Professor Shibley Telhami

The Cold War, in a way, defined the American national interest, namely, to contain Communism and the Soviet Union, and when that particular interest disappeared, people were unable to agree upon the new Americans interests in the international community. Many ideas arose, such as the need to contain the clash of civilizations, there no longer being a superpower struggle but a contest between different civilizations around the world, such as the one between the Islamic civilization and the West. Usually, the winning idea is the one that succeeds in linking the constraints of the ‘establishment’ with the domestic political arena. What emerged here is that at the end of the Gulf War, Americans who care a lot about Israel were worried not only about Iraq, but also about Iran, which had emerged from the war quite powerful and was already considered an enemy of America. American policy had been for a long time to create a balance in the Gulf by helping the party that most needed help in equaling the other in terms of military and political power at any given time. The Americans helped the Shah, for example, to balance Iraq, and after the establishment of the Khomeini government, they started to help Iraq balance Iran, mainly by supplying the Iraqis with weapons so as to maintain a balance. Nevertheless, at the end of the war both Iran and Iraq were seen as the enemy, and Martin Indyk came up with the concept of dual containment. By dual containment, what is meant is that instead of maintaining a balance of power, both countries are contained and disarmed, as opposed to armed, to exactly the same extent. In fact, the original idea was to maintain a comparable sanctions regime on Iran in order to create that balance. As to the term 'backlash states' it refers to the states that are reacting against the new international order, i.e., the law.

Indyk’s idea was reinforced in the establishment by a very important article by the National Security Advisor to President Clinton, published in Foreign Affairs Magazine and called, ‘Confronting the Backlash States’. The article dealt with a new kind of thinking in American politics as it took the dual containment theses and then said that the American policy now is to look at countries such as Iran and Iraq and contain them as much as possible because of the threat that they pose. He selected of course the countries that are not helpful to America in the international community, such as Libya, Cuba, Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Syria, of course, is now a friend of the US, thanks to Assad’s move in 1991 and his decision to join the winning side; had he not done so, there is no way of knowing what would have happened between Israel and Syria at that time.

At the heart of this issue, there was a fear in the US that was not entirely connected to the Middle East although it certainly had a lot to do with the region when it came to weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. It is interesting to note that no matter how one defines terrorism, American State Department figures reveal that the Arab countries are well down the list of countries involved in terrorism, regardless of whether the terrorism is aimed at American interests. Latin America has more terrorism, Africa has more terrorism, and Israel has more terrorism. The perception of Arabs as terrorists has a lot to do with the World Trade building bombing, which really scared Americans because the building was a symbol of American power in New York. Actually, American soil has seen practically minimal Middle Eastern terrorism against civilians, and the World Trade building bombing was a huge exception because what was meant to happen was that the two buildings were supposed to collapse on each other killing thousands of people in the process and destroying a major symbol of American power. The press cleverly exploited the fact that it tied in to what was happening here because Israel is important in the American debate, and it became a very serious issue.

The countries mentioned in the article are in no way real threats to the US nor real powers in terms of global politics. If they want to make a threat, it must necessarily be unconventional because none of them can pose a conventional threat. Iran cannot invade its neighbors, nor can Cuba, and the only argument one can use is that there is going to be destabilization in the region if they use state-sponsored terrorism or possess weapons of mass destruction. During the Gulf War, there was a tremendous coverage of Iraqi usage of chemical weapons against the Kurds and that had captured the imagination of the public, but there was also concern that the fears in Washington about the proliferation of Russian weapons would prove to be well-founded; with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, there was an assumption that Russia did not have full control over the stocks of nuclear weapons and that both the weapons and the technology were now up for sale, and this idea certainly captured the American imagination. In fact, it was not long before preventing any actual sales from taking place became a policy and a national interest.

As to the term ‘rogue states’, it refers to the states that are reacting against the new international order, i.e., the law.

I think I should make it clear that even as far back as 1985/1986, the US considered intervening in the Gulf due to the fact that the assessment in Washington was that Iran might actually win the war, which is why the US suddenly started supplying Iraq with weapons. Although the US hoped to see a stalemate, if there had to be a winner, it did not want it to be Iran, which was considered an enemy. By the mid-1980s, Iraq had succeeded in persuading the US that it was a secular, pragmatic state that was prepared to cooperate with America, thanks in part to the efforts of Nizar Hamdoun, the Iraqi Ambassador in Washington, who was extraordinarily successful in developing the Iraqi-US relationship. (Iran understood this, and it did not want the US to intervene because it knew that other Western countries would soon follow America’s example.)

One of the ways in which the US expressed its ‘support’ for Iraq was by moving to reflag the Kuwaiti ships in order to prevent attacks against oil shipping by Iran. Iraq at that time was actually attempting to draw Iran into attacking oil shipping as a way of extracting American intervention, knowing perfectly well that it would not be able to win the war alone. Iraq had a well-designed contingency plan to invade Kuwait in 1986 that was almost exactly the same as the one that was implemented in 1990. It was not the result of a desire to expand, but the result of a strategic assessment by the Iraqis that if they got desperate, they would have to draw foreign intervention to stop the war. Frankly, after Iraq appeared to have won the war, there was some kind of self-congratulation in Washington, but only until the emergence of the threatening Iraqi rhetoric; from then on, Iraq came to be regarded as a threat to Israel and members of Congress wasted no time in targeting Iraq.

When Iraq eventually invaded Kuwait, the invasion took most experts by surprise. Some of them had believed that Iraq might possibly attack Israel and that if it did, the US would not have many options when it came to a response because the Arabs would not allow it to intervene. What happened, however, was that once Iraq invaded, it was almost impossible for the Bush administration not to react, the reason being that for good or bad, the US had decided that the Persian Gulf is of strategic importance to the US.

The Bush administration had been friendly to Iraq, even to the point of turning a blind eye to accusations that Iraq had used chemical weapons against the Kurds, and Congress was constantly criticizing this friendliness. Even when Iraq gathered its troops at the border, the US did nothing to deploy forces or otherwise threaten Iraq, and Congress saw that as an appeasement.

