Arab Rulers Are Alarmed By New Cold War Threats Facing 'US Arrogance'.

** The US Began Unloading Troops And Equipment In Turkey Before Another Vote In Parliament Allowing The Americans To Transit Into Northern Iraq

** Saddam Has Suddenly Become A Devout Muslim Calling For A Jihad Against The 'Evil Despot George Bush'

** This Is The Muslim Month Of Muharram During Which It's Difficult Theologically To Call For A Holy War, Unless The Muslim Nation Is Really Threatened By Infidels

NICOSIA - With a trans-Atlantic schism heralding a cold war between the US and Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe", Arab rulers are bracing themselves for a cycle of dangerous geo-political changes in their region. If the US wins the war against Saddam's Iraq but fails to bring about a just and lasting peace between the Arabs and Israel, the resultant anarchy will be far too big for "old Europe" to handle.

The Arab summit at the Sharm Al Shaikh resort in Egypt on March 1-2 and the Islamic summit in Doha, Qatar, on March 5 showed the extent of divisions in the region, with sudden bursts of personal quarrel between rulers caught live on TV. It also showed how a supposedly collective Arab leadership is unable to influence any issue of importance to their survival in the post-Saddam era.

The Arab summit saw Libyan ruler Col. Moammar Qadhafi accusing Saudi Arabia of sealing a "pact with the devil" by inviting US troops into the kingdom during the last Gulf war. Crown Prince Abdullah interrupted Qadhafi and said: "You! Who brought you to power? Don't talk about matters you cannot prove. Your lies precede you and the grave is ahead of you!". Since then Saudi-Libyan tensions have worsened, while Qadhafi confirmed his determination to get Libya out of the Arab League.

At the Doha summit, attended by 57 Muslim states, Kuwait backed a UAE initiative to urge Saddam Hussein to step down. But as Iraqi RCC Vice Chairman Izzat Ibrahim Al Duri began attacking Kuwait, he was interrupted by a Kuwaiti official ordering him: "Shut up, you dog!" Al Douri yelled back: "Shut up, you minion, you agent, you monkey! Curse be upon your moustache, you traitor!". Kuwait's Information and acting Oil Minister Shaikh Ahmad Al Fahd jumped up to defend his emirate's honour by waving a miniature Kuwaiti flag.

At Sharm Al Shaikh, Crown Prince Abdullah did not bring up his planned charter for political and economic reform in the Arab World, which was originally intended to be publicised during the summit. The Doha summit, designed to present a unified stance among Islamic states, succeeded in doing the opposite and undermined the outcome of a non-aligned summit held in Kuala Lumpur last month.

Yet Arab leaders remain focused on what the apparent trans-Atlantic schism could mean for themselves in the coming years, especially in terms of costs and benefits. They are closely watching how "old Europe" is responding to the American push for a war in Iraq that would leave key European countries in a disadvantageous strategic and commercial position - in what is set to become the biggest reconstruction market in the Middle East. In Arab leadership circles, there are two broad scenarios associated with the developing situation.

The first scenario is that the schism could work out in favour of the Arab World, in the Israeli-Palestinian context to begin with, as a Franco-German combine, backed by Russian, is more likely to take a pro-Arab stand and a more actively pro-Palestinian position in such a situation. In this scenario, a permanent breach in the trans-Atlantic alliance will eventually create a European super-power (including Russia) to balance the US - which Saddam's Iraq and Assad's Syria say is "acting arrogantly as a dictator to the world"

This scenario is somewhat dependent on the Bush administration failing in its mission to (a) change the regime of Baghdad, or (b) administer post-Saddam Iraq in a way that no one could challenge the legitimacy of the rulers. While few doubt that the US has the capability to oust Saddam, there are serious concerns about the US ability to stay behind and administer a country as vast as France - especially one like post-war Iraq where numerous tribes, ethnic groups, sectarian movements, intellectuals, politicians and other interested parties will be identifiable.

The second scenario is that, no matter what apparent divisions may exist within the trans-Atlantic partnership, the countries opposed to war are not likely to stand in the way of an American assault, and that even if the assault is opposed there is nothing much any country can do to prevent it. In this scenario, eventually states opposed to a war will acquiesce in a military campaign even if this goes beyond post-Saddam Iraq in the Middle East.

Observers who believe the second scenario will prevail point to key failings in the first scenario. First is the sustainability of any "old European" alliance beyond the current crisis. While France may find Berlin's support against a war on Saddam's Iraq to be convenient, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder may begin to come under pressure from opposition leaders about the confrontation's impact on Germany's important links with the US. It is hard to see how the Franco-German partnership will transform to the extent necessary to outlast the current crisis in the trans-Atlantic relationship and form the core of a new cold war polarisation.

Few observers believe that Germany will sacrifice its relationship with the US merely to share with France a leading role in the EU, and the same goes for France. Nor will Germany wish to play second fiddle to permanent UN Security Council member France for an indefinite period. Similarly, the Russian linkage with France and Germany is regarded as a tactical one. There are rumours circulating that US President Bush has promised his counterpart Vladimir Putin that he will not let oil prices collapse at a time when the Russian economy is increasingly depending on oil revenues. There have been clear indications for some months that Washington is prepared to let Moscow have a free hand in Chechnya. As an added incentive, Washington has recently declared several Chechen outfits as terror groups.

Some also believe that if the US is successful in ousting the Baathist regime in Iraq, and in either capturing or eliminating Saddam, then it would turn its attention to the Arab-Israeli conflict. They note that the first Gulf war, under current President Bush's father, had produced the Madrid conference of October 1991, which followed the former US president's use of a $10 bn housing loan as leverage to bring then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir to the negotiating table. It could be that the next war could result in another peace conference in Madrid; perhaps as a reward for the role Spain has played - as a leader of the global Hispanic community - on the side of Washington in supporting the ouster of Saddam. It could also be that Bush Jr may use the $12 bn Ariel Sharon's Israel is now requesting as leverage to bring the Likud leader to the negotiating table.

Those Arab rulers who are pondering the new cold war threats on the horizon are worried about what would follow for them if they bet on Scenario One, which is what they would wish to happen, instead of Scenario Two. Most Arab officials are of the view that it is best not to bet on either side of any new cold war.

However, they may not have much of a choice in the matter, as the confrontation is heating up at the UN. On the one hand, the US seems to be poised on the brink of war. The rhetoric of the Bush administration has passed beyond the point of no return.

The deployment of military forces in the region has reached a level where it will become too expensive to avoid fighting. Domestic political compulsions will make it virtually impossible for the US president to back down. On March 6, the Russian, French and German foreign ministers issued a joint statement declaring: "We will not let a proposed resolution pass that would authorise the use of force".

Wahhabi Fatwa Threatens Saudi Regime As Saddam Urges 'Holy War': Meanwhile, one of the radical Wahhabi religious leaders in Saudi Arabia has issued a Fatwa (Islamic decree) banning any Muslim state or individual from giving US and other Western forces any kind of assistance. Saddam Hussein on March 4 marked the Muslim new year with an appeal to Iraqis and other Muslims to join a jihad against the US. This happens to be the month of Muharram during which Muslims are obliged not to fight unless they are threatened.