#15
Krasnaya Zvezda
No. 225
December 2002
POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES FOR RUSSIA OF U.S. OPERATION AGAINST IRAQ
Expert Forecast
By Sergei SUMBAYEV

The work being done by the UN inspectors in Iraq has not removed from the agenda a military operation, which is much spoken of in Washington today. The Iraqi issue in this context is in the focus of public interest in Russia as well. To examine the situation from every aspect the Parlamentskaya Gazeta jointly with the Krasnaya Zvezda held a round-table discussion devoted to "Political and Military-Strategic Consequences for Russia in the Event of U.S. Military Action against Iraq," in which leading Russian political analysts and experts took part. The main items discussed were U.S. goals in Iraq, the time and methods of conducting a military operation, and its likely outcome and possible consequences for Russia.

In the opinion of Alexei Vasilyev, director of the Institute of Africa, Russian Academy of Sciences, a war against Iraq is a decided matter, because President Bush cannot back away without losing face. Besides, "hawks" like Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld are dominating in shaping the U.S. foreign policy today, rather than moderate politicians like Colin Powell. And the fact that the permanent bombings of the Iraqi air defense systems is done to clear a zone of attack for U.S. troops shows that preparations for the war are underway. President Bush claims that his goal in Iraq is to destroy nuclear arms. However, during the inspectors' work that ended in 1998, two files on Iraq, one on nuclear and the other on chemical arms, were closed. It is unrealistic to develop these weapons anew within four years, Vasilyev explained.

As regards the accusations of complicity in terrorism and ties with Al Qaeda leveled against Baghdad, Vasilyev said that Iraq is ruled by a nationalistic regime, while Al Qaeda is a fundamentalist organization set up with the money of Saudi Arabia and with the help of CIA. Vasilyev recommended also that attention be paid to relations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in the context of an obvious change of U.S. priorities in the region. The pro-Russian lobby that has emerged in Saudi Arabia points to serious changes in the alignment of forces in the Middle East.

As for the time and methods of conducting the operation, it will take the Americans about a month, in the opinion of Vasilyev, to form a military group of 250 thousand servicemen. One of the variants of warfare may be a blitzkrieg followed by the surrender of the Iraqi Republican Guards. But Vasilyev warned against a wrong idea of the war developments in 1991 when Iraqi troops reportedly were surrendering in large numbers. It was uniformed peasants that surrendered, while the units of the Republican Guards were moved to the rear and were getting ready for defense.

The second version may be the seizure of cities, but in that case the war will be protracted. This version is better for Saddam, for it would cause greater losses among the Americans. Therefore Baghdad would strive to make events turn this way.

If a war breaks out, the U.S. will win anyway, Vasilyev said, but at what cost? After their victory the Americans will try to form a pro-Western government in the country. This will be hard to do, because the Iraqis are not prepared for it. Five thousand years under totalitarian rule will not allow to subjugate the Iraqi people the way Japan or Germany surrendered in 1945. Therefore to maintain control over the Iraqi territory, it would be necessary to establish either a military Sunnite regime or an occupation U.S. regime for a term of one to ten years. Considering that the opposition in Iraq is weak and will hardly take power into its hands, Iraq may be expected to split into three parts - the Kurd north, the Sunnite center and the Shiite south, which will get under Iran's influence.

The consequences of such development in Iraq for Russia may be either bad or very bad, Vasilyev believes. First, in case of a war, Washington will go beyond the bounds of international law, while Russia is striving to strengthen international law. Second, Russia's economic interests will suffer. At present Iraq's debt to Russia is estimated at 5 to 7 billion dollars. Will it be returned after the war? Nobody knows that. And it is not clear whether Russia will retain its right to develop Iraq's Western Kurna oil deposit. Russian industrial facilities will also lose contracts for the delivery to Iraq of machines and equipment, and oil prices will fall below the level acceptable for Russia. Third, the rout of Iraq may push Iran towards the development of nuclear weapons. In addition, the war against Iraq may bring Islamic fundamentalists to power also in Egypt and Jordan.