When Iraq finally invaded, Bush, who felt personally betrayed by Saddam Hussein, was under attack for not having predicted the invasion and so he went to the American intelligence community and asked if Iraq was likely to go to Saudi Arabia. The intelligence community, which was also under attack for having failed to predict the invasion of Kuwait, responded in the affirmative – in spite of the lack of proof - there being no way that it was going to risk being made to look foolish again. And then Bush went to the military and asked if the US would be able to stop Saddam if he went to Saudi Arabia, and this time the answer was ‘no’, the US did not have the troops to deploy, Saddam would be able to march right through and take over almost all the oil fields in Eastern Saudi Arabia, and it would be almost impossible to dislodge him because there would be nowhere for the US to land its troops. Armed with this information, Bush’s first priority became to stop Saddam from going to Saudi Arabia by deploying US troops there. There was still no decision as to what to actually do with them once they were there; after all, you cannot leave a quarter of a million troops anywhere indefinitely. There was in fact an assumption in American thinking that time was on the side of the US and against Saddam due to the sanctions and military pressure, but the problem was that events were clearly working in Saddam’s favor and so, with the coalition weakening, it soon became clear that there had to be a decision to settle the issue much more quickly. As a consequence, the number of American troops was doubled according to an operational doctrine that the Americans had learned from Vietnam, namely, that if an area is a vital interest to the US, you deploy forces on a very large scale in order to win quickly. Once the troops were in position, Bush knew that he had to go all the way; in other words, Saddam would have to withdraw or the US would have to go to war.

The American decision that took place at that time took place automatically, not according to preplanning or due to a conspiracy. One has to remember that George Bush was not especially fond of Israel, but he was still the first to make the decision to go to war because of the belief that not doing anything would lead to major problems. Now, having said that there is no question that the American political system supported the decision more intensely because of this threat to Israel, and Bush actually used the supporters of Israel to get his decision through Congress. But, the fact remains that the decision was made by the administration, not by the supporters of Israel, and it was made very early on.

As to American interest in keeping the Arabs disunited, I think the bottom line is that each government serves its own personal interests and is not going to give up those interests; the pan-Arab movement has been mostly rhetorical and Arab governments, despite what the public feels, are the ones who make policies and they all serve their own interests. There are certainly a lot of people in the outside world who would like to see the Arabs divided, but the simple truth is that the Arabs remain divided mainly because of the logic of the system.

If one looks at the invasion of Kuwait from an American perspective, one finds that here you have an Arab state that is trying to force unity on another sovereign state; in other words, a case of aggression. People argue that all this division of the Arab World is artificial – and in some ways it is – and that this division, which arose out of the two world wars, serves the interests of the west and other outside powers. The fact remains that we have an international system of sovereign states for good or for bad, and once it becomes acceptable for big states to swallow small states in the name of unity, the entire order is jeopardized. It is for this reason that the UN backed the build-up against Iraq.

In the late 1970s and following Camp David, Sadat and some others within the Egyptian establishment suggested that Egypt take over Libya, a small country with huge oil resources and an unpopular leader, but Carter rejected the idea, even though Israel would have not objected to Egypt taking over Libya. The point is that it is in the Western powers’ interest to see the Arab World the way it is, but that is completely different from saying that the US makes it a high priority to keep the Arabs the way they are or to go to war. The Arab World is like it is because of the colonial powers and their ambitions in the region; it is unfair, and all we can do is to accept it or take risks, knowing very well that the benefits often do not warrant the costs.

As to the issue of American double standards, one important aspect of this is the media, but the truth of the matter is that the reporting media is not that important; what is important is the media that is found on the commentary pages. The most important public opinion shaping publications in the States are the following:

The New York Times’ public opinion page where you will find columnists plus the occasional contributor;

The Washington Post, the second most important newspaper, also with columnists and contributors;

The Wall Street Journal, which is important for the business and economic elite;

The Los Angeles Times, the most prominent newspaper on the West Coast and widely read in Washington.

Although the reporting media is actually helpful – when reporters come here and see stones and blood, they report it because they have no choice, although obviously there is some control in editorial input – by and large, the page that really matters and shapes opinion is the editorial page. The Washington Post has several columnists who write on the Middle East including Charles Krauthammer, who is a very close friend of Benyamin Netanyahu and often defends him in the press. Richard Cohen is considered to be a relative moderate, and here is the kind of argument that he uses: "It is not that people do not hear the double standards argument, they hear it, but whereas last time I checked Israel had not used poison gas, the same cannot be said of Saddam." That is how it is answered - there is always some kind of fundamental difference between the two and of course, if he cannot find one, he will always turn around and say, well Saddam is a dictator and Israel is a democracy. They have to find excuses and so they do; that is how the system works .

In The Washington Post and The New York Times, the key columnists on the Middle East are all Jews. Two are big supporters of the peace process, but there is one on the right, William Safire, who has never criticized Israel. In short, there is no unified position.

As to what the Iraqi leadership thought the Americans would do, there are two interpretations: one possibility is that the Iraqi leadership at one point thought that no matter what they did, a military attack against them was inevitable. The other possibility is that they thought this whole thing was a bluff. In fact, Iraq for a long time believed that the US was bluffing and was too scared to go to war. I think that once the military was deployed, there was most certainly a segment of both the American military and the administration that believed not only that Saddam should be taught a lesson and forced to withdraw from Kuwait, but also that the size of his military should be drastically reduced.

Saddam Hussein did not miscalculate American behavior, and he expected the US to mount a military attack against him. If you look at all his speeches beginning with those he made in the Autumn of 1989, it becomes clear that he believed that with the Soviet Union gone, the hopelessly pro-Israel US was going to intervene directly to establish American hegemony in the Middle East, with or without Israel. Saddam may have made his decision to invade Kuwait back in the autumn of 1989. What he was trying to do was to win the support of Arab public opinion at a time when Arab public opinion was very anti-American even without Saddam Hussein because of the issues of Soviet Jewish immigration, Jerusalem, and the Intifada. Saddam most certainly sought to exploit that atmosphere, which is why we saw Abu Ammar spend so much time in Baghdad.

