Amir Taheri
Friday, April 11, 2003

On Sept. 30, 1980, a week after it had invaded Iran, Saddam Hussein's army fired a series of missiles against Ahvaz, the city of my birth. One such missile fell on my ancestral home in the centre of the city, wiping out the memories of over a century and creating a ring of rubble around a deep crater. Although I was thousands of miles away when the attack happened, the image continued to haunt me. It was as if a new image, equally dramatic, was needed to replace it.

That image came on Wednesday when the people of Baghdad dismantled Saddam Hussein's newest and grandest statue, signalling the end of his murderous regime.

The war that Saddam unleashed against Iran had lasted eight long years, claiming over a million Iranian and Iraqi lives. In that war Saddam became the only leader since the First World War to use chemical weapons, first against Iranian troops and later against civilian Iraqi Kurds.

Saddam's tale of tyranny is by now too well known to need retelling here. But what is astonishing is that there are still some, mostly in the free and prosperous Western societies, who seem to regret his demise simply because this was brought about by American and British military intervention.

Hatred for America has made it impossible for many to acknowledge the immense joy that most Iraqis, and a majority of Iranians, feel at seeing the worst regime in modern Arab history toppled with relatively few casualties and limited material damage.

My suggestion to those who feel sad about the end of Saddam is to set aside their dislike of the United States -- on a wide range of issues from the Kyoto Protocol to the claim that George W. Bush didn't win Florida -- and judge the liberation of Iraq on its merits. There will always be time and opportunity to bash the U.S. and Dubya on other issues.

For the first time in almost half a century, Iraq is free of bloody despots and has a chance to rebuild a peaceful and pluralist future. The Western democracies have a clear national security interest in making sure that Iraq becomes an open society and a democracy. For it is in closed societies and under despotic regimes that terrorism thrives and aggression is plotted.

Iraq could be the ideal candidate for becoming a new model for the Arab states. It is not as hopelessly overpopulated as Egypt. Nor is it as underpopulated as most other Arab states.

It is the only Arab state with enough water to sustain a credible agricultural economy. It also has the world's second-largest proven oil reserves, enough to finance long-term economic development projects.

And that is not all. Iraq has the largest urban middle class in the so-called Arab world. Iraqis represent a large portion of the Arab intellectual, scientific, literary and technological elite. More than four million people of Iraqi origin live abroad, including in Europe and North America. Many are immensely wealthy and could help their country of origin build a robust private sector.

Iraq has yet another distinction. It is the only Arab country where Shia Muslims form a majority of the population. Najaf, the centre of Iraqi Shiism, could regain its traditional status as the heart of a moderate, innovative and open Islam.

This, in turn, could help Iran's reformist movement win its current battle against the reactionary terrorist camp that still controls the key organs of the Iranian state.

Iraq will certainly not become a Westminster-style democracy overnight. But there is no reason why this opportunity for trying should be missed. Even if Iraq manages to develop a more normal system of government, one in which the slightest dissent is not punished by death, the impact on other Arab despots could be devastating. Just imagine what would happen in Syria if people in neighbouring Iraq were to enjoy freedom of expression even for a brief moment in history.

For Iraq to rebuild its national life it is important that the United States and its allies remain there as protectors for at least some time. We must not listen to those who, like France's President Jacques Chirac, are calling for an immediate withdrawal of the coalition from Iraq. Iraq today is a defenceless and fragile state in one of the world's toughest neighbourhoods.

If the United States and its allies leave now, or if they hand things over to the corrupt and inefficient UN bureaucracy, Iraq could itself become easy prey to its predatory neighbours. The Turks are already making noises about the Treaty of Lausanne that gave them droit de regard over Iraq's northern oil fields.

Tehran's fascist mullahs are making similar noises about the Treaty of Erzerum that gives Iran droit de regard over Shia shrines in southern Iraq.

Syria, for its part, is making noises about its traditional links with Arab tribes in the Anah region of northwestern Iraq. Even tiny Kuwait, itself the victim of Iraqi aggression in 1990, might wish to gulp down the chunk of Iraqi territory, including seven oil fields, that it has held since 1991.

If the United States and its allies were to leave Iraq too early, their departure could also signal the start of ethnic and sectarian conflicts that could spell the end of the Iraqi state. Some Kurds are already talking about the Treaty of Sèvres that promised a Kurdish state based on northern Iraq.

No, the United States and its allies should stay for as long as it takes to put Iraq back together again in a new democratic context. Other democracies should join the effort. Let us give Iraq a chance, and by doing so, give all Arabs a chance.