Global Policy Forum

Bush's War is Obscene and Unjustifiable (December 31, 2002)
Former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Denis Halliday, expresses his outrage at the looming US threat in Iraq. He argues that citizens of democracies should take responsibility for the actions of their elected officials. (Foreign Policy in Focus)

Scylla and Charbydris (December 30, 2002)
The war is "certainly not about weapons," says ex-UN Humanitarian Coordinator Dennis Halliday, who argues that the US government's desire to control the oil-rich region drives the war. He believes that an end to sanctions and economic growth, not regime change, would empower Iraqis to demand fair governance and respect for human rights. (AlAhram)

Iraq Accuses US of Double Standards with North Korea (December 30, 2002)
The US is ready to go to war with Iraq, which has cooperated with UN arms inspectors, but is seeking a peaceful solution in North Korea, which recently expelled them. US oil interests in Iraq can only explain this contradiction, says Al-Thawara an Arabic newspaper. (New York Times)

In Baghdad, Many Insist Americans Would Regret an Invasion (December 30, 2002)
The US seems to believe that the Iraqi people would rally behind a violent effort to oust Saddam Hussein. However, the Iraqis interviewed in this article warn that Iraq's people, worn and angry from years of sanctions, need not support their leader to defend their country. (Los Angeles Times)

An Unnecessary War (2002)
The influential US journal Foreign Policy argues that the campaign to wage war against Iraq rests on "distorted history and faulty logic" and lacks a "strategic rationale." Advocates of war exaggerate Iraq's capabilities, falsify history, and propose armageddon scenarios if Iraq were left alone.

Persian Gulf—or Tonkin Gulf? (December 30, 2002)
The American Prospect argues that the "illegal no-fly zones could be war's trip wire." According to this article, no UN resolution exists to legitimize these zones, and current international law justifies Iraq's attempts to defend its air space. Yet, the no-fly zones may serve as the "hidden trigger" for war.

Robertson Says NATO 'Morally Obliged' to Back War (December 26, 2002)
As religious leaders use Christmas addresses to call for peace, the NATO Secretary General says that members must support the US in a war with Iraq. Although no decision had been made on what role the NATO nations would play in any military action, the US has suggested a number of options to consider. (Guardian)

Pope Confronts US, UK, Directly on "Preventive War" (December 25, 2002)
In a prayer read in Arabic, the Pope urged the US and "those responsible for nations and for international organizations" to do everything within their power to promote peace in the Middle East. (Le Monde)

US Public Is Unconvinced on Need to Wage War Against Iraq (December 24, 2002)
In this New York Times' interview, US Council on Foreign Relations President Les Gelb expresses the enormous opposition to an invasion of Iraq within the US and explains that the country is almost isolated in the world.

Why Any War with Iraq Will Be Over in a Flash (December 24, 2002)
The London Times article indicates that, in addition to gaining control of the region's oil reserves, Washington plans to attack Iraq to demonstrate to the world the new weaponry they will face if they oppose the US.

UN Chief Issues Secret Contingency Plans for Iraq (December 23, 2002)
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has instructed UN agencies to start contingency planning for Iraq, reports The Times of London. The UN staff is quietly "positioning emergency supplies and updating evacuation procedures," trying not to suggest to Iraqis that weapons inspections will inevitably lead to a war.

Rumsfeld to N. Korea: US Could Fight on Two Fronts (December 22, 2002)
US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says claims that US involvement in Iraq will have no bearing on policy towards North Korea. The US could fight in two regions at once. (Reuters)

US Military Chiefs Break Ranks to Say War "Will Be Bloody" (December 19, 2002)
US Marine Corps and Army generals fear that a military campaign against Iraq could turn into "a more protracted and bloody affair than some in the Pentagon's civilian leadership expect." (Independent)

Powell Turns Hawk Over Declaration (December 19, 2002)
The US Secretary of State Colin Powell joins the "hardline camp" as the step-by-step process towards war intensifies. Some see Powell's comments on the Iraqi declaration as part of a strategy to make the world support the US when it goes to war - rather than to stop a war from taking place. (Guardian)

Bush Likely to Declare Iraq in Violation (December 18, 2002)
Bush administration security advisors reportedly recommend that the US President declare Iraq in violation of resolution 1441. But instead of immediately going to war, President Bush will use the alleged omissions in Iraq's declaration to increase pressure on the UN and the weapons inspectors, and to push Iraq into committing a "material breach." (Associated Press)

Egypt is Skeptical About US Program to Foster Democracy (December 18, 2002)
Egypt accuses the United States of "lack(ing) honesty, justice, and transparency" in its plan to offer 29 million dollars in new foreign aid to Arab countries. The US rewarded Egypt's efforts to support the 1991 Gulf War with massive aid and debt forgiveness, but Egypt says promises of aid are "not worth the risk" of going to war again. (New York Times)

American Fatalism (December 12-18, 2002)
A columnist for the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram argues that the US should consider diplomacy the only way to truly resolve the crisis in Iraq. Plans for a war against Iraq, on the other hand, "can only lead to regional chaos." (Al-Ahram Weekly)

Ministers Favor Siege of Baghdad (December 17, 2002)
The British government favors a "pincer movement" from the north and south to undermine the political authority of Saddam Hussein, leading to an internal collapse rather than a "street by street fight" in the capital. (Guardian)

Tensions at UN over Iraq Dossier (December 17, 2002)
The US, as the only country to comment on the Iraqi dossier, states its "well-founded skepticism" over the declaration while other members wait for reports from UNMOVIC and IAEA before making judgments. The 10 non-permanent members, still irritated about the US's dealing with the declaration, will now receive a censored version. (BBC)

The Pentagon Muzzles the CIA (December 16, 2002)
While the US produces "evidence" meant to justify a preventive war against Iraq, the American Prospect questions the mechanisms of power in Washington. Who actually decides and on what grounds? This article shows how intelligence is manipulated to serve the cause of war.