Saddam’s main miscalculation had to do with whether or not the Arabs would allow this American intervention. The bottom line is that the assessment in Baghdad was that in that environment of anti-Americanism and very shaky Arab governments, no Arab government would dare accept the idea of American troops landing on its soil in order to fight against an Arab country. To make sure, or so he thought, he became the champion of the Palestinian cause and entered into the Arab Cooperation Council Agreement with Egypt, Jordan and Yemen, and then went to Saudi Arabia and assured the Saudis further by signing the pact of non-aggression with them. In other words, even though he calculated that the US was going to try to attack, he thought that at a minimum, the Arabs would not cooperate, which would guarantee that he emerged as the victor.

As for King Fahed, he found himself if a real dilemma when Dick Cheney came to him and showed him these incredible electronic maps, which showed that the Iraqi forces were deployed in such a way that they could invade Saudi Arabia; it is no wonder that he was scared, especially when he heard Dick Cheney say, “We do not believe that Saddam is going to invade Kuwait, but we do believe that he is going to invade you and I can tell you from now, we will not be able to stop him. The only way we can prevent this from happening is by landing our forces on your soil.”

Did the US exaggerate in selling the decision? Absolutely. Did the US oversell the possibility that Saddam would invade Saudi Arabia? Of course it did. The President made a decision not because he was absolutely sure that Saddam was going to invade Saudi Arabia, but because he had received a warning, and that was enough; he could not afford to ignore it because he knew that he would lose the presidency if people ever found out that he had been warned but had chosen to ignore the warning. Once he had made the decision, everything else was a sales job and it did not matter what the States had to do; if it had to lie, it lied, if it had to exaggerate, it exaggerated, and if it had to twist arms, it twisted arms; that, unfortunately, is the way politics work.

Were a new war with Iraq to take place, there would be a terrible worsening of Arab-American relations and possibly attacks by different groups, including on our forces in the Gulf; this, of course, would do untold damage to the peace process and would be giving Netanyahu exactly what he wants. Having said that, in the aftermath of a confrontation with Iraq, the American government would probably feel obligated to restore some Arab backing for a revival of the peace process in order to compensate for what had happened and try to put an end to the tension. Nevertheless, I do not think that we are going to see any dramatic changes.

As to why the US did not destroy Iraq despite having the power to do so, there were three basic calculations. Calculation number one was that the coalition was established with a single UN mandate, namely, to liberate Kuwait. To destroy Iraq was not a part of the mandate, and the Bush administration understood very clearly that it must maintain an international coalition of legitimacy. Number two, the Arab countries opposed it, saying, “Do not go to Baghdad, because if you do, we are all going to be in trouble. There is a big difference between liberating Kuwait and going to Baghdad.” Certainly other poles in the international coalition partners including France, but excluding Britain, would not have gone. Number three: the US had the capability to march over to Baghdad, but the American assessment was that we would lose a lot of American troops while others would end up remaining in the Gulf for an indefinite period and we would have another Vietnam. In other words, the assessment was that it would be totally disastrous.

There were probably several attempts by the Americans to assassinate Saddam Hussein during the war. On several occasions CNN showed pictures of Saddam meeting with his advisors in one of the huge vans that had been converted into a mobile headquarters, and American airplanes hunted for these vans all over Iraq. Most of the time, of course, they ended up firing at perfectly innocent trucks. There is no doubt; America was out to get Saddam.

One has to take into account that there existed in the State Department a school of thought according to which the disintegration of Iraq was undesirable; even today, there is a widely held belief that if Iraq falls apart, it will have a totally destabilizing effect on the Gulf states and other countries about which the US cares. Turkey, despite everything and more than any other country did not want to see the disintegration of Iraq because of the Kurdish problem. Syria did not want to see the disintegration of Iraq. The most that people wanted, especially the Americans, was that Saddam personally would be overthrown.

One thing is certain. If Kofi Annan comes with a result but the US goes ahead anyway and launches a military attack, it is going to be the end of Pax-Americana in the Middle East and probably the end of American influence globally as well. I think that were America to attack in spite of the apparent consensus with the UN Security Council that the diplomatic deal is acceptable, the Iraqi regime would most likely survive and undoubtedly wave goodbye to the UN inspectors, no one in the international community would support the US move or come to its side, and most likely there would be tremendous pressure on other countries particularly Russia to disregard the sanctions. Incidentally, Russia did not vote in favor of the recent resolution - even if it had, its leadership would not have considered the decision binding because it is Yeltsin who makes those kinds of decision - and if the US attacks Iraq with Russian opposition, Russia is simply going to adopt the stand that it no longer considers itself bound by the UN sanctions. It will be extremely difficult for Clinton to go against an apparent diplomatic solution that has the support of the majority of members of the UN Security Council.

If Russia, China and France accept the diplomatic solution, the only leverage the US will have pertains to the fact that the UN resolution is clear about one thing, namely, the fact that Iraq must comply and cannot negotiate with the UN resolutions. It is of course possible to negotiate when there is unfairness in the implementation of resolutions to the extent that the resolution is not being implemented as designed; that, of course, is a different story. I think that what happened in the recent meeting in the Security Council before the General Secretary visited Iraq is that parameters were defined concerning where there is agreement; that is Russia and France, or at least France, fully agreed with the US position that there has to be unconditional compliance, which means allowing the inspectors to go anywhere they want in Baghdad. That fixed parameter is probably the only one that can be deduced directly from the UN resolutions, and the Secretary-General was given the leverage to negotiate terms around that. Having said that, it will be hard domestically for the US to back down now and Clinton might even be willing to pay the international price because he cannot afford the domestic price of not doing something.

I think the most devastating criticism of the US position, which I have been making myself on the pages of American newspapers is that the US is not explicitly saying that full Iraqi compliance will lead to a lifting of the economic sanctions. The truth of the matter is that the US just simply cannot get itself used to the idea that the sanctions would be lifted and Saddam Hussein would still be there and probably get stronger, and the Americans are desperate to figure our how to resolve that problem. On the one hand, they cannot allow Saddam to get stronger, on the other, they want him to comply. The Americans recognize the problem, but they simply do not know how to deal with it.

