside, in part because of the political constraints that the violence in Israel puts on Washington’s military option, he might acquire his cherished nuclear capability. Such a development would reshape the balance of forces in the Middle East to Israel’s detriment.

However, the question is why would Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist terror organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which are not considered close to Baghdad, be interested in helping Hussein?

First, in recent months the relations between these organizations and Arafat’s Palestinian Authority--which wants to keep Hussein’s support--have become much closer. For example, one of the Jerusalem suicide bombers had quit his position in Arafat’s Palestinian intelligence service and joined Hamas shortly before Saturday’s attack.

Second, there is the Iranian connection. On the face of it, Tehran, which has ties to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, should have a strong interest in a change of regime in Baghdad. And yet, Iran must be worried about the consequences of U.S. success in Afghanistan.

Tehran does not want to see the U.S. gain influence and power in the Middle East. It fears establishment of a pro-American regime in Baghdad if Hussein is removed. Considering its own multiethnic composition, Tehran also fears the repercussions of a possible disintegration of Iraq post-Hussein.

Given the U.S. military momentum, especially if Hussein falls, Tehran could then find itself in the United States’ cross hairs. After all, the U.S. State Department in its annual report labeled Iraq “the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000.” Moreover, the U.S. also has expressed concern that Iran “probably has produced and weaponized” biological agents.

Little wonder that Iran’s foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, warned the U.S. last Friday against pursuing its war beyond Afghanistan. “There is no excuse to justify any military operation against any Islamic country,” he said.

The new violence in Israel thus has a strategic dimension. The more the U.S. is militarily successful in Afghanistan and the more the debate in Washington escalates regarding the fate of Saddam Hussein, the more upheaval can be expected in the Middle East.

*

Avigdor Haselkorn is the author of “The Continuing Storm: Iraq, Poisonous Weapons and Deterrence” (Yale University Press, 1999).