In his speech yesterday, Cheney was at his warmongering best again. What if he's right? What if Saddam Hussein is indeed developing biological and other WMDs? So what? We can be sure that several other countries are also doing so. (And some of them are not especially friendly to America.) Most of the chemical agents concerned, even of the most extreme toxicity, are fairly simple to cultivate in a modern laboratory -- though formidably difficult to deliver effectively.
But what if Saddam Hussein is actually developing practical delivery methods? He would be betrayed by at least one of those Iraqi scientists who are practically involved. Why? Because the whistleblower would be intelligent enough to know that if such WMDs were delivered or even taken to high states of readiness, then Baghdad and perhaps other important cities in Iraq would be nuked by at least two countries -- independently or jointly -- Israel and America. The whistleblower would die, his family and friends would die, and millions of others, too. So let me ask an alternative question. Why are Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld so intent in raising stress levels so dangerously right across the Middle East? Because they (and Crown Prince Abdullah) were humbled when the SA government declined to confirm the huge gas projects in March. This was the last straw in the matter of an increasingly obdurate and anti-American SA government ever since Gulf War I. I suggest that the anti-Iraq policy is already having an effect. Not on Saddam Hussein, necessarily, but certainly on other Muslim countries. Iran has gone very quiet lately and has actually delivered up some Al Qaeda terrorists (even though only to Saudi Arabia). Musharrif in Pakistan has taken broad powers to himself so he can continue in power and get on with rooting out Al Qaeda more effectively in his country. But, most of all, Saudi Arabia is being taken to the very brim of a volcano. The Wahhabi faction within the SA government must now be extremely frightened. But frightened people are also potentially dangerous people and, of course, Bush and Co must be aware of this. They are taking a calculated risk in provoking a possible fundamentalist uprising in SA. But the risk of not doing anything and watching the Wahhabi supporters in the governing royal family gaining strength from month to month and year to year is even greater -- with the certainty that, ultimately, the present SA policy of favoured oil supplies to America (both of quantity and price) would be revoked. I suggest that every time Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld make an anti-Iraqi speech they are actually speaking in code to the modernists in the Saudi Arabian royal family. They are saying: "Get on with it. Root out Wahhabism (or at least deny it the lavish government funding they are now receiving) and bring your country into the 20th century." Bush and co know that Bush's father failed to get re-elected, not because he didn't push on to Baghdad during Gulf War I, but because of the state of the American economy. This is what the present policy is about. It is to protect the economy of America in the coming years -- perhaps for at least a couple of decades because during this period no other source of oil and gas in the world could possibly replace the imports from SA. (And, on top of that, SA could easily start deflecting future supplies to a rapidly growing China via joint ventures with Sinopec since 1997.) Keith Hudson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