I think that what the Iraqis are looking for is some kind of parameter regarding the number of sites that the inspection team needs to visit before the sanctions will be lifted. Where does it end, they ask? How many sites do you need to visit? I think that the Iraqis this time around will probably succeed in getting parameters like that, but the bottom line is that even if they are found to be in compliance, the US has not yet said that it is going to remove the economic sanctions and is still insisting that Iraq should obey human right principles in the North and in the South. Does that mean that the sanctions are indefinite? Once Saddam is found to be in compliance by the UN, I do not believe that the US would be able to use the excuse of human rights violations to prevent the sanctions from being lifted.

As to the UN resolutions being heavily influenced by the US, it does seem unfair that the US is able to have such an influence, but part of the reason is that the US is willing to provide the resources that other states or countries are not. I mean the US said take, you want inspectors, you want technology, and you want airplanes, etc., here they are, but even that is becoming an issue in Washington. The inspection regime certainly serves the interests of member states as well as the UN because the information that comes out from the UN inspection is readily available to the member states, particularly the member states that are very active. One has to remember that there is no such thing as the UN in a way; I mean, the UN does not have its own resources, all the resources are those of the member states and all the experts, particularly on intelligence and weapons of mass destruction are also members of the security apparatus of those states, so that is a part of the problem of the structure of the UN. It is not a world government; it is an organization made up of member states, which dominate operationally as well as in the decision-making process and by nature, tend to be selfish when it comes to their interests. It is a myth that the UN is an unbiased organization, although it is certainly less biased than any individual state.

The fact that some experts were wrong in their assumption that the Arabs would not allow American forces to land on Arab soil has led to very heavy criticism of their opinions. In fact, there has been a kind of crusade against the Arabists in the American political system or the Middle East experts who were seen to be sympathetic to the Arabs and who emphasized Arab public opinion, saying the masses would create uprisings and prevent every single Arab government from accepting US forces on Arab soil and that if the US should attack Iraq, there would be total chaos in the Middle East, which would not be in America’s interest. When the war took place, Arab governments accepted American forces, the US attacked Iraq and the Arab street was contained by the regimes and it seems to have given the US more - as opposed to less - influence than before and even enabled it to take the lead in the Arab-Israeli conflict. As a result, many people now believe that the experts did not know what they were talking about and that all of them should go. “Sure,” they say, “you have Arab public opinion, but it is irrelevant because Arab governments will make the same calculations that they did before, namely that there are far more rewards to be gained by supporting the US, especially if the US wins the confrontation. Arab governments will always find a way to deal with the voice of the streets.”

As to the possibility of an Israeli intervention in the Iraqi crisis, I think that it would be absolutely crazy for Israel to intervene, even as the result of an Iraqi attack with conventional weapons; were Israel to be attacked with non-conventional weapons, that would be somewhat different. I personally do not think that Iraq is going to attack Israel; it would make no sense for it to do so, because even if Iraq still has a few scud missiles, it would be stupid to waste them on Israel and on conventional weapons. Even in 1991 when it fired 60 or so Scud missiles, there was not that much damage, except, perhaps, for that inflicted on the Israeli psyche. Saddam could have launched chemical weapons in 1991 but he did not, because he knew what the consequences would be; the man, after all, is neither totally crazy nor suicidal.

As for the Arab reaction, one has to remember that a balloon has limits, and even though the Arab balloon did not explode last time, that does not mean that it will not do so this time; it can only take so much. I want to make something very clear: the Arab governments have often made tremendous mistakes in preserving their own interests. You cannot blame them, but this selfishness has made them pathetically ineffective. I believe that there is a need for difficult choices to be made and for a different political system to evolve. Speaking as an analyst, I look around and I imagine the changes that I myself would make if I were one of the leaders of Egypt, or Syria, or any Arab government. My foreign policy would be implemented very differently, within the acceptable limits, and I would design a policy that would accomplish things much more efficiently. One thing is clear: the Arab World is in need of democracy.

With regard to the best advice that I can give to the Palestinians, I would tell them that they should no longer think of American foreign policy as only the official foreign policy; they need to engage with the American public, including the American Jewish community, which is clearly not unified. A diplomatic initiative must be one oriented toward that arena of politics because the US is not a centralized state and Clinton ultimately will respond to domestic politics. Arab governments for some reason have not been able to understand this.

Let me give you an example: If one agrees that public opinion matters and that Jewish public opinion in America matters, then one should not go out and make a statement and say: “If the peace process does not move forward next month, I am going to unleash the Intifada again.” Why? Because those who need to know, know. I mean Israel knows that the Intifada could happen again, the Americans know it, and people who need to think strategically know it. So, why are you saying it? Who are you trying to reach? Remember that the right wing in Israel will be able to use that and say to the American Jewish community, “See, we told you, they are not serious about peace.” You need leverage, but leverage should be used in a very subtle way; to use it in an outward manner brings no benefits and can actually cost a lot. I regret to say this, but the Palestinian diplomats must come to terms with the fact that there is a huge lack of understanding concerning the complexity of the domestic politics in America.

Dr. Rosemary Hollis

The simulation is divided into four parts or rounds, each lasting 40 minutes, with ten- minute breaks in between for ‘press briefings’.

The room designations are as follows:

Room A = Seminar Room

Room B = Entrance

Room C = Reception Area

Room D = Dr. Abdul Hadi’s Office

It is May 1998. A military strike on Iraq by US and British forces was averted in February 1998 by the mediation of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Under his auspices an agreement was worked out whereby UNSCOM inspection teams would continue their work unimpeded, but on the understanding that a team of diplomats would accompany them on their inspections and that every effort would be made to reach a speedy conclusion to this phase of the UN operation. Once finished, the sanctions could be lifted and the UN would switch from inspections to routine monitoring.

Now, three months on, the UNSCOM inspectors are making some progress, but at a slower rate than expected. There have been difficulties arranging for an increase in the amount of oil Iraq can sell to buy food and medicine, because the Iraqis are reluctant to implement a measure which could imply the extended duration of the sanctions regime. There are fears that the Iraqi Government will again lose patience with the whole sanctions and inspections regime.

Each of the participants had to represent the following personalities and was given specific instructions about the positions of their countries:

US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

Role: To formulate and implement US foreign policy, bearing in mind how best to serve the US national interest.

ROUND 1

Go to the meeting in Room A.

