Today, neither Iraq nor the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the root of the region's problems, but each represents a flashpoint around which the discontented are likely to rally. Among many Palestinians, and throughout the Arab world, there is still instinctive sympathy with Iraq because of its anti-Israeli stance. Clearly, the U.S. is aware of this too, and every option seems to have enormous risks. But Bush administration officials apparently have decided that by overthrowing Saddam, short-term outrage here is likely to die down and go away. And if they're right, that would remove one of the main irritants in Arab-Western relations.

If the U.S. and U.N. work only to contain Saddam, they will need to keep troops and inspectors massed in the region. That might be effective in checking his development of weapons of mass destruction, and it might deter him from once again invading a neighboring country. And clearly, Iraq's neighbors -- Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and even Iran -- would be disappointed if the U.S. left the region to fend for itself. They have very little doubt that Saddam Hussein poses a real threat, maybe not now but certainly in the future if he's given a chance to rearm. And even among relief agencies operating in Iraq, there is no question that the regime spends huge sums on weapons and the army while neglecting the human needs of its own population. Then it magnifies those ills and blames them on the West.

But thousands of U.S. troops in the region fan the sort of resentment that fuels the fury of Osama bin Laden and his disciples. And dealing with Iraq without addressing the Israeli-Palestinian problem seems useless and may even reinforce that resentment. In answer to Powell's presentation this week to the Security Council, the Syrian representative answered that the U.S. line on Iraq sounded unconvincing "while Israel still occupies Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian lands and threatens its neighbors." Iraq's representative to the U.N. cited the Palestinians as well as Israel's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq also tried to link its case in 1990-91 to an alleged Israeli violation of Security Council resolutions, and it followed through by firing 38 Scud missiles at the Tel-Aviv area. It didn't achieve much then beyond a brief burst of sympathy from Arab populations and it is not likely to achieve much this time.

Hisham Qassem, the editor of the independent Cairo Times English-language newspaper in Egypt, does think that resentment at the U.S. stance on Israel plays a role in the population's opposition to a war on Iraq. "People see the U.S. not doing anything to stop Ariel Sharon and that makes them angry," he says. "If another country were to lead the attack, not so many people would oppose it." Even though there is some anger over the approaching war, Qassem dismisses any chance of serious unrest when it happens. "The Arab street is apathetic on the issue of Iraq, and in any case the street has never toppled governments," he says. The government of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is not worried about demonstrations because "they are confident they have suppressed dissent."

In Egypt as in other Arab countries, says Qassem, the regimes are actually more concerned about U.S. policy than about their own populations. Noting that the none of the 22 members of the Arab League is a democracy, he says: "The governments here and elsewhere in the region are against action on Iraq because they get very nervous about the phrase 'regime change.' They are afraid that if it's successful in Iraq it may be applied in other countries too."

The result of the strange mix of emotions and interests over Iraq this time has led to a careful balancing act by the Arab countries. Governments overtly oppose the war and take initiatives to try to avert it, such as the slightly ludicrous effort to persuade Saddam to accept exile. On the other hand, they are wary of offending the U.S., in part out of fear that what happens to Iraq will then happen to them.

Syria has always been in danger of being next in line, both because it is still on the U.S. State Department's list of countries supporting terrorism and lately because it is seen to be cooperating with Iraq. The Lebanese Hezbollah movement has kept up sporadic attacks along Israel's northern border even after the Israelis withdrew in 2000, and that helps establish them as one of the most likely targets in a continuing U.S. war on terrorism.

"Syria knows that it and Hezbollah will be next on the list after Iraq, and it's trying everything to avoid that," says Farid El-Khazen, a political science lecturer at the American University in Beirut. That is why the young and inexperienced president Bashar Assad has been cooperating with the U.S. in the fight against al-Qaida, but El-Khazen doubts that that's enough. "There are all the outstanding issues and then lately the U.S. has been upset over Syria's purchase of illegal Iraqi oil and over reports that some weapons of mass destruction have been moved from Iraq to Syria."

And so, while anger and frustration over the looming war run high in the Arab countries, it may not be as strong or effective as many Western analysts suggest. Many here warn that the reaction will depend on the way the war develops. The longer it takes and the more Iraqi casualties it claims, the higher the risk of significant unrest in the Arab world. One analyst asks, however, "Even if it is quick and clean, will Al-Jazeera also say so?"

Attacks against American targets may increase as the war approaches or when it actually happens, analysts say. But the consensus here is that if the operation is relatively efficient, and if casualties are limited, an invasion will not bring a cataclysmic explosion on the Arab street.

Recent Stories