Here is a bloody Wall Streeter on Mideast. Sabri +++++
Complications Abound in the Mideast Commentary. David DeRosa is president of DeRosa Research and Trading and manages an investment fund. He is also an adjunct professor at Yale School of Management. The opinions expressed are his own. By David DeRosa New Canaan, Connecticut, April 7 (Bloomberg) -- For a time after Sept. 11, the situation in the Middle East looked deceptively simple. A pro-terrorist government, the Taliban, ruled Afghanistan. It was host to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda, the organization that was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. As President George W. Bush said, there was a "job to do." The U.S. Armed Forces, with the help of allies, methodically crushed the Taliban and al-Qaeda's troops. A provisional government was installed, guided by Hamid Karzai, an appealing gentleman who speaks impeccable English. For Afghanistan, he has to be one huge breath of fresh air. Pockets of remaining resistance were dealt with on a case-by- case basis. The next step was to be the isolation of other states that harbored terrorist groups. Countries such as Somalia, Iran and Iraq came onto the radar screen. The U.S. administration built a good case for overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, which was building weapons of mass destruction. Evidence suggested that Hussein had used chemical and biological weapons on dissident elements of his own people, especially Iraq's Kurdish minority. The capstone for the case against Hussein was the argument that Iraq might become the next home for international terrorist groups, including what remains of al-Qaeda. Israeli-Palestinian Conflict It all seemed so simple. Then all hell broke out in Israel. Abruptly, the center of attention changed from al-Qaeda and Iraq to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead of fretting over Bin Laden's whereabouts, the world turned its focus on Palestinian teenage suicide bombers, Israeli tanks in Palestinian territory, Yasser Arafat under siege and gun battles at the Church of the Nativity. Hussein, who seems to have more lives than the proverbial cat, went on the backburner, at least in terms of the nightly television news. The idea of a new U.S.-led invasion of Iraq never enjoyed much popularity among America's allies, except the U.K. Now that Israel and the Palestinians are engaged in what amounts to a civil war, support for the idea is even more remote. Making matters worse is that Egypt has now restricted relations with Israel to basic diplomatic functions. Jordan is clearly not pleased. And Iran is calling for a one-month freeze in Middle Eastern oil shipments to the West, a sort of trial period of "oil as a weapon." U.S. Should Act Which brings me to the issue at hand. Does the question of what is to be done about Iraq still stand? Can the U.S. afford to allow the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to forestall action it argued was necessary to cleanse Iraq? Seen another way, is the Middle East now so unstable that intervention in Iraq might produce serious and unpredictable results? The nature of the risk to such a venture changed in an important way with the Passover massacre. Even if a truce between the Israelis and Palestinians can be produced -- and that would be no mean accomplishment -- does it make sense to be thinking about working over Iraq? You bet it does. I, for one, believe all those stories about Iraq and the weapons under development that have come out of three American administrations. Hussein is dangerous, even more so than Bin Laden. Having lived in Kuwait in the early 1980s, I am convinced that Hussein is a certified madman, someone who has to be dealt with once and for all. Where does this leave President George W. Bush? The flare-up of trouble in Israel puts him in a difficult, but not impossible, position. Maybe it is simpler than I make it out to be. Bush has to put out the fires in Israel before he lights one in Iraq. Still, the stage is set for the next phase in the war on terrorism and the place is Iraq. He who hesitates will be lost.