Your task:

First introduce yourself to the others meeting in Room A. Together you are to work out a way to persuade the Iraqi regime to allow UNSCOM work to continue at the same time as finding a way to ease the humanitarian suffering of the Iraqi people without enabling the regime to benefit at their expense.

Between you, you should formulate a plan and choose a spokesperson to announce the plan in the press briefing to come.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 2

Stay in Room A.

You receive and read a communiqué on the latest developments on the ground.

Your task:

First tell the others in Room A who you are. The others are mostly members of the US Government and military. Together you should work out how to react to the news you have just received by communiqué. You brief the others on the formula you came up with for a peaceful solution in Round 1, and discuss with them whether this can still be implemented, given developments. Together you should come up with an action plan. Also prepare a press statement on the action plan. Only reveal what you want to in this. Choose someone to read the press statement at the next press briefing.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 3

Stay in Room A.

You receive and read a new communiqué on the latest developments.

Your task:

Make sure you all know who each of you are. You are members of the US and Saudi governments and military. Decide together what action to take in light of developments. Prepare an action plan to inform others what steps you are taking and intend to take, which you will read out at the next press briefing.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 4

Stay in Room A.

Your task:

Discuss with your fellow nationals how you really want to proceed. Prepare a statement on the actions you will take to be read out in full at the final meeting.

Final meeting of all participants in Room A.

US Secretary of Defense, William Cohen

Role: To formulate and implement US national defense policy, bearing in mind how best to serve the US national interest.

ROUND 1

Go to the meeting in Room D.

Your task: First introduce yourself to the others meeting in Room D. Together you are to work out a plan for how to defend Saudi Arabia and the other GCC states from any potential threats from Iraq and Iran, both before and after the removal of the sanctions regime on Iraq. You need alternative plans for how to contain Iraq with the current regime in place and when, potentially, there is a successor regime. Your priorities are to protect US interests and to take into account the sensibilities of US allies in the region. Once you have formulated a strategy, devise a press statement that publicizes whatever aspect of your strategy you wish to reveal. Choose a spokesperson to read the press statement in the press briefing to come.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 2

Stay in Room A.

You receive and read a communiqué on the latest developments on the ground.

Your task:

First tell the others in Room A who you are. They are mostly members of the US Government and military. Together you should work out how to react to the news you have just received by communiqué. You brief the others on the strategy you helped work out in Round 1, and discuss with them whether this is useful or not in light of current circumstances. Together you should come up with an action plan. Also prepare a press statement on the action plan. Only reveal what you want to in this. Choose someone to read the press statement at the next press briefing.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 3

Stay in Room A.

You receive and read a new communiqué on the latest developments.

Your task:

Make sure you all know who each of you are. You are members of the US and Saudi governments and military. Decide together what action to take in light of developments. Prepare an action plan to inform others what steps you are taking and intend to take, which you will read out at the next press briefing. You may conceal some of what you intend if you wish.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 4

Stay in Room A.

Your task:

Discuss with your fellow nationals how you really want to proceed. Prepare a statement on the actions you will take, to be read out in full at the final meeting.

Final meeting of all participants in Room A.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for the US Military

Role: To implement US national defense policy, in accordance with the policy formulated by the US Cabinet, and to advise the US Secretary of Defense on capabilities and options.

ROUND 1

Go to the meeting in Room D.

Your task:

First introduce yourself to the others meeting in Room D. Together you are to work out a plan for how to defend Saudi Arabia and the other GCC states from any potential threats from Iraq and Iran, both before and after the removal of the sanctions regime on Iraq. You need alternative plans for how to contain Iraq with the current regime in place and when, potentially, there is a successor regime. Your priorities are to protect US interests and to take into account the sensibilities of US allies in the region. Once you have formulated a strategy, devise a press statement that publicizes whatever aspect of your strategy you wish to reveal. Choose a spokesperson to read the press statement in the press briefing to come.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 2

Stay in Room A.

You receive and read a communiqué on the latest developments on the ground.

Your task:

First tell the others in Room A who you are. They are mostly members of the US Government and military. Together you should work out how to react to the news you have just received by communiqué. You brief the others on the strategy you helped work out in round 1, and discuss with them whether this is useful or not in light of current circumstances. Together you should come up with an action plan. Also prepare a press statement on the action plan. Only reveal what you want to in this. Choose someone to read the press statement at the next press briefing.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 3

Stay in Room A.

You receive and read a new communiqué on the latest developments.

Your task:

Make sure you all know who each of you are. You are members of the US and Saudi governments and military. Decide together what action to take in light of developments. Prepare an action plan to inform others what steps you are taking and intend to take, which you will read out at the next press briefing. You may conceal some of what you intend if you wish.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 4

Stay in Room A.

Your task:

Discuss with your fellow nationals how you really want to proceed. Prepare a statement on the actions you are and will take, to be read out in full at the final meeting.

Final meeting of all participants in Room A.

US National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger

Role: To advise the US President on security issues and how best he can serve the US national interest at the same time as protecting his political standing in the US.

ROUND 1

Go to the meeting in Room B.

Your task:

First introduce yourself to the others meeting in Room B. Together you are to work out a plan for conducting a coup d’état in Iraq to overthrow the current regime. Decide what is the most effective way to do this and what kind of government will result. Once you have formulated the plan, devise a press statement that publicizes whatever aspect of your plan you wish to reveal. You can deliberately mislead if you wish, or you can engage in a propaganda exercise. Choose a spokesperson to read the press statement in the press briefing to come.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 2

Stay in Room A.

You receive and read a communiqué on the latest developments on the ground.

Your task:

First tell the others in Room A who you are. The others are mostly members of the US Government and military. Together you should work out how to react to the news you have just received by communiqué. You brief the others on the plan you helped work out in Round 1 and discuss with them whether this is useful or not in light of current circumstances. Together you should come up with an action plan. Also prepare a press statement on the action plan. Only reveal what you want to in this. Choose someone to read the press statement at the next press briefing.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 3

Stay in Room A.

You receive and read a new communiqué on the latest developments.

Your task:

Make sure you all know who each of you are. You are members of the US and Saudi governments and military. Decide together what action to take in light of developments. Prepare an action plan to inform others what steps you are taking and intend to take, which you will read out at the next press briefing. You may conceal some of what you intend if you wish.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 4

Stay in Room A.

