I often wondered why General Norman Schwarzkopf in 1991 was not given the green light to finish up Saddam Hussein. It was an easy goal to achieve and would have cost much less than now. Surprisingly, Saddam’s enemies wanted him to stay alive: Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey. The Saudis at the time objected the fall of Saddam because they feared of Shiite dominance getting closer to their borders. Jordan joined the Saudi Kingdom for the same reasons. Turkey had different worries about the fall of Saddam: the Kurds ambition for an independent state. These reasons never changed in 2003, and the three countries opposed the invasion once again.

The striking differences between the 1991 and 2003 invasions is that the opposition list grew longer: France, Russia, Germany, Egypt were added.

If the US went with such long list of opposition and after almost three years of the invasion, a question on my mind: who is really against the success of the US in Iraq?

Let us make the list (which is divided in three categories):

Definitely AGAINST the US success:

The insurgent: no explanation needed of why they are against the US success.

Syria: US success is a direct threat to the ruling regime. A success means that this adventure can be repeated in Syria and that is not good news to Mr. Assad’s regime

Turkey: Success in Iraq, although it backs its democracy, will definitely give the Kurds more political entity and this is totally against Turkey’s strategy of oppressing the Kurds.

Israel: It has always been Israel’s strategy to keep the Arabs busy with their own problems. This will diverge their focus from Israel and keep the Arabs divided and weak. (I can safely argue that a democratic Middle East is not of Israel’s benefit but this would require a whole new article).

Definitely FOR teh US success:

The Local Iraqi government, the Shiites and the Kurds: again no need for explanation

UK, Italy, Australia and Co.: these countries were involved in this war without the support of their own people, a success will prove that the corresponding leaders were right.

Lebanon: this might be a surprise to some, but failure of the US mission in Iraq means victory of Syria’s dictatorship: Lebanon’s first enemy. Besides, Lebanon is trying to fine-tune its democratic system; another friendly neighboring democracy can only help.

Definitely for a WEAK US success: (Here, the list is long)

Saudi Arabia: a failure will bring destabilization to the region; however, a clear success brings threat to the kingdom that is based on “anti-democratic” system.

Egypt: same as Saudi Arabia, but on top of that, a weak success guarantees the need of Mr. Moubarak to mediate from time to time. This is exactly what happened last week in Cairo where the Iraqis met and had some agreement.

France, Germany, Russia, China: a bright success means a more stubborn and arrogant US policy in the world. A complete failure will put the whole world at the mercy of Bin Laden’s followers. Also, it is a giant set-back for democracy that, at least France and Germany, cherish.

Iran: this also might be a surprise. The Iranians are interested in weak victory and not defeat of the Americans because such success will put the Shiites in control. Their long term strategy would be to ask for US withdrawal after the Shiite are in control. Later they will use their moral influence to stir the Iraqi government as they wish. Ironically, according to this scenario, the US would have done the dirty job for the Iranians who are able to achieve the targets of the 1980’s war with Saddam without spilling one drop of blood. On the other hand, a blunt US victory is a threat to their regime and will weaken the ruling hardliners.