Implications For 'Rogues' Or Those Outside US Umbrella.

In the weeks following the Sept. 11 attacks, American attention has been gradually turning towards what it calls the "rogue" states in the Middle East - countries like Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Iran. Senior officials in the defence complex have already warned that rogue states may be among the targets of Phase Two, i.e. the next focus after Bin Ladin and the Taliban. Officials in the highest positions of the Department of Defence and the Defense Advisory Board of the Pentagon have made such comments, like Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz.

This has caused a lot of concern among moderate Middle Eastern states that wish to distance themselves from the WTC/Pentagon attacks and isolate responsibility to the Afghanistan/Pakistan zone. They are also opposed to any further attacks on Iraq, where the lack of a clear US policy has resulted only in the consolidation of Saddam Hussein's power base and the death of civilians. They are well aware that Saddam has become a hero to the Arab public. They also know that if the US begins to target Iraq in a more concentrated way after Phase One, the domestic situation in their own countries could become very vulnerable.

As a result of these concerns, they have been subtly linking their support for Phase One to a moderation of whatever America is planning for Phase Two. This has coloured the ongoing debate in the US itself, about the nature of the response to the WTC/Pentagon attacks, with the Department of Defence taking the harder line while the State Department takes the softer one. For the time being, Secretary of State Colin appears to have ended talk about attacking Iraq in Phase Two, although it is quite possible that he too may change his perspective when the objectives of Phase One are achieved. In any case, the situation facing Iraq will get extremely tricky in 2002.

To keep the coalition against terrorism in place, the US is being careful about what its objectives are for Phase Two of the war. But observers point out that it is clear no promises are being made to either allies or rogue states, and the issue of what comes in Phase Two is being fudged.

Traditionally regarded as the original "rogue" state by the US, Iran may emerge a winner in the US-led "war against terrorism". While there are critical reports about Iranian support for the Hizbollah movement in Lebanon, there are also commentaries in the US media pointing out that of all the countries in the Middle East, Iran may be the one which has reached the most durable compromise between Islamic principles and democracy.

They also note that Iran has found itself on the same side as the US in both the Gulf war of January-February 1991 and in the current war against terrorism, since Tehran detests the Taliban as much as Washington does. More significantly, this time around, Tehran has promised to assist US pilots or soldiers who may be wounded in western Afghanistan and escape into Iran. There are also suggestions that Tehran has been providing vital intelligence inputs regarding the Taliban and Osama Bin Ladin. Washington has also indicated its readiness to do business with Iran, regarding it as a key player in determining the post-Taliban regime in Afghanistan. In the context of the war against terrorism, therefore, it is becoming clear that from the US standpoint what matters is what a regime does - whether it is rogue or ally - not what it says.

Libya and Sudan are carefully positioning themselves so that they do not become targets in Phase Two. Sudan's President Omar Al Bashir had already made considerable overtures to the US before the Sept. 11 attacks. Since then he has criticised the attacks and has been co-operating with the US by providing intelligence, in view of the fact that Bin Ladin had spent some time in the early 1990s in Sudan. Col. Qadhafi has also been taking a relatively moderate stance, but has criticised the attack on Afghanistan. But he has been careful not to stray too far from the position of several European countries which - despite their overt support to the American war against terrorism - are ambivalent about the attack on Afghanistan.