Your task:

Discuss with your fellow nationals how you really want to proceed. Prepare a statement on the actions you will take to be read out in full at the final meeting.

Final meeting of all participants in Room A.

Saudi Minister of Oil

Role: To maximize the Saudi oil market share and maximize the returns on Saudi oil sales. You know that the Saudi Government as a whole is worried about Arab public opinion regarding the suffering of the Iraqi people. However, you do not think a rapid return of Iraqi oil to the market would be good for prices. You therefore have to find a way to best protect the Saudi national interest.

ROUND 1

Go to the meeting in Room C.

Your task:

First introduce yourself to the others meeting in Room C. Together with other players in the energy market, you are to work out the implications of increased Iraqi oil sales under sanctions and once sanctions are lifted. Discuss options with the others and decide what course you will recommend to King Fahd, Crown Prince Abdallah and the rest of the cabinet.

At the end of your meeting attend:

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 2

Go to the meeting in Room C.

You receive and read a communiqué on the latest developments on the ground.

Your task: First tell the others in Room C who you are. You discuss with the others at the meeting what options are open in light of recent developments. You brief the others on what you have learned in Round 1, but you may choose to keep some details to yourself. Together decide on a strategy to influence US policy in the direction you want. Keep this for Round 3.

Attend:

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 3

Stay in Room A.

You receive and read a new communiqué on the latest developments.

Your task:

Make sure you all know who each of you are. Apart from you, the others are members of the US and Saudi governments and military. Decide together what action to take in light of developments. Prepare an action plan to inform others what steps you are taking and intend to take, which you will read out at the next press briefing. You may conceal some of what you intend if you wish.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 4

Go to meeting in Room D.

Your task:

Discuss with your fellow national how you really want to proceed. Prepare a statement on the actions you will take, to be read out in full at the final meeting. Also be ready to tell others how well-served your interests have been in the course of the simulation.

Final meeting of all participants in Room A.

Russian Foreign Minister, Yevgeni Primakov

Role: To formulate and implement Russian foreign policy, bearing in mind how best to serve the Russian national interest.

ROUND 1

Go to the meeting in Room A.

Your task:

First introduce yourself to the others meeting in Room A. Together you are to work out a way to persuade the Iraqi regime to allow UNSCOM to finish its work at the same time as finding a way to ease the humanitarian suffering of the Iraqi people. You personally want to see an end to sanctions as soon as possible, but you want the US to accept this strategy. Between you, you should formulate a plan and choose a spokesperson to announce the plan in the press briefing to come.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 2

Go to the meeting in Room D.

You receive and read a communiqué on the latest developments on the ground.

Your task:

First tell the others in Room C who you are. The others are a combination of Russians and French. Together you should work out how to react to the news you have just received by communiqué. Work out a strategy to try to dissuade the US from resorting to force. Help draft a plan of action and prepare a statement for the press. This may conceal some of your plans if you wish. Choose someone to read the press statement at the coming press briefing.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 3

Go to the meeting in Room D.

You receive and read a new communiqué on the latest developments.

Your task: Make sure you all know who each of you are. The others include members of the Iraqi opposition and French and Russian nationals. You are not sure that the Iraqi opposition will serve your interests. Also, you are no longer sure that the French Government is thinking along the same lines as you. Try to develop a plan with the French to respond to events and draft a statement for the press. If necessary, formulate a separate position. Choose a spokesperson to read this statement. At the end of the meeting go to the press briefing.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 4

Go to the meeting in Room B.

Your task:

Discuss with your fellow national how you really want to proceed. Prepare a statement on the actions you will take, to be read out in full at the final meeting.

Final meeting of all participants in Room A.

French Foreign Minister, Hubert Vedrine

Role: To formulate and implement French foreign policy, bearing in mind how best to serve the French national interest.

ROUND 1

Go to the meeting in Room A.

Your task:

First introduce yourself to the others meeting in Room A. Together you are to work out a way to persuade the Iraqi regime to allow UNSCOM to finish its work at the same time as finding a way to ease the humanitarian suffering of the Iraqi people. You personally want to see an end to sanctions as soon as possible, but you want the US to accept this strategy. Between you, you should formulate a plan and choose a spokesperson to announce the plan in the press briefing to come.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 2

Go to the meeting in Room D.

You receive and read a communiqué on the latest developments on the ground.

Your task:

First tell the others in Room C who you are. The others are a combination of Russians and French. Together you should work out how to react to the news you have just received by communiqué. Work out a strategy to try to dissuade the US from resorting to force. Help draft a plan of action and prepare a statement for the press. This may conceal some of your plans if you wish. Choose someone to read the press statement at the coming press briefing.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 3

Go to the meeting in Room D.

You receive and read a new communiqué on the latest developments.

Your task:

Make sure you all know who each of you are. The others include members of the Iraqi opposition and French and Russian nationals. You are not sure that the Iraqi opposition will serve your interests. However, you are no longer so close to the Russian Government as you were, in light of recent developments. Try to develop a plan with the Russians to respond to events and draft a statement for the press. Alternatively you may decide to draft a separate position. Choose a spokesperson to read this statement. At the end of the meeting go to the press briefing.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 4

Go to the meeting in Room C.

Your task:

Discuss with your fellow national how you really want to proceed. Prepare a statement on the actions you will take, to be read out in full at the final meeting.

Final meeting of all participants in Room A.

A defector from Iraq and former senior officer in the Iraqi army with personal knowledge of President Saddam Hussein

Role: To formulate and implement a coup d’état to overthrow and replace the government of Iraq.

ROUND 1

Go to the meeting in Room B.

Your task:

First introduce yourself to the others meeting in Room B. Together you are to work out a plan for conducting a coup d’état in Iraq to overthrow the current regime. Decide what is the most effective way to do this and what kind of government will result. Once you have formulated the plan, devise a press statement that publicizes whatever aspect of your plan you wish to reveal. You can deliberately mislead if you wish or you can engage in a propaganda exercise. Choose a spokesperson to read the press statement in the press briefing to come.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 2

Go to the meeting in Room C.

