Posted on 08/08/2002 6:15:12 PM PDT by RCW2001
I found them especially interesting after reading this headline.
Jordan Prince Said To Seek Iraqi Throne The Forward ^
Posted on 08/08/2002 9:00 PM Eastern by RCW2001
Jordan Prince Said To Seek Iraqi Throne Meets With Wolfowitz By MARC PERELMAN FORWARD STAFF
PARIS — Former crown prince Hassan of Jordan is not on the guest list of a high-level meeting between the main Iraqi opposition groups and American officials scheduled for Friday in Washington. Nevertheless, he is bound to loom large as participants grapple with the all-important question of who runs post-Saddam Baghdad. Rumors are rife that the 55-year-old Hassan is angling to become king of Iraq.
Hassan, whose Hashemite family ruled Iraq until his great-uncle Feisal II was overthrown in 1958, caused a stir last month when he unexpectedly appeared at a meeting of Saddam Hussein foes in London. Hassan himself was crown prince of Jordan for 34 years, but was pushed aside when his brother King Hussein named a son, Abdullah, to succeed him.
Although he claimed he had come to London merely to express solidarity, Hassan's name has been bandied around for a series of United Nations postings since he was pushed aside from the Jordanian throne, fueling speculation that he was looking for a "job," if not a crown.
Several observers said some Bush administration officials are indeed rooting for Hassan at a time when Washington is struggling to find a consensus leader to succeed Saddam. After the London meeting, the London-based Guardian newspaper reported that Hassan had the backing of Pentagon hawks and that he met in April in Washington with one of their most prominent figures, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.
"There is more to his presence in London than meets the eye," an American expert on Iraq said. "Some people might be thinking that a Hashemite ruler might be a good compromise between the Shi'ite and the Sunni" Muslim factions because the Hashemite family is believed to be descended from both prophet Muhammad and his son-in-law Ali, the latter a seminal figure in the Shi'ite faith.
A well-placed intelligence source told the Forward that "some Defense Department people are pushing for it, but it is totally unrealistic."
A Pentagon spokesman, Lieu-tenant Colonel David Lapan, said the department did not want to comment on the speculation surrounding Hassan, adding that he was not invited to Washington for this week's consultations on the future of Iraq.
Other observers dismissed the Hashemite scenario and said Hassan's intention was to embarrass Abdullah by lending Jordanian support to the American regime-change policy in Iraq. They noted that Hassan's move came just as American press reports said Jordanian bases might be used in an American military operation against Iraq, prompting strong denials from Amman.
After the London meeting, Abdullah blasted his uncle, claiming "he had blundered into something he did not realize he was getting into and we're all picking up the pieces," according to the official Jordanian Petra press agency.
"I believe the king does not want this," the intelligence source said. "He is already preoccupied enough with his own survival."
But others disagreed, arguing that Abdullah's denial of the reports of Jordan's cooperation in military preparations and his criticism of Hassan's presence in London could well be a way for him to stave off the inevitable criticism he would face at home. There, public opinion is already enraged by America's unwavering support of Israel since the outbreak of the intifada. The majority of Jordanian citizens are of Palestinian descent.
Some point to the close relationship between Hassan and Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi as an explanation for his presence in London. After Chalabi was indicted in Jordan for a bank fraud in the 1980s, Hassan helped him get out of jail. Chalabi invited Hassan to London, several sources said.
But Hassan's presence did not go down well with some key Iraqi opposition leaders.
"Jordan said it was a mistake and we have to stick to this explanation," said Hamid al-Bayati, the London representative of the Iran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the main Shi'ite opposition group. "Iraq has enough candidates to succeed Hussein. We don't need a foreigner and our new constitution will ensure it."
Al-Bayati will attend the August 9 meeting in Washington with Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Also invited are the two main Kurdish groups, the Iraqi National Accord and the constitutional monarchy movement.
Although they said they want to offer a united stance to the administration, disagreements among the opposition groups are obvious. The Iraqi National Congress, created in 1992 as the main umbrella group and funded by Washington for a decade, has not been able to knit them together.
I hadn't seen that yet but when coupled with Bush's buddy Putin now piling on the House of Saud, this could get real interesting.
If the US pulls out of Saudi Arabia --- Watch Out.
It'll be interesting to see how all of this falls out. I pray for peace...for I'm sure that the average Iraqi/Saudi Joe on the street really wants to get involved in a war. Unfortunately, the little guys are always the ones who pay the price for the big dogs.
I'm sure they don't, If done correctly the war does not have to come to "Joe" (at least the fighting part).
Take siege of Baghdad and make the Iraquis come to us. Saudi Arabia could fall if Iraq does.
Why?
It would be easier to engineer the necessary coup and selective (maybe) assassinations of the Saudi Royal Family, if we stayed there. Also, a smooth transition of the oil supply to American-controlled interests would be easier, don't you think?
Or am I missing something...?
You're right. For the most part it sounded like a pretty good analysis. I still don't get the "tactical pivot," "strategic pivot" and Egypt being the "prize" though. I wonder if this has more to do with oil than it seems on the surface.
I share that opinion...
So a Jordan/Palestine, plus a Hashemite kingdom spanning some of Iraq plus some of Saudi Arabia, with a Saudi emirate as a rump state, and a Turk-administered northern Iraq (bit of a complication with the Kurds, but...) may be the outcome. But don't count on the map changing overnight. The Cold War was 40 years long.
True, but the Turks would rather run the place than have it become an independent state (which might become a source of support for Kurdish terrorism within Turkey).
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.