Letter to America: An Interview with Jürgen Habermas (December 16, 2002)
Professor emeritus of philosophy at Frankfurt University, Jürgen Habermas, gives his view on a war on Iraq, US foreign policy, and the growing resentment throughout Europe against the politics of the present US administration. (Nation)

Iraq After D-Day: The Cordesman Memo (December 15, 2002)
Counterpunch analyses a paper by Middle East Expert Anthony Cordesman, which sets forth with "sarcastic glee all the reasons that even now Bush and his inner circle should think again and perhaps shrink back" from installing a US occupation government in Iraq. (CounterPunch)

US Cash Squads 'Buy' Iraqi Tribes (December 15, 2002)
The US pursues a campaign of persuading tribal leaders to revolt or to stop cooperating with Saddam Hussein. The tribal leaders' support is a critical part of the US military and political strategy towards regime change in Iraq. (Observer)

Russia Denounces External Pressure on UN Officials in Iraq (December 10, 2002)
Russia criticizes US pressure on UN weapons inspectors and warns the US against using the conflict over Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for unilateral military action for regime change in Iraq. (Agence France Press)

Talking Turkey About Iraq: Democracy and Double-Talk (December 9, 2002)
Although more than eighty percent of Turks are opposed to Turkey cooperating with the US in a possible invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration is pressuring Turkey's new government to support US war plans. This pressure could test promises by the US to support democracy in Turkey. (Foreign Policy in Focus)

Bush Has Little Intention of Playing by the Book (December 9, 2002)
The US logic says that regardless of the contents of the Iraqi weapons declaration or the success of inspectors, the case for war exists because of "undisclosed evidence." This can make Saddam Hussein succeed in dividing the UN Security Council by creating a wedge between the US and the rest of the Council, even with the UK. (Guardian)

Bush's Mideast Plan: Conquer and Divide (December 8, 2002)
The Toronto Sun argues that the Bush administration plans a political transformation of the Middle East similar in magnitude to the 1916 Sykes-Picot Treaty in which Britain and France carved up the Ottoman-ruled region. This article also reviews possible scenarios for the future of the Middle East.

Between War and Peace, Iraq's List (December 6, 2002)
Iraq's declaration of prohibited weapons and dual-use program might make the difference between war and peace. If Iraq admits to having prohibited weapons, it will comply with UN resolutions and further complicate the Hawks' ability to go to war. (Christian Science Monitor)

Security Council Resolution 1441 and the Potential Use of Force Against Iraq (December 6, 2002)
This paper looks at the UN charter, past UN resolutions on Iraq, and how the US might use resolution 1441 domestically and internationally to justify the use of force against Iraq. (CASI)

Planning for a Self-Inflicted Wound: US Policy to Reshape a Post-Saddam Iraq (December 3, 2002)
Anthony Cordesman at the conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies, advises the US administration to improve the quality of its plans for post-war Iraq. Cordesman warns that a US military occupation could turn into "a self-inflicted wound based on a series of ‘syndromes' that grow out of ignorance, indifference to Iraq's real needs, and ethnocentricity."

Half a Victory at the UN (December 2, 2002)
The Nation argues that while some see the passing of resolution 1441 as a partial victory for disarmament and the UN, it still reflects US world domination and ultimately sets the terms for war. However, the resolution does put pressure on the US to "at least appear to be acting in concert with the international community."

A Nightmare to Love (December 2, 2002)
The US's desperate attempts to smear and destroy the arms inspections give the antiwar movements an opportunity to appeal to the public. By laying out what the US can do to make inspections work, its intent to disrupt inspections becomes all the more apparent. (Foreign Policy in Focus)

Material Breach: US Crimes in Iraq (December 1, 2002)
The US seems likely to use any pretext necessary to accuse Iraq of a "material breach" of resolution 1441 in a push for war. However, this author argues that the US ought to examine its own flagrant breaches of international law in Iraq that caused unnecessary suffering for Iraqi civilians. (truthout)

US Speeds Tally of Iraq Offenses (November 25, 2002)
Washington seems confident it will be able to argue that Iraq has not complied with Security Council resolution 1441, allowing the US to pursue its long desired goal of war and "regime change" in Iraq. (Christian Science Monitor)

Reasons Not to Attack Iraq (November 24, 2002)
Foreign Policy in Focus lays out talking points against a war on Iraq. It discusses, for example, the availability of nonmilitary alternatives for disarmament, the illegality of an attack without UN Security Council authorization, and the lack of evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.

Unilateral Power - By Any Other Name (November 24, 2002)
The mass media and US politicians applaud the UN for demonstrating its legitimacy with the unanimous Security Council approval of the Iraq resolution. Their enthusiasm, however, conveniently masks the strong-arm tactics and underhanded oil deals that secured such unanimity. (Creators Syndicate)

Inspections or Not, We'll Attack Iraq (November 21, 2002)
Dr Richard Perle, top security advisor to President Bush, insists that the US will attack Iraq even if UN inspectors do not find any weapons. According to Perle, all Mr Blix can know result from his own investigations and "that does not prove Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction." (Mirror/UK)

The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq: PR Spinning the Bush Doctrine (November 19, 2002)
The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which hopes to "bomb Saddam Hussein out of existence," calls itself an NGO. In fact, its members include former government officials, many with a vested interested in increased weapon sales. The Committee partners with "educational" organizations, directed by the same members, to lend legitimacy to Bush's war campaign. (CounterPunch)

Annan Says Iraq's Firing in No-Fly Zone not a Violation (November 19, 2002)
Secretary General Kofi Annan contradicts the US interpretation of UN Resolution 1441 and argues that Iraq's actions in the "no-fly" zones do not violate the resolution. The US stands alone in interpreting an inclusion of "no-fly" zones in the resolution and claiming Iraqi "material breach." (Reuters)

Controlling Iraq's Oil: Not So Easy (November 3, 2002)
Iraqi oil reserves affect the national interests and policies for many of the countries most immediately involved in the crisis. The quest for "regime change" might not only rely on 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, but "for now, the fear in foreign capitals is that those who do not back Washington will not get to play" after the change. (New York Times)

