Moscow Warns Washington Against Attacks on Iraq

On Dec. 27, 2001, Nezavisimaya gazeta, an influential Moscow newspaper with close ties to the Kremlin, published an article by political observer Alexandr Kuranov under the heading "Iraq Under the Gunsight: Russian Leadership Probably Will Need to Swallow One More Bitter Pill; Anti-Iraq Action Could Become the Last Straw Which Would Provoke the Extremists into a New Strike at America."

This article basically states that Russia's leadership is again faced with a choice: (a) stay within the Washington-forged international coalition against terrorism or (b) stubbornly defend its old partner and ally Iraq against any U.S. attacks. This is because, according to U.S. media, Iraq would become the new object in the international war on terrorism.

This would be a very difficult choice for Russia, and not because of Russian interests in Iraq per se. Moscow's direct support or tacit approval of Washington's strikes on Iraq would demonstrate to other Russian allies – mainly India and China – the extreme unreliability of Moscow.

This could eventually result in great tension between Moscow and Beijing, as well as between Moscow and New Delhi.

The first, or "soft," variant means that American forces, just as in 1991, would limit their actions to massive bombing of Iraq. That nation's military and industrial infrastructure would once again be destroyed, but the hated Saddam Hussein would escape untouched.

In this case, the weakened dictator would be of no serious danger to his neighbors, primarily Israel. Still, Saddam would be capable of preparing new terrorist actions against the U.S. and elsewhere.

This soft variant of American punishment of Iraq would be quite acceptable for most of the anti-terrorist coalition members and, most of all, for Russia. In the case of soft strikes at Iraq, Russian moves would be limited to mild protests and diplomatic maneuvers.

However, it is doubtful that Washington at present will limit itself to half measures. Doubtless, President Bush and his team are eager to extend the victory in Afghanistan into Iraq and to build on America's geopolitical successes in Central Asia.

In short, President Bush, as inheritor of his father's cause, wants to finish with Saddam, to transfer power in Iraq to forces and persons willing to work with Washington, and to acquire unlimited access to Iraqi oil and gas. This is the second variant of the U.S. war against Iraq.

Kuranov quotes Viktor Kremenyuk, deputy director of Russia's influential Institute for the Study of the USA and Canada (a formal scientific institute providing reports to the Kremlin and Russian Foreign Ministry), as saying that the probability of U.S. strikes on Iraq is high, and that a new victory would give the U.S. unopposed dominance in the Middle East, but would also consolidate the positions of Islamic fundamentalists and move Arabs to retaliate against Americans.

Kremenyuk adds that there are many al-Qaeda-like anti-Western groups in the Arab world. He holds that many "sleeper agents" of these groups in the West, including the U.S. anti-Iraq actions, could become the last straw needed to provoke the Islamic extremists into new strikes at America.

He adds that it is impossible to predict how many sleeper agents would participate in these strikes and what weapons they would use.

Kuranov says that the third and most terrible variant of a new war against Iraq is the dissection of this country into several parts, i.e., (a) the Kurdish North; (b) the Shiite South; (c) the center, populated by Sunni Arabs and Christians. This would create great problems, especially the question of a Kurdish state for the Kurds in Iran and Turkey.

If Saddam is dethroned, it would be difficult for the U.S. to avoid this dangerous third variant, because uncontrolled nationalistic forces would then be unleashed. Also, a war between the U.S. and Iraq could easily involve Israel, and this would provoke very tough responses (i.e., military strikes) from some Arab countries against Israel.

It cannot be ruled out that Saddam, at a desperate point, would use weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which he supposedly has, though in small quantities.

In addition, Saddam could move his troops to Jordan, as close to Israel's border as possible, in order to transform Iraq and the entire region into a "flaming torch."

It also cannot be ruled out that a U.S. war on Iraq would trigger another war(s), including heavy Israeli strikes on Palestinians and an Indian-Pakistani conflict in Kashmir.

Finally, Kuranov asks, what could be the reaction of such an important player as China? Prominent Russian sinologist Dr. Sergei Luzinyan gives his estimate:

"China's reaction towards possible action of the U.S. against Iraq will be very negative or even very tough. China has old and close political ties with Baghdad, and China never gives up on old friends and partners. Besides, China is already upset over the U.S. invasion of Central Asia, considered by Beijing as in "its own sphere of influence."

The same issue of Nezavisimaya gazeta published an article by political commentator Alexei Pushkov – analyst for Moscow-based TV-channels, member of the Presidium of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, and board member of the prestigious U.S.-based journal Foreign Policy – entitled "Russia and the USA: the Limits of Rapprochement; Unilateral Actions of Washington Are Dangerous for the New Relations Between the Two Countries."

This article lists the "sins and crimes" of Washington committed in regard to Russia:

This article, like several of the authors' articles published in late December, shows the irritation of Moscow over U.S. geopolitical gains in Kazakhstan and all of Central Asia.

It would be proper to consider the above articles as "the voice of the Kremlin." These articles were doubtless compiled and published in accordance with direct orders from Russia's top leadership.

And never after Sept. 11 has this "voice of the Kremlin" been so harsh. The Kremlin is very angry and openly threatens Washington with incalculable problems America must deal with in the case of strikes against Iraq.

"A U.S. war with Iraq would consolidate the positions of the Islamic fundamentalists. It would also move Arabs to retaliate against Americans."

"There are many al-Qaeda-like anti-Western groups in the Arab world, and many ‘sleeper agents' of these groups in the West, including the U.S. Anti-Iraq action could become the last straw needed to provoke the Islamic extremists into new strikes at America; and is impossible to predict how many sleeper agents would participate in these strikes and what weapons they would use."

The authors recently published at NewsMax several articles ("Iraq and Related Matters," Part 1 and Part 2, and "KGB Incorporated," Part 1 and Part 2.) on the underground network established by al-Qaeda, other Islamic extremist groups, Cuba, and Russia's FSB/KGB in the territory of the U.S. and Canada.

The authors themselves didn't expect confirmation of their conclusions in so weighty a form and so rapidly. Yes, this network exists and is planning new strikes. The recent Tampa private plane suicide case (the skyscaper attack on Jan. 4) can be considered as a testing of America's security system before major new strikes.

What should be done? The answer is easy: Saddam should be finished. And some additional forces should be concentrated in the Middle East and Central Asia, to avoid the aforementioned geopolitical complications. The underground network of "sleeper agents" and their collaborators – including, of course, FSB/KGB operatives – should be exterminated swiftly and mercilessly.

Dr. Alexandr V. Nemets is a consultant to the American Foreign Policy Council. He is co-author of "Chinese-Russian Military Relations, Fate of Taiwan and New Geopolitics."

Dr. Thomas J. Torda has been a Chinese linguist specializing in science and technology with FBIS, and a Chinese/Russian defense technology consultant with the Office of Naval Intelligence.

1) Russia has been treating the US as an adversary, not an ally, for much of the past decade.

2) If we're allies, not adversaries, why should Russia care whether or not the US develops an ABM system to protect us against everyone else who is capable -- or soon will be capable -- of lobbing WMD missiles at us?

3) If Central Asia is China's area, then they are in part responsible for the problems coming out of there.

4) Iraq is Russia's ally? That's nice, it used to be the US's ally, too. Now it's a festering sore that is sooner or later going to erupt and spread its poisonous infection, yet again. Someone needs to lance it. If Russia won't, we'll have to.

5) The Muslim nations don't need an excuse to attack Isreal. They're going to do it again, no matter what.

6) The Islamist extremists don't need an excuse to attack the US. They're going to do it again, no matter what. Unless they're stopped (permanently.)

7) The US cannot afford to continue playing diplomatic footsie at the expense of our national defense and security.

8) The only legitimate complaint in this whole thing is the possible breakup of Iraq and the resulting regional instability.

Just for the record, my husband agrees with Russia in regard to Iraq. He says Iraq was only peripherally involved with the attacks on the US, and aren't our problem any more than Iran is our problem.

He says our true enemy is the House of Saud, and nothing will be resolved until they are neutralized.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.