In the opinion of Lieutenant-General Leonid Shebarshin, president of the Russian National Economic Security Service and former head of the First Main Department of the KGB, Iraq should be regarded in the context of the general oil situation in the world. After the U.S. troops entered Afghanistan and the Central Asian countries, the United States received a possibility to control the flow of energy sources from Kazakhstan and the Caspian area. In the Caucasus, the U.S. pursue a policy, according to which it is not in the U.S. interests to allow Russia's control of the Caucasus.

When Iraq is occupied (Shebarshin does not doubt either that the Americans will win the war), Washington will be aiming at other targets - Iran or Saudi Arabia. In this connection Russia should defend its interests without quarrelling with the U.S. Colonel-General Valery Manilov, a member of the upper house of the Russian parliament, who also took part in the round-table discussion, considers that the U.S. wants to conquer Iraq not only for improving its own economy but also for establishing its domination in the world. Iraq is a necessary element in arranging a uni-polar world order centered around the U.S. In Manilov's view, Washington seeks to complete the establishment of a new world order, as other centers of power, such as Europe and China, are developing rapidly. Manilov stressed also that the occupation of Iraq will enable U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan, Turkey and Iraq to encircle Iran, and then to isolate Russia in the southern direction.

Fyodor Burlatsky, chairman of the Learned Council for Political Science at that Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences and president of the Foundation for Eurasian State Cooperation, doubts that the war is inevitable and that the motives for starting the war boil down to Washington's desire to bring Iraqi oil resources under its control. Burlatsky also cautioned against a view that a war against Iraq would be tantamount to a war against the Islamic world. In his opinion, the chief motive behind the U.S. stand with regard to Iraq is fear of terrorism.

Political analyst Alexei Kiva disagreed with the view expressed by Burlatsky. He compared the present situation in the U.S. with that in Germany before World War II. In his view, oil is not the ultimate goal but an instrument. Besides, George Bush is not sure that he will win the war. Nonetheless, Kiva stressed, it is 80 percent certain that a war with a subsequent occupation of Iraq may take place. The remaining 20 percent depend on the positions assumed by other countries, which may come out resolutely against a military operation.

Speaking about possible consequences of the war and occupation of Iraq, Major-General Anatoly Gusher, director of the Centre of Strategic Development, pointed out that the character of U.S. military actions would be determined by the forces and the goals set by the White House. As regards consequences for Russia, it is clear that in the event of the war the debts will not be paid back.

Vice-President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems Vladimir Anokhin, in addition to what the speakers before him said, began by relating brief information about Iraq's debt. The total sum is estimated at 6.8 billion dollars. Of that sum, $6.4 billion account for arms deliveries. As for a possible development of the situation, Anokhin said that, since Kuwait would be unable to let a 250,000-strong army through its territory, the Americans will have to form a provisional occupation government in the south of Iraq, for instance, in Basra. Anokhin believes that if a revolution breaks out in Iraq, the country may be headed by pro-British clans, which want a change of the regime in the country and its orientation. But, keeping to a tradition, they will have to declare themselves the successors of Saddam, while rejecting the main role of the Ba'th party, which is in power today. But the Ba'th party or a similar group will come to power anyway in four or five years. Then a new revolution will follow and Russia will again become Iraq's main partner. Anokhin did not rule out that during a military operation, if the Americans incur losses unacceptable for themselves, they may use tactical nuclear arms.

Washington's chief goal, in Anokhin's view, is not so much the occupation of Iraq as control over Iran and the Caspian energy resources. It may be supposed, therefore, that in future actions will be taken to establish an independent Daghestan, and thus to tear a 300 km area of the Caspian shelf away from Russia.

Another speaker at the discussion, Alexei Yevdokov, general director of the Committee for International Scientific and Business Cooperation with Iraq, called for abandoning a position of impending doom and stopping to compare the present situation with that in 1991. In 1991, he recalled, George Bush Sr. was supported by a few dozen countries, while at present the U.S. acts single-handed, so far. This makes one wonder whether George Bush Jr. ventures to launch a new campaign.

On the whole, all the speakers agreed that Russia's present position on Iraq, in which flexibility and firmness are combined, is fairly reasonable. Moreover, the adoption of Resolution 1441 by the UN Security Council should be regarded as a success of Russian diplomacy.

BACK TO THE TOP    #235 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE