Aftershock

What happens when the fighting stops? Will the war really bring peace to Iraq or will the conflict tip the Middle East into chaos?

Iraq

Even as the battle for Baghdad rages, a fierce dispute – no less significant – has broken out over who should rule Iraq after Saddam Hussein has gone. It is a conflict which is dividing the US administration, damaging US relations with Britain, and making it more difficult for Washington to patch up its relations with France, Germany and Russia.

A plan backed by Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defence, and the civilian leadership of the Pentagon would establish an American protectorate over Iraq very similar to the imperial control exercised by Britain after its army captured Baghdad in 1917. Tony Blair and the US State Department, however, would prefer greater UN involvement in reconstructing Iraq and establishing a new Iraqi government. These plans take little account of the ethnic, religious and social complexity of Iraqi society or the speed with which resentment could build against foreign occupation or tutelage exercised by the US. Iraqi nationalism is discounted. There is also the fear and anger of Iraq's immediate neighbours such as Syria, Turkey and Iran, that they too will slide under American control.

One Iraqi businessman, long opposed to Saddam Hussein, explained how he had recently met a senior American official who believed he was destined for high office in Baghdad after Saddam Hussein has gone. "He asked my advice on how to recruit 250 Iraqi staff," said the businessman. "I was appalled. I told him that all the 250 people, if he could find them, would be regarded as spies by the rest of Iraqis. I told him that he would be better off thinking about the 500 American soldiers he would need just to keep him alive."

So far, the Pentagon's plan seems to have been accepted by the White House. The aim would be for a US-controlled administration made up of Iraqi exiles and other Iraqis considered trustworthy, but with no UN involvement other than as a provider of aid and humanitarian relief.

A US-controlled government in Baghdad, under retired Lieutenant-General Jay Garner, may not long survive the realities of Iraqi, regional or international politics. Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi favoured by some US right-wingers as the new leader, is a former banker who has been in exile since 1958. He has told friends that any Iraqi who is seen as an American pawn is likely to end up dead.

Iraq has always been a difficult country to rule. It is divided between three great communities: the Sunni Arabs, the Shia Arabs and the Kurds. The Sunni Arab minority has traditionally ruled the country under the Ottomans, the British and Saddam Hussein. The Shia and the Kurds both want, for their different reasons, to see this Sunni hegemony ended.

The Iraqi opposition is often blamed for its factiousness, but this mirrors Iraqi society. The opposition has also suffered from serious problems, not all of which are the fault of their leaders. The ferocity of the Iraqi secret police meant that it was impossible for a domestic resistance to develop under Saddam. One opposition leader once privately chided the Americans for thinking that "you can have a resistance in a country with a proactive and efficient security service like Saddam's". The result was that the only real opposition to the regime was in Iraqi Kurdistan, the three provinces – protected by US air cover – that Baghdad has not controlled since 1991. The rest of the opposition was more or less dependent on foreign backers. The most powerful of the non-Kurdish parties, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, is heavily dependent on Iranian support.

The Iraqi National Congress, dominated by Ahmed Chalabi, has a peculiar role in the opposition. Founded as an umbrella organisation for the opposition, with CIA assistance, it survived disastrous setbacks in the 1990s. Its own attempt to start a rebellion failed, but Chalabi had forged links with the congressional leaders and the Republican right. He has friendly relations with the two main Kurdish parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic Party.

Outside Kurdistan the base for the opposition remains narrow. One US official was quoted as saying: "It looks like we are going to do what we promised we wouldn't: take small groups of exiles with limited influence in Iraq and bring them in as the bulk of a transition government." Whoever rules in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam will have to deal with the disastrous state of the economy, mass unemployment and the effect of 25 years of war and sanctions. The infrastructure – power stations, water treatment plants and hospitals – has had no investment since 1990. The population relies on rations from the oil-for-food programme started in 1996. The rationing system works well but almost everything else is lacking.

Many of the best-educated Iraqis have emigrated abroad. The middle class at home is impoverished. The majority of the people in the towns and cities are unemployed. Hospital doctors make about $60 a month. Important installations such as telephone exchanges are being destroyed in the present war.

Iraq's oil revenues are not enough to pay for reconstruction. The oil industry itself is decrepit and oilfields have been over-exploited. Iraq is burdened with international debts. Many of its best technicians have found jobs abroad and few are likely to want to return home.

Many of these problems could be addressed and even resolved if Iraq looked like having a stable future. But this is the least likely scenario if the US seeks unilateral control, which is almost certain to be resisted now, or in the future, by Iraqis. Administration by the UN might provide the stability Iraq needs to start the long process of rebuilding a ruined country. But, after a war fought unilaterally by the US and Britain, Washington is unlikely to hand over real power to the very organisation that refused to support its war.

Patrick Cockburn is the co-author, with Andrew Cockburn, of 'Saddam Hussein: An American Obsession'

Syria

The war in Iraq is sending shockwaves across the region, far beyond Iraq's borders – and that is exactly what George Bush and the people around him who conceived this war always said they wanted it to do. The aim of the war, as stated by its proponents in the US administration, is not only to transform Iraq but also to transform its neighbours, and the entire Middle East as well.

In the rhetoric of the Bush administration, the aim is to bring democracy and free trade to the Arab world. But in the eyes of Arabs, Iranians and Turks across the region, the real aim is to ensure unchallenged US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

Only two governments in the region overtly and unequivocally support the war: Israel and Kuwait, and both are in step with their populations – although Israel is deeply at odds with the Palestinians in this as in all else. But across the rest of the Middle East, there is almost uniform popular opposition to the war.

Yet in only one country has the government dared unequivocally to oppose the war: Syria, whose President Bashar al-Assad seems to be voicing the feelings of many across the Middle East. Elsewhere, governments are hedging their bets and offering support and even practical help. Some leaders who are giving practical help do so secretly, concealing the fact from their own people, so afraid are they of the possible destabilising effect. Of the countries where the population is against the war, only in Turkey does democracy seem to have worked when popular anger prevented the government from offering the US the support it wanted. Some nations could lose their fragile stability because of this war; others see their income and independence threatened. Whatever the outcome, every country in the region has something to lose.

Justin Huggler

Despite its formal support for Resolution 1441, Syria has vigorously opposed war in Iraq. It was the only Arab country where, before the conflict began, there were major demonstrations. However, for the government, there is the anxiety that it will be the next Middle Eastern state to experience American anger – because it is a state that the United States believes supports terrorism and because of its opposition to Israel. For the repressed opposition within Syria, the demonstrations are also a means for voicing their condemnation of their own country's system. Then there are others who feel, despite the antagonism between the Syrian and Iraqi Baath parties, that the war is a pan-Arab cause and some have even travelled to join the defence of Baghdad.

For Syria, the real crisis comes after the war is over. It will lose the trade that had been built up with Baghdad. It will face massive pressure for diplomatic change – including peace with Israel, something which Syrian diplomacy has always opposed – without a full return to the country's pre-1967 borders. And there will be growing pressure for domestic change as well. Yet, ironically enough, President Bashar might secretly welcome a way to circumnavigate the old political élite, which remains resolutely opposed to liberalisation and modernisation. The question is how intrusive and insensitive the US is likely to be.

The People's View: "Saddam has a huge ego. He is a selfish man. On the other hand, Bush is arrogant and aggressive. It feels as if some personal revenge scenario is being played out between these two."

Mohammed Harb, teacher

Egypt

President Mubarak, like other Arab leaders, has walked a tightrope during this crisis – claiming to have tried to convince Saddam Hussein to co-operate fully with the weapons inspectors, while reiterating that Egypt could do nothing to stop the US from going to war if it chose to, therefore removing his regime from any responsibility. However, Egypt has given the coalition access to the region through the Suez Canal.

Ordinary Egyptians believe the war to be part of a larger plan by the US to dominate the region. Demonstrations have involved a cross-section of society. Despite the efforts of the security services, these protests have also provided a channel for anti-Mubarak sentiment, a significant development in a country that prohibits any statements against the President.

Egyptians view the war both as a violation of Iraq's national sovereignty and an inhumane attack on its civilian population. They believe the regional fallout of the conflict will be greater strategic control and cultural penetration by the US.

The People's View: "It's so frustrating. I can't believe we are allowing Iraq to become another Palestine."

Mohamed Hussein, 50, taxi driver

Israel

The Israelis are among the most enthusiastic cheerleaders for regime change. Iraq fired 39 Scuds at Tel Aviv during 1991 Gulf War, and gives money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. But there is growing concern that Mr Blair may now be able to persuade President Bush to force Israel to accept peace proposals it does not like.

Palestinians are passionately opposed to the war: they see it as a new occupation of Arab land. The fear has been that Israel will take advantage of attention being focused on Iraq to step up its campaign in Gaza and the West Bank. Palestinians fear the forced movement of people away from West Bank towns near Israel to cities deeper in the territories, so that Israel can annex more of the West Bank. Many Palestinians believe the invasion of Iraq is intended to protect Israeli power, by taking out one of Israel's most potent enemies. Palestinians identify with Iraqis, whom they now see as enduring an occupation like their own.

The People's View: "The Iraqis are doing the same thing we're doing in Palestine, but they're better equipped."

Phalstin Musalam, 20, Palestinian student

Kuwait

Expectations were high among Kuwaitis in 1991 after the liberation of their country from Iraqi occupation. Known for its peaceful affluence and relative tolerance, Kuwait had more freedoms than most of its neighbours. It was therefore expected that the occupation would be succeeded by a number of key reforms. These included giving the vote to Kuwaiti women and allowing them to stand for election; fairer distribution of its resources with reform of the political system and ruling family; and better treatment for Kuwaiti-born Arabs denied Kuwaiti citizenship. Unfortunately, progress has been slight on all three issues.

This time Kuwait's vocal support for the attack on Iraq has angered the wider Arab community. The Americans are likely to have stressed to their hosts that political change is overdue for Kuwait too. As other states in the region such as Qatar take steps towards democracy, how much longer will the ruling family in Kuwait be able to maintain the status quo?

The People's View: "Other Arabs say Kuwait supports America, but America supported us when we needed them."

Nauf Al Matrood, 19, at a pro-war rally

Jordan

Jordan is often referred to as the country most likely to be destabilised by the war in Iraq. King Abdullah has to juggle intense US pressure to help against fierce opposition from his own people. So far he has managed to keep things under control – although it has emerged that Jordan is allowing at least some US special forces to launch attacks from its territory.

Its economy stands to be heavily damaged by the war. Devoid of any natural resources, Jordan has depended in recent years on trade with Iraq, which supplied half of the country's oil free. As the majority of the population is of Palestinian origin, an escalation of the conflict between Israel and Palestine could well disturb the fragile peace.

The People's View: "What is happening to civilians in Iraq is a crime against humanity."

Mohammad Jaloos, artist

Iran

The Islamic republic is on the sidelines of a war between two of its most hated enemies. The official line is "active neutrality". But George Bush named the country as part of the "axis of evil" alongside Iraq, and Iran may be next.

US soldiers and influence on its western border would leave Iran isolated and surrounded; the eastern border is already under American sway thanks to the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan's role as a US ally. Secretly, the Iranian government is believed to be allowing some American overflights. Shia Iran will also spy an opportunity to extend its influence over the Shia-dominated south of Iraq. The real question is the reaction of the Iranian people. With the country locked in a power struggle between democratic reformers and Islamic hardliners, young Iranians, who favour rapprochement with the US, may take their cue from a US-run Iraq. But Iranians young and old remain fiercely nationalist.

The People's View: "What sin have the Iraqi women and children committed? Why are the Americans and the British killing innocent people?"

Fatemeh Bahaoddin, student

Saudi Arabia

In the run-up to the war against Iraq, Saudi Arabia at first refused and then reluctantly allowed the United States to use some of its facilities, while guaranteeing uninterrupted flows of oil – but it has also sought to find ways to resolve the Iraq issue without conflict. It has, in consequence, pleased nobody – as demonstrated by the spat between Crown Prince Abdullah and Libya's Colonel Gaddafi at the Sharmel-Sheikh Arab League summit in late February.

Once the war ends, the kingdom will have to mend its fences, both with the Arab world and the US. For Washington it will have to demonstrate its continued reliability as a strategic partner, which means rooting out domestic support for al-Qa'ida and collaborating closely over the war against terrorism – something it has begun to do. It will also undertake domestic reform to persuade the West that it, too, can modernise and democratise in its own fashion.

For Arab public opinion, it will have to demonstrate its continued support for an equitable solution to the problem of Palestine and for wider Arab concerns such as the reconstruction of Iraq. However the government will fear an ever-worsening regional crisis as Arab anger towards the US continues to mount.

The People's View: "The whole world is undoubtedly seeing the American cowboys as having come only for one aim: killing, destruction and bloodshed."

Editorial in Al-Madina newspaper

Turkey

Turkey forced the US to rethink its plans when the parliament refused to allow American troops to use its territory. The new Islamist government wanted the plan to be approved, not least because it does not want to jeopardise its strategic alliance with the US.

Unlike in Arab countries, massive public opposition to the war counts for something in slightly more democratic Turkey. But Nato has been split by a disagreement over protecting Turkey – and the US is now opposing the Turkish army's desire to go into the Kurdish areas of Iraq. The army, which still holds much of the real power, fears an independent Kurdish state which could rekindle the separatist ambitions of Turkey's own downtrodden Kurds.

The People's View: "Murderer, murderer, get out of Turkey!"

Students protesting at a visit by Colin Powell, US Secretary of State