You receive and read a communiqué on the latest developments on the ground.

Your task:

First tell the others in Room C who you are. You discuss with the others at the meeting what options are open in light of recent developments. You brief the others on what you have learned in Round 1, but you may choose to keep some details to yourself. Together decide on a strategy to influence US policy in the direction you want.

Attend:

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 3

Go to the meeting in Room D.

You receive and read a new communiqué on the latest developments.

Your task:

Make sure you all know who each of you are. The others include French and Russian nationals. You are not sure that they have your interests at heart, but try to persuade them of your case. If you wish, prepare a statement for the press to be read at the next press briefing.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 4

You have no specific room to go to. Try to visit other groups to lobby your cause. If you find yourself with nowhere to go, try the balcony next to Room D.

Your task:

Discuss with your fellow Iraqi how you really want to proceed. Prepare a statement on the actions you propose to take, to be read out in full at the final meeting. Also be ready to tell others how well-served your interests have been in the course of the simulation.

Final meeting of all participants in Room A.

Chief Executive of US oil company Mobil

Role: To maximize the profits of your company, which is engaged in oil explorations and production as well as buying and selling oil produced by others, such as Saudi Arabia. Your company is part of a consortium developing oil in the Caspian Sea region. You want to end US sanctions on Iran so that you can bring out Caspian Sea oil via Iran. Meanwhile, you do not want the French and Russian companies that have draft contracts with Iraq to be able to go ahead with these until your company has a chance to negotiate rival contracts with the Iraqis. You do not expect to be able to do this until there has been a change of regime in Iraq, given US hostility to Saddam Hussein.

ROUND 1

Go to the meeting in Room C.

Your task:

First introduce yourself to the others meeting in Room C. Together with other players in the energy market, you are to work out the implications of increased Iraqi oil sales under sanctions and once sanctions are lifted. Your personal goal is try to keep Iraq off the market as far as possible, so long as the current Iraqi regime and sanctions are in place. However, you do not want to jeopardize your chances of one day operating in Iraq. Work out who else in your meeting has compatible interests. Also, decide what policy you wish to urge on the US Government in light of what you discover in the meeting. Keep your thoughts to yourself until Round 2.

At the end of your meeting attend:

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 2

Stay in Room A.

You receive and read a communiqué on the latest developments on the ground.

Your task:

First tell the others in Room A who you are. They are all members of the US Government and military. Together you should work out how to react to the news you have just received by communiqué. You brief the others on what you have learned in Round 1, but you may choose to keep some details to yourself. Decide how much you think the US Government line will serve your company interests. Make a note of your conclusions.

Attend:

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 3

Stay in Room A.

You receive and read a new communiqué on the latest developments.

Your task:

Make sure you all know who each of you are. Apart from you, the others are members of the US and Saudi governments and military. Join in their discussion to decide what action to take in light of developments and try to influence their thinking in your favor. Decide how the action plan they are developing will affect your interests and make a note of it.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 4

Stay in Room A.

Your task:

Discuss with your fellow nationals how you really want to proceed. Prepare a statement on the actions you will take, to be read out in full at the final meeting. Also be ready to tell others how well served your interests have been in the course of the simulation.

Final meeting of all participants in Room A.

Chief Executive of the Russian oil company Lukoil

Role: To maximize the profits of your company, which is engaged in oil explorations and production as well as buying and selling oil. You have draft contracts with the Iraqi Government to develop their oil sector as soon as the lifting of sanctions permits. You want to go ahead as soon as possible. In the meantime, you are prepared to buy Iraqi oil under the oil-for-food arrangements.

ROUND 1

Go to the meeting in Room C.

Your task:

First introduce yourself to the others meeting in Room C. Together with other players in the energy market, you are to work out the implications of increased Iraqi oil sales under sanctions and once sanctions are lifted. Your personal goal is try to get Iraq back into full production as soon as possible. Work out who else in your meeting has compatible interests. Also, decide what policy you wish to urge on the Russian Government in light of what you discover in the meeting. Keep your thoughts to yourself until Round 2.

At the end of your meeting attend:

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 2

Go to the meeting in Room D.

You receive and read a communiqué on the latest developments on the ground.

Your task:

First tell the others in Room C who you are. The others are a combination of Russians and French. Together you should work out how to react to the news you have just received by communiqué. Work out a strategy to try to dissuade the US from resorting to force. Help draft a plan of action and prepare a statement for the press. This may conceal some of your plans if you wish. Choose someone to read the press statement at the coming press briefing.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 3

Go to the meeting in Room D.

You receive and read a new communiqué on the latest developments.

Your task:

Make sure you all know who each of you are. The others include members of the Iraqi opposition and French and Russian nationals. You are not sure that the Iraqi opposition will serve your interests. However, the Russian and French governments are thinking more along the same lines as you. Try to handle the situation as best you can, while discussing options. Help the Russian Government to develop a plan to respond to events. At the end of the meeting go to the press briefing.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 4

Go to the meeting in Room B.

Your task:

Discuss with your fellow national how you really want to proceed. Prepare a statement on the actions you will take, to be read out in full at the final meeting. Also be ready to tell others how well served your interests have been in the course of the simulation.

Final meeting of all participants in Room A.

French Minister of Finance

Role: To formulate and implement French economic policy. You know that Iraq owes France a lot of money and you hope to arrange for this to be repaid once sanctions are lifted. You also know that the French oil company Elf has draft contracts in place with the Iraqis to develop its energy sector once sanctions are lifted. You want French interests to be served.

ROUND 1

Go to the meeting in Room C.

Your task:

First introduce yourself to the others meeting in Room C. Together with other players in the energy market, you are to work out the implications of increased Iraqi oil sales under sanctions and once sanctions are lifted. Your personal goal is try to get Iraq back into full production as soon as possible. Work out who else in your meeting has compatible interests. Also, decide what policy you wish the French Government to take in light of what you discover in the meeting. Keep your thoughts to yourself until Round 2.

At the end of your meeting attend:

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 2

Go to the meeting in Room D.

You receive and read a communiqué on the latest developments on the ground.