Inspectors' Mission Faces Long Odds (November 17, 2002)
The UN weapons inspectors know two things for sure. First, that their mission will determine whether a devastating war in Iraq will take place. Second, that some US hawks desperately seek their failure. (Observer)

Disingenuous Disarmament: Weapons Inspection Is All A Game (November 17, 2002)
The weapons inspections will fail, predicts Scott Ritter, former UN inspector in Iraq, as they did in the past. According to Ritter, the Bush administration' s "intention is regime removal and using the weapons inspections as a way to trigger military action that will achieve regime removal, which in itself violates international law." (San Francisco Chronicle)

Is There Any Doubt Washington Will Cheat? (November 15, 2002)
While the US already announces Iraq will not comply with the latest Security Council Resolution, What's Left wonders "on the basis of the US having a history of cheating on inspections, Bush's lies on Iraq, and Washington having a motive to bomb Baghdad, is there any no doubt Washington will cheat?"

Former Weapons Inspector Says War with Iraq Inevitable (November 14, 2002)
Former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter argues that the new UN resolution 1441 will allow the US to attack Iraq by mid-December. According to Ritter, President Bush wants inspections to fail because a success would lead to the lifting of sanctions and a recovering Iraq with Saddam Hussein still in power. (Associated Press)

Why the War Works (November 13-19, 2002)
The Village Voice argues that a war on Iraq "hinges neither on oil nor on weapons of mass destruction, but on geopolitical necessity." The US has for decades considered the Persian Gulf vital to national security, and the war on terrorism brings about a need for military bases wherever terrorists might be found.

Letter From Iraq to the UN (November 13, 2002)
Iraqi Foreign Affairs Minister Naji Sabri's letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, accepting the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq. (Associated Press)

Iraq Accepts UN Resolution (November 13, 2002)
Iraq accepts with "no conditions, no reservations" the new Security Council Resolution 1441 and the return of weapons inspectors into Iraq after 4 years of absence. (Associated Press)

To War or Not to War (November 11, 2002)
The Guardian argues that, "since the US's hands are not tied," the probability of a war on Iraq depends on what Iraq might be hiding and potential underlying US intentions. The tough terms of inspections set out in the resolution will likely result in Iraqi breach, , "no matter how hard it tries" to comply.

Iraq Inspections Receive Approval From Arab League (November 11, 2002)
Arab leaders hope to stop an immediate strike on Iraq by accepting resolution 1441. Furthermore, the League calls for the cessation of sanctions against Iraq, which have had disastrous humanitarian consequences, and proposes that the UN should pay equal attention to Israel's weapons of mass destruction. (New York Times)

UN Security Council Transcript (November 8, 2002)
This transcript includes the full statements presented by the Ambassadors to the UN Security Council at the meeting when Resolution 1441 on Iraq was unanimously adopted. (United Nations)

Trigger for War (November 8, 2002)
France and the US seem satisfied with the final Security Council resolution on Iraq. However, Radio Netherlands says "given the UN's very tough resolution, combined with Saddam's past record of defiance and America's current determination to get rid of him, it would seem war is not just an option but rather a high probability."

Security Council Approves Resolution on Iraq (November 8, 2002)
The Security Council unanimously adopted the US-UK hard-line resolution on Iraq. Some consider the text as being a resolution for war, and the US Ambassador himself stated that "this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself from the threat posed by Iraq." (Associated Press)

Document Leaves Way Clear For War (November 7, 2002)
The Guardian argues that the new draft resolution sets out stringent and humiliating conditions for Iraq that probably, together with a US engineered crisis, will lead to war. Because of ambiguity in the text, much depends on interpretation of the terms "material breach" and "Iraqi obstruction".

Secretary-General's Statement at the Adoption of Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq (November 5, 2002)
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan states that resolution 1441 on Iraq "represents an example of multilateral diplomacy serving the cause of peace and security," and sets out in clear terms Iraq's obligation to ensure full and final disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. (United Nations)

US at the Security Council: The Bush Administration Makes Some Concessions, But Hidden Traps Remain (November 5, 2002)
Resolution 1441 on Iraq provides a basis for a central UN role, reflects US concessions and presents a possible shift in the US stance on sanctions against Iraq. However, the resolution does not require a further Security Council decision to determine if Iraq breaches the resolution, and the US has made it clear that it maintains the prerogative of interpretation. (Institute for Policy Studies)

Iraq Ready to Accept Resolution (November 5, 2002)
Iraq accepts a new UN resolution on weapons inspections if it does not threaten "the stability and the independence of Iraq." Iraqi officials argue that by accepting the resolution, "we pulled the carpet under their (American) feet," complicating the launching of a US attack on Iraq. (Associated Press)

Carve-Up Of Oil Riches Begins (November 3, 2002)
Executives of three US oil multinationals meet the leader of the Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, to negotiate exploitation of oil reserves in a post-Saddam Iraq. Even though Russia, France and China already have deals with Iraq, Chalabi states that he "would reward the US for removing Saddam with lucrative oil contracts."(Observer)

Why Another War? (October, 2002)
This primer by the Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP) gives background information on the Iraq crisis. It analyzes how sanctions have affected the Iraqi people, how Saddam has managed to stay in power, and the driving forces behind the Bush administration's push for regime change.

Sanctions: Myth & Reality (2002)
Voices in the Wilderness dispels eleven myths about the UN sanctions on Iraq. This paper illustrates how the sanctions result in human suffering and how oil interests lie behind US and UK intentions of attacking Iraq.

Iraq Invasion Plan Revealed (October 29, 2002)
Foreign Report presents the blueprint for a US-led war in Iraq with combined elements of US ground forces, attacks from three fronts on Iraqi territory, and a collapse of Iraqi military without allies entering Baghdad.

Notes for the Briefing to the Security Council (October 28, 2002)
UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix briefs the Security Council and presents his stand on the role of inspectors, saying that member states' intelligence cannot "expect us to conform to a common two-way pattern of exchange."

Remarks by Dr. Hans Blix & Dr. Mohamed El Baradei at the Security Council Stake-Out (October 28, 2002)
In the debate on a resolution on Iraq, both sides claim that the remarks made by the chiefs of UNMOVIC Dr. Hans Blix and IAEA Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, favor their positions. According to this unofficial transcript Dr. Blix supports a new tough resolution and stresses the importance of the Security Council. (US Mission to the UN)

Mexico Tells Bush It Won't Support Iraq Resolution US Favor (October 28, 2002)
Mexico sides with France and favors a two-stage resolution on Iraq. Mexico declared its stand after failed negotiations with President Bush on a broad bilateral immigration agreement. This connotes a major set back for the US, which regarded Mexico as "an easy vote." (New York Times)

France Is Set to Offer UN Its Own Resolution on Iraq (October 27, 2002)
France will present its own draft if the Security Council cannot reach an agreement based on the US-UK version. The French want to leave out the "hidden trigger" of "material breach." So far, only five non-permanent members openly support the US-UK draft, leaving them at least 4 more countries to persuade. (New York Times)

Frustrated, US Shifts Its UN Course (October 25, 2002)
The United States turns to elected members to seek support for its draft resolution on Iraq. However, a resolution without support from all permanent members would represent "a less than optimal outcome."(Christian Science Monitor)

Bush Banks On Pyrrhic Victory (October 24, 2002)
The new US resolution faces three possible outcomes which all seem potentially damaging. By pushing this resolution, "the [Bush] administration has divided its friends, alienated and undermined traditional allies, and now finds that its policies and motives are widely distrusted." (Guardian)

Security Council Gets US Proposal on Disarming Iraq (October 24, 2002)
The United States has presented all members of the Security Council with the draft resolution given earlier only to the five Permanent members. This move shows the US administration's confidence in receiving support from the ten elected members and puts pressure on the permanent five to decide on how to vote. (New York Times)

Deep Drilling Diplomacy (October 23, 2002)
A Russian Lukoil executive expresses concern over its $4 billion contract to explore Iraqi oil after the UN lifts its sanctions. This article asks not if, but how much, Russia's flexibility on a UN resolution depends on oil. (WPS Russian Monitoring Agency)

The Battle for Baghdad (October 23, 2002)
The Guardian discusses why the latest US draft resolution on Iraq is "a dangerous document," and urges the UK to publicly join France and Russia in opposing the text.

Russia, France Criticize Iraq Draft (October 22, 2002)
Russia and France openly rejects the new US draft resolution on Iraq since the document fails to meet Russian and French criteria. The United Kingdom remains the only permanent member of the Security Council who has expressed its support for the draft. (Associated Press)

US Sets High Bar on Iraq Inspections (October 22, 2002)
The US has presented a new draft resolution on Iraq with a "zero tolerance for any violations of a UN resolution." The draft still includes the automatic use of force if Baghdad thwarts weapons inspectors and with regime change in Iraq as one main objective. (International Herald Tribune)

France Holds Key to Deal in UN Debate on Iraq (October 18, 2002)
A resolution on Iraq seems more likely after both the US and France have slightly changed their positions. However, negotiations continue about the main disagreement – whether the resolution should include an authorization of use of force if Iraq fails to comply. (Reuters)

Outline Positions On Possible Resolution Concerning Iraq (October 17, 2002)
The exerts of statements made by the permanent five members of United Nations Security Council during an open debate on Iraq and a possible resolution. (UN News/US Mission for the UN)

I'm An American Tired Of American Lies (October 17, 2002)
American actor Woody Harrelson takes stand against a war on Iraq and heavily criticizes US politics. He argues that the White House has "hijacked a nation's grief and turned it into a perpetual war on any non-white country they choose to describe as terrorist." (Guardian)

US Offers UN Resolution Deal (October 17, 2002)
After facing opposition from many countries, including close US allies, Washington may be ready to drop demands that the new resolution authorize the use of military force, reports the Associated Press. As many Council members favor the French two-resolutions approach, the US move shows an attempt to achieve unity in the Security Council.

Interview with French President Jacques Chirac (October 16, 2002)
French President Jacques Chirac discusses France's position on a possible war on Iraq, the involvement of commercial interests, and the lack of evidence of linkages between Iraq and terrorists such as Bin Laden. (L'Orient-Le Jour)

Disarming Iraq - The Secretary-General Statement to the Security Council (October 16, 2002)
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan urges the Security Council to act in unison to strengthen the authority and credibility of the UN, and to reach a comprehensive solution that includes the suspension of the sanctions against Iraq. (UN News Service)

'We' Know Who 'We' Are (October 14, 2002)
‘We' know who ‘we' are, but we're not exactly sure who ‘they' are, explains Edward Said. The US and Israel perceive Arabs and Iraqis as bomb-makers and suicide bombers, but mystification, fanaticism, hatred of freedom and lack of education distort the view from both sides. (Guardian)

The Dinosaur War – To Protect Corporate Profits (October 11, 2002)
This Common Dreams article argues that, if it weren't for the oil reserves in Iraq and the powerful and oil-dependent corporate interests of the US, the Bush government would not bother waging a war against Iraq.

The Wrong Resolution (October 11, 2002)
The US Congress resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq opens the way for any future president to attack unilaterally based on mere suspicion. This preemptive philosophy could spring open a Pandora's box of aggression.(Los Angeles Times)

Tom Daschle: Resolution Authorizing the President to Use Force (October 11, 2002)
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle reflects on the US Congress Resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. He calls on President George Bush to work diplomatically with the United Nations and with allies.(Truthout)

Concessions Seen Key to UN Resolution (October 10, 2002)
This Boston Globe article emphasizes the importance of the Security Council's behind-the-scenes negotiations. While China wants the US to overlook its actions in Tibet and downplay the importance of Taiwan, Russia and France have interests in Iraq's lucrative oil fields.

CIA in Blow to Bush Attack Plans (October 10, 2002)
In a frightening statement, the CIA director, George Tenet, warns US Congress that if Saddam feels cornered by US military, he might take "his last chance to exact vengeance", possibly involving weapons of mass destruction. (The Guardian)

The Spoils of War: Be the First on Your Block (October 9, 2002)
The doctrine of preemptive attack in Iraq constitutes the perfect strategy to support military vendors, promote agricultural interests and obtain oil concessions. (Village Voice)

White House 'Exaggerating Iraqi Threat' (October 9, 2002)
US president Bush allegations against the Iraqi regime have no evidence and sometimes are entirely false, say some officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department. (The Guardian)

Americans Will Die of Ignorance (October 8, 2002)
This article ascribes the lack of resistance in the United States to Bush's war to ignorance. In the richest country in the world, forty four million people are illiterate and another fifty million cannot comprehend above an eighth-grade level. (Daily Nation)

A War Without the UN (October 7, 2002)
This Christian Science Monitor editorial argues that a US war against Iraq without UN support would set a precedent for any nation to launch a preemptive war.

Iraq Hints It Would Allow Access to Hussein Palaces (October 7, 2002)
Iraq's UN ambassador Mohammed Aldouri says Iraq is willing to give the weapons inspectors free access to presidential sites. The Philadelphia Inquirer argues that this will not satisfy the Bush administration, which accuses Iraq of repeatedly breaking its promises.

Global Eye – Brass in Pocket (October, 2002)
Accusing the US of pursuing a war on Iraq only for oil is too simplistic. US military contractors and their elite business associates engage in many behind-the-scenes business transactions that would profit from war. (Moscow Times)

Bush Warns UN to Act on Iraq Now or Face Irrelevance (October 4, 2002)
The US is confident it can persuade the other Security Council members to adopt a resolution authorizing force in Iraq. In any case, the US administration claims it has legal authority to use force with or without UN approval. (International Herald Tribune)

Senior UN Officials Brief Security Council on Return of Weapons Inspectors to Iraq (October 3, 2002)
UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix says the weapon inspectors "are ready to go at the earliest practical opportunity" unless the Security Council agrees on new directives for the inspectors. Then, "of course, we are in their hands." (UN News Service)

Britain Backs French Demands for Two UN Resolutions (October 3, 2002)
Britain is urging the US to embrace the French proposal for two UN resolutions on Iraq in an attempt to reach an agreement in the Security Council. Meanwhile, according to the Independent, the US is considering a far tougher single resolution.

US Hardline on Iraq Leaves Full-Scale Invasion a 'Hair-Trigger' Away (October 3, 2002)
The Guardian accuses the US of trying to "transform the inspections process into a coercive operation," and describes the process as "the first step towards a military occupation" of Iraq.

Powell: Saddam Can Avert Ouster (October 3, 2002)
Secretary of State Colin Powell states that it is not necessary to oust Saddam Hussein if he disarms fully. USA Today suggests that this statement could be a tactical effort to gain support for a US-backed UN resolution.

Why Not to Wage War with Iraq (October 2, 2002)
This article summarizes the main arguments against a US war on Iraq and highlights the lack of proof of an Al-Qaeda – Iraq connection. (Foreign Policy in Focus)

UN Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated By Countries Other Than Iraq (October 2, 2002)
As the Bush administration insists on enforcing Security Council resolutions to justify an attack on Iraq, Foreign Policy in Focus draws up a long list of resolutions currently violated, often by US allies.

"Iraq's Reply on Blair's Report" (October 2, 2002)
This report from the Iraqi foreign ministry provides technical details refuting the British dossier "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction." It accuses British Prime Minister Tony Blair of refusing to send a team of British inspectors to Iraq in order to promote his "lies and fabrications." (BBC)

The US Has No Right To Indulge In Imperialism (October 1, 2002)
Security, democracy and the rest of George W. Bush's laundry list of reasons in defense of a unilateral invasion of Iraq is a "bunch of malarkey." The fact that Iraq has a huge pool of oil is not a footnote to this debate but the main goal driving the push for war. (Los Angeles Times)

Records Show US Sent Biological Weapons Germs to Iraq (October 1, 2002)
Both Center for Disease Control (CDC) and congressional records show that the US exported biological weapons germs, including anthrax, to Iraq. The transfers occurred when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran. (Associated Press)

Unlike in '90, Fear of US Defines UN Iraq Debate (October 1, 2002)
As the Security Council discusses a new draft resolution on Iraq, the Los Angeles Times observes that the mood has changed for the US at the UN. Fear has replaced admiration, pressing some countries to accept "a far harsher resolution on Iraq than they would prefer in order to preserve the Security Council's relevance and their own voice."

Iraq Backgrounder: What Lies Beneath (October 1, 2002)
This International Crisis Group report discusses what will come next in Iraq, with or without a military confrontation. The analysis assesses the current Iraqi regime and the challenges that might emerge in the future.

UN Credibility at Stake Over Iraq, Warn Diplomats (October 1, 2002)
UN diplomats, US academics and Middle East experts warn that a military attack on Iraq will seriously undermine the credibility of the United Nations. (Inter Press News )

Beyond Containment: Defending US Interests in the Persian Gulf (September, 2002)
This report by Institute for National Strategic Studies, part of the Pentagon's National Defense University, summarizes the historical and strategic factors affecting US decision-making in the Gulf. It states that a removal of Saddam "would yield an enormous payoff" and "drastically reduce the requirement for US military forces to deal with the problems that remained."

Must the US Break Rules to Enforce Them? (September 30, 2002)
A strategic, preemptive war would undermine the very principles the Bush administration claims to be fighting for. Action to oust any government that has tried to develop weapons of mass destruction would have to include India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and many others. (Present Danger)

A Veto Dilemma for Three Nations (September 30, 2002)
As the US and the UK submit their new tough draft resolution on Iraq, France, China and Russia are weighting the pros and cons of casting a veto. The bargain raises both internal considerations and the risk that the US may proceed alone. (Christian Science Monitor)

Beliefs (September 28, 2002)
As the majority of American church leadership loudly opposes the proposed war on Iraq, the New York Times questions why the White House shows no sign of concern about the moral objections.

Agency Disavows Report on Iraq Arms (September 27, 2002)
The International Atomic Energy Agency says that the report cited by US President Bush and UK Prime Minister Blair, alleging new Iraqi construction at several nuclear-related sites, does not exist. (Washington Times)

Four Questions, Four Answers (September 25, 2002)
Former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq Hans von Sponeck brilliantly answers questions on the threat posed by Iraq and pleads against a war and for the lifting of economic sanctions. (European Colloquium)

Gore Confronts Bush on War Plans (September 25, 2002)
Former US Vice President Al Gore sharply challenges President Bush on Iraq. He warns Bush to focus on those who attacked the US on September 11th "instead of on some other enemy whose location is easier to identify." (Truthout)

This Is Not a Dossier But an Act of Desperation (September 25, 2002)
The British government's dossier contains no evidence of a present Iraqi threat to the world. In the Times, Simon Jenkins says, "the task of leadership is not to write tabloid front pages but to judge how far a threat to the nation's interest is real."

An Open Letter to the Members of Congress (September 25, 2002)
The Nation's editors call the members of the US Congress to be alert of administration's imperial pretensions in the war on Iraq.

Blair's Iraq Dossier Gets Mixed Response (September 24, 2002)
The British Government's assessment of Iraq has received diverse and often skeptical responses from around the world. This article summarizes some of the main reactions. (Agence France Presse)

Iraq Denies Blair's Accusations (September 24, 2002)
Iraqi presidential adviser, Amir al-Sa'adi, has rejected the British government's report on Iraq, saying UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's paper is short as evidence and a "hodgepodge of half-truths." (The Guardian)

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (September 24, 2002)
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's long-awaited new dossier argues that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose an immediate threat to the world, justifying an attack. The report, which seems tailored for public consumption and propaganda, lacks concrete evidence and has failed to convince most government experts.

Poll: No Rush To War (September 24, 2002)
This CBS poll shows some key points of current US public opinion about attacking Iraq. The public wants "the U.S. to wait and build an international coalition, and follow the recommendations of the United Nations"

John Pilger Reveals How the Bushes Bribe the World (September 23, 2002)
This New Statesman's article discloses how George Bush, Sr. launched a campaign of bribery, promises and threats to obtain "legitimacy" for a United Nations war resolution in 1990.

How the US Helped Create Saddam Hussein (September 23, 2002)
The United States, which has supported Saddam Hussein in the past, is now attempting to oust him. This article exposes key issues of US history and future concerns. (MSNBC)

Scientists Question Bush Case Against Iraq (September 22, 2002)
The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) rejects one of the key pieces of "evidence" of Iraqi nuclear program according to the Bush administration. A number of leading US scientists question the "proof" on several technical grounds. (Independent)

"30,000 US Troops Already In Iraq" (September 16, 2002)
Although the US has not declared an open war, it has already started its campaign. This al-Hayat's article says that US and allied forces now occupy more than 15% of Iraqi territory. (MEES)

Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President (September 15, 2002)
The Sunday Herald introduces an US document revealing the Bush cabinet's mentality. The project supports an "international security order in line with American principles and interests."

In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue (September 15, 2002)
United States oil companies are poised to take control over Iraq's immense oil reserves if the US overthrows Hussein. This Washington Post article suggests that US access to Iraqi oil is one of the administration's "biggest bargaining chips" to win support from Security Council members and other Western allies.

UN Debate Over Bush's Stance on Iraq Draws Fresh Skepticism, and Some Support (September 15, 2002)
The United States argues that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction pose a serious threat to global security, but many allies like Germany and Japan are deeply skeptical. US negotiations with Russia have been focused not on weapons but on Russian economic interests in Iraq, notably oil. (New York Times)

Backing on Iraq? Let's Make a Deal (September 13, 2002)
As the US attempts to build a worldwide coalition to cooperate with its military campaign in Iraq, behind-the-scenes negotiations are intense. This article outlines some of the major economic interests at stake. (Los Angeles Times)

Bush Sets the War Clock Ticking (September 13, 2002)
"Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" asked US President George Bush to the Genral Assembly. By threatening to act unilaterally if the Security Council doesn't meet its demands, the US challenges the Council's authority. (Guardian)

The Last Emperor (September 13, 2002)
This article portrays US President Bush as an emperor who solicited UN support in "dulcet tones," while leaving this message: "Pass a resolution or be bypassed." (Guardian)

The UN Gambit (September 12, 2002)
Ian Williams, in The Nation, considers how the Bush Administration uses and abuses the United Nations in its plans to attack Iraq.

Bush Tells UN to Act on Iraq or US Will Have to Take Action (September 12, 2002)
The Security Council provides "unique legitimacy" and its resolutions should be respected, otherwise an action against Baghdad "would be unavoidable" says US President Bush when he addressed the General Assembly. (New York Times)

Legality of the Use of Force Against Iraq (September 10, 2002)
On the eve of a US attack against Iraq, a legal opinion from Public Interest shows that the use of force against Iraq does not meet the criteria for self-defense under the UN Charter. Since the end of the Gulf War, no Security Council resolution has authorized the use of force against Iraq for Iraq's failures to comply.

Drain the Swamp and There Will Be No More Mosquitoes (September 09, 2002)
Washington should address the roots of hatred against the US rather than attacking Iraq, says Noam Chomsky in this article. A war in Iraq would only fuel US antagonism. (The Guardian)

Target Baghdad (September, 2002)
This Le Monde Diplomatique's analysis shows that Bush administration's "compelling" arguments to intervene in Iraq are plagued by the hypocrisy and double standars.

French Leader Offers Formula to Tackle Iraq (September 08, 2002)
French president Jacques Chirac proposes a three-week deadline for Iraq to admit United Nations weapons inspectors before considering use of military force, remarking that "any attempt to oust Saddam Hussein without the backing of a Security Council resolution would be a recipe for chaos in global affairs" (New York Times)

Bush Seeks Backing in Security Council (September 6, 2002)
In an effort to win Security Council endorsement for an attack against Iraq, the Bush administration is trying to win over veto-holder countries. The US also plans on presenting its case against Baghdad in a speech to the General Assembly, reports the Baltimore Sun.

Interview with Gerhard Schroeder (September 04, 2002)
In this New York Times' interview, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder takes a strong position against a war with Iraq, saying that even if the Security Council were to authorize an attack, Germany would not participate.

Attacking Iraq (September 04, 2002)
This analysis by Aaron Maté shows several aspects of the United States'government's hypocrisy about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, such as in the manipulation of the UNSCOM inspection process and the direct violation of UN Security Council Resolutions. (ZNet)

Military Action May Get Peace Movement Rolling (September 2, 2002)
The peace movement gains momentum in the US as a war on Iraq seems increasingly imminent. Democrats' hesitation to speak out against war has complicated the movement; however, local organizers remain hopeful that a strong grassroots force will emerge. (Los Angeles Times)

As US Pursues Verbal War on Iraq, the World Voices Concern (September 1, 2002)
As critics accuse the US of unilateral self-interest in its policies towards Iraq, the New York Times shows that countries have different reasons to oppose a war, ranging from an "internationalist-legalistic" to a "make-me-an-offer" approach.

War in Iraq: The Oil Factor (September 2002)
Foreign Policy in Focus argues that the Bush administration seeks a regime change in Iraq to please the US oil industry, and not because it is concerned about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Interview With Noam Chomsky about US Warplans (August 29, 2002)
Noam Chomsky discloses many hypocritical reasons the US uses to justify its policies, arguing that real motives for attacking Iraq are domination and oil interests under the pretext of a "war on terror." (Zmag)

Pressure on Bush to Back Off: Global Outcry Against Iraq (August 29, 2002)
As the Bush administration plans its pre-emptive attack against Baghdad, many governments express opposition to military action. Stressing that war is not inevitable, the UK considers asking the UN to impose a deadline for the return of inspectors. (Guardian)

Why the Frenzy? (August 28, 2002)
Julian Borger illustrates that although foreign and internal support for an attack in Iraq is eroding fast, the Bush Administration may still find arguments and reasons for its war. (Guardian)

Iraq and Poison Gas (August 28, 2002)
The US has always known about Baghdad's deployment of chemical weapons and their use against his own people, especially during the Iran-Iraq War. "What did the US government do about it then? Nothing," reports The Nation, "until ‘gassing his own people' became a catchy slogan to demonize Saddam."

Take It to the Security Council (August 27, 2002)
"The road to Baghdad runs through the United Nations Security Council," writes Richard Holbrooke. In a strong op-ed in the Washington Post, the former US ambassador to the UN criticizes the Bush administration's disdain for a Security Council-based solution to the Iraq crisis.

The Right Way to Change a Regime (August 25, 2002)
In an opinion piece in The New York Times, Former secretary of State James Baker voices reservations about unilateral US military action against Baghdad. Like many public figures and former US officials, Baker argues that the US should first approach the UN for a final resolution authorizing weapons inspections in Iraq, backed by the threat of the force.

Iraq and the "Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emptive of Self-Defense" (August 20, 2002)
Crimes of War Project interviews several specialists in international law and discusses legal grounds for a US attack against Iraq.

Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy (August 16, 2002)
Senior Republicans from Congress, the State Department and past administrations question President George Bush's approach to Iraq. Attacking Iraq may have reverse effects on the war on terrorism, the Middle East or India and Pakistan. (New York Times)

Don't Attack Saddam (August 15, 2002)
The National Security Adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George Bush, Sr.,Brent Scowcroft, argues that United States obsession with attacking Iraq will have serious consequences. In an effort to fight global terrorism, the US should instead insist on an effective no-notice inspection regime for Iraq. (Wall Street Journal)

Bush May Get UN Support for his War (August 15, 2002)
The Guardian examines who, among the 15 members of the Security Council, would resist the US in passing a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The result is disappointing: "the US may even now be able to count on eight votes."

West's Greed for Oil Fuels Saddam Fever (August 11, 2002)
The US attack against Iraq is turning into an oil war, argues The Observer. But would ousting Saddam safeguard Iraq's oil for the West? Not likely.

Steps Before War (August 11, 2002)
As the Bush Administration's war against Iraq faces growing opposition both within and outside the US, the New York Times suggests that the US try to unite the Security Council "behind a demand that Iraq either accept full inspections or face possible military consequences."

Seven Fallacies of US Plans to Invade Iraq (August 2002)
A US invasion of Iraq could have serious moral, legal, political, and strategic repercussions. "In the international community," reports Foreign Policy in Focus, "serious questions are being raised regarding its legality, its justification, its political implications, and the costs of the war itself."

The Logic of Empire (August 6, 2002)
George Monbiot criticizes President Bush on his plans to wage war against Iraq and his foreign policy as defiant of international law. Having ripped up all treaties which interfere with its strategic objectives, he claims, "the US is now our foremost enemy. We must begin to treat it as such." (Guardian)

Iraq and the New Great Game (August 5, 2002)
Rahul Mahajan writes that Washington's reasons for attacking Iraq, such as the threat of weapons of mass destruction, are not the US top priority. "The US seeks nothing less than the establishment of complete control over all significant sources of oil," he argues. (CommonDreams.org)

This War Would Not Be a Just War (August 4, 2002)
Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford, examines a possible invasion of Iraq using Christian criteria for a "Just War." He concludes that the US use of force against Baghdad would not be a moral option. (Observer of London)

Iraq Is Not a Threat (August 2, 2002)
Former humanitarian aid coordinator for Iraq, Hans Von Sponeck, speaks of his recent visit to Iraq and the image of Iraq given by the US Congress as a "threat." Von Sponeck criticizes the US call on the "axis of evil," which used the 9/11 excuse as "a convenient opportunity to include (…) all those countries and governments that were politically inconvenient to the US" (Socialist Worker)

The Son of All Battles? (August 1, 2002)
For President Bush, "it is no longer a question of whether to mount an attack on Iraq, but of how and when to do so." Despite general agreement that the world would be much better off without Hussein, supporting a "regime change is a far cry from supporting an invasion." (Economist)

Jordan Urges Restraint Over Iraq (July 29, 2002)
"King Abdullah of Jordan has warned the US not to take any military action against Iraq." According to the King, an attack on Iraq would "open a Pandora Box while the Israel-Palestinian conflict remained unresolved." (BBC)

Europeans Split With US on Need for Iraq Attack (July 22, 2002)
Arguing that "President Bush's conservative aides have become obsessed about Iraq, while we are obsessed about achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians", Europeans fear America's talk of overthrowing Saddam will undermine the peace efforts in the Middle East. (New York Times)

Bush Gives CIA Green Light to Kill Saddam (June 17, 2002)
President Bush has given the CIA the authority to use "lethal force to capture or kill Saddam if acting in self-defense". How an invasion on Iraq with the purpose of killing its head of state could be justified as "self-defense" remains highly questionable. (Guardian)

War on Iraq Is Wrong (July 8, 2002)
The Nation criticizes the US "new doctrine of pre-emption" calling for early unilateral action against "enemies suspected of posing a threat to America." Instead of attacking Iraq, the article favors a "Security Council-coordinated containment and engagement strategy," including more targeted sanctions and arms inspections.

US Strategic Options for Iraq: Easier Said than Done (Spring, 2002)
The Washington Quarterly analyzes US policy options toward Iraq offering a patient approach, a moderate approach and a "bold" strategy, each including the costs, benefits and risks associated with each option. The author privileges the patient approach as offering more gain than pain.

Security Council Tries to Ease Tensions Between US and Iraq (May 23, 2002)
Diplomats in the Security Council are quietly working to prevent US military action against Iraq by trying to persuade Saddam Hussein's government to allow the return of weapons inspectors. Failure of such tactic would strengthen those in the Bush administration who favor a military option. (New York Times)

Invasion of Iraq: It's Sooner Than You Think (May 7, 2002)
The mainstream media regularly reports that plans concerning the invasion of Iraq are contingency plans that "have not been operationalized," and that "the target date has been postponed until next year." However, "the invasion of Iraq may be sooner than we are being led to believe by the Pentagon propaganda machine," argues Common Dreams.

US Wants to Oust Saddam Even if He Makes Concessions (May 6, 2002)
The Bush administration will remove Iraqi President Hussein "regardless of what [UN] inspectors do." According to US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, "the US reserves its option to do whatever it believes might be appropriate to see if there can be a regime change." (Guardian)

A US Cabal Pulling America to War (May 3, 2002)
In the fall of 2002, the US will probably carry out a military strike against Iraq. Not because of terrorism or weapons of destruction. "No, it will happen because more than a decade ago a small cabal of political heavyweights in the administration of George Bush I, who now also run the foreign and defense policy of George Bush II, sat down and drew up a blueprint to rule the world." (Foreign Policy in Focus)

US Envisions Blueprint on Iraq Including Big Invasion Next Year (April 28, 2002)
The New York Times reveals that the Bush Administration is "concentrating its attention on a major air campaign and ground invasion, with initial estimates contemplating the use of 70,000 to 250,000 troops."

Looking For Excuses For New War On Iraq (April 12, 2002)
Although Iraq has already indicated some willingness to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors, a US intelligence official said the White House "will not take yes for an answer." (Socialist Worker)

Blair Sees No Need For New UN Mandate to Attack Iraq (April 10, 2002)
British Prime Minister Tony Blair refuses to seek permission from the Security Council to attack Iraq in the expanding "war against terrorism." (Guardian)

Don't Always Trust What They Tell You In The War On Terror (March 30, 2002)
"Truth is already a casualty in the war against terror, but as the campaign against Iraq heats up, distinguishing facts from propaganda may become even harder." (Independent)

War on Iraq Based on Shaky Legal Ground (March 29, 2002)
Any military strikes against Iraq would violate international law. Only the Security Council holds the right to authorize the use of force. (Reuters)

Bush Won't Relent on Iraq (March 25, 2002)
A future military strike against Iraq may not result from US national security concerns. US President George Bush may have personal reasons to target Iraq. (Boston Globe)

US Builds its Case Against Saddam (March 20, 2002)
CIA director George Tenet accuses Iraq of having links with al-Qaeda, but refuses to provide any details or evidence. This demonstrates that only the possibility of such links is sufficient to justify a US military strike against Iraq. (BBC News)

Unlike 1990, Arab Support for Attacking Iraq Is Tepid (March 14, 2002)
According to this article, the US will have a hard time convincing the majority of Arab countries to support a military attack against Iraq. The US finds itself in a different position than in 1990. (Christian Science Monitor)

Jordan, Turkey Warn US Against Strikes on Iraq (March 11, 2002)
Reflecting a growing belief among regional leaders that the risks of an attack on President Saddam Hussein of Iraq far outweigh any threat he may pose, Turkey and Jordan expressed unease about a potential US attack on Baghdad. (Washington Post)

Iraq In The Crossfires (February 28, 2002)
The "bomb Iraq" fanatics in Washington are calling for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by whatever means available to the US military. "Drawing an absurd analogy to the war in Afghanistan, some of Bush's confidents are urging that the ‘Afghan model' be applied to Iraq." (ZNet)

US Says it Will Act to Overthrow Saddam (February 7, 2002)
Charles Duelfer, a former deputy chairman of the UN weapons inspectors, sums up US policy on Iraq: "they've taken the decision that the Iraq problem has to be solved, not managed, and there's certainly an inclination to do this militarily." (Independent)

Should the War on Terrorism Target Iraq? (January 2002)
A policy brief by the Brookings Institute argues against using military force to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The Bush administration ought to take advantage of the recent success in Afghanistan to pressure allies and regional players to "isolate Saddam's regime and to reinforce deterrence in an unambiguous way."