Your task:

First tell the others in Room C who you are. The others are a combination of Russians and French. Together you should work out how to react to the news you have just received by communiqué. Work out a strategy to try to dissuade the US from resorting to force. Help draft a plan of action and prepare a statement for the press. This may conceal some of your plans if you wish. Choose someone to read the press statement at the coming press briefing.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 3

Go to the meeting in Room D.

You receive and read a new communiqué on the latest developments.

Your task:

Make sure you all know who each of you are. The others include members of the Iraqi opposition and French and Russian nationals. You are not sure that the Iraqi opposition will serve your interests. However, you are no longer so close to the Russian Government as you were, in light of recent developments. Try to develop a plan with the Russians to respond to events and draft a statement for the press. Alternatively you may decide to draft a separate position. Choose a spokesperson to read this statement. At the end of the meeting go to the press briefing.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 4

Go to the meeting in Room C.

Your task:

Discuss with your fellow national how you really want to proceed. Prepare a statement on the actions you will take, to be read out in full at the final meeting. Also be ready to tell others how well-served your interests have been in the course of the simulation.

Final meeting of all participants in Room A.

Secretary General of the Iraqi National Congress opposition group in exile, Ahmed Challabi

Role: To formulate and implement a coup d’état to overthrow and replace the government of Iraq.

ROUND 1

Go to the meeting in Room B.

Your task:

First introduce yourself to the others meeting in Room B. Together you are to work out a plan for conducting a coup d’état in Iraq to overthrow the current regime. Decide what is the most effective way to do this and what kind of government will result. Once you have formulated the plan, devise a press statement that publicizes whatever aspect of your plan you wish to reveal. You can deliberately mislead if you wish or you can engage in a propaganda exercise. Choose a spokesperson to read the press statement in the press briefing to come.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 2

Go to the meeting in Room C.

You receive and read a communiqué on the latest developments on the ground.

Your task:

First tell the others in Room C who you are. You discuss with the others at the meeting what options are open in light of recent developments. You brief the others on what you have learned in Round 1, but you may choose to keep some details to yourself. Together decide on a strategy to influence US policy in the direction you want.

Attend:

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 3

Go to the meeting in Room D.

You receive and read a new communiqué on the latest developments.

Your task:

Make sure you all know who each of you are. The others include French and Russian nationals. You are not sure that they have your interests at heart, but try to persuade them of your case. If you wish, prepare a statement for the press to be read at the next press briefing.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 4

You have no specific room to go to. Try to visit other groups to lobby your cause. If you find yourself with nowhere to go, try the balcony next to Room D.

Your task:

Discuss with your fellow Iraqi how you really want to proceed. Prepare a statement on the actions you propose to take, to be read out in full at the final meeting. Also be ready to tell others how well served your interests have been in the course of the simulation.

Final meeting of all participants in Room A.

Saudi Minister of Defense, Prince Sultan

Role: To formulate and implement Saudi national defense policy, bearing in mind how best to serve the Saudi national interest, in keeping with the interests of the Al-Saud family.

ROUND 1

Go to the meeting in Room D.

Your task:

First introduce yourself to the others meeting in Room D. Together you are to work out a plan for how to defend Saudi Arabia and the other GCC states from any potential threats from Iraq and Iran, both before and after the removal of the sanctions regime on Iraq. You need alternative plans for how to contain Iraq with the current regime in place and when, potentially, there is a successor regime. Your priorities are to protect Saudi interests and to take into account public opinion in the region. Once you have formulated a strategy, help the US devise a press statement that publicizes whatever aspect of your strategy you wish to reveal. Choose a spokesperson to read the press statement in the press briefing to come.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 2

Go to the meeting in Room C.

You receive and read a communiqué on the latest developments on the ground.

Your task:

First tell the others in Room C who you are. You discuss with the others at the meeting what options are open in light of recent developments. You brief the others on what you have learned in Round 1, but you may choose to keep some details to yourself. Together decide on a strategy to influence US policy in the direction you want. Keep this for Round 3.

Attend:

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 3

Stay in Room A.

You receive and read a new communiqué on the latest developments.

Your task:

Make sure you all know who each of you are. Apart from you, the others are members of the US and Saudi governments and military. Decide together what action to take in light of developments. Prepare an action plan to inform others what steps you are taking and intend to take, which you will read out at the next press briefing. You may conceal some of what you intend if you wish.

Press briefing in Room A.

ROUND 4

Go to meeting in Room D.

Your task:

Discuss with your fellow national how you really want to proceed. Prepare a statement on the actions you will take, to be read out in full at the final meeting. Also be ready to tell others how well served your interests have been in the course of the simulation.

Final meeting of all participants in Room A.

The Iraqi Government announces it has lost faith in the agreement reached with the UN last February. It announces that the UNSCOM inspectors must leave unless the UN agrees to a four-week deadline for completing the inspections and then to lift sanctions.

A dissident group of ‘Afghan’ returnees and others, calling itself the Brotherhood for the Protection of Muslims Against Western Imperialism, fires a rocket grenade at a car in Dahran carrying the Commander of the US Central Command in the Gulf (General Zinny) and the Chief of the Saudi Air Force. Both are killed and so are the assailants in the ensuing gun battle.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi Government rounds up the US and British members of the UNSCOM team in Iraq and holds them hostage. Iraq says they will only be released if the UN agrees to its terms for bringing a speedy conclusion to the inspections and a lifting of sanctions. Iraq also says that it cannot guarantee the safety of the hostages should the US resort to military force.

The crisis over Iraq in February 1998 serves as a useful illustration of US foreign policy in the Middle East, including the instruments of policy implementation.

Participants are invited to consider the following questions:

What interests appeared to underlie the US approach to the crisis?

What objectives did the US Government say they had?

Did they provide a sufficient explanation for their actions?

Which ‘forces’ appeared to be at work and to dictate the outcome?

How adequately does the Realist approach explain what happened?

Can you explain the crisis in terms of the World System Theory approach?

Do you think the Liberalism school is useful in understanding what happened; and in particular, what was there to learn about decision-making inside the US?

Participants divide into three groups, each to take one of the main theoretical approaches.

The task: to identify the implications for the Palestinians of the Iraq crisis and to formulate some recommendations for the Palestinian leadership and community accordingly.