UN: Arab officials and commentators were not convinced that Iraq poses a threat to world peace by Wednesday's presentation to the UN Security Council by the US Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell. Iraq denied that it had prohibited arms and accused the US of fabricating evidence, writes Michael Jansen.
Mr Mikhail Wehbeh ambassador to the UN of Syria, the only Arab state represented on the Council, said he did not believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was impeding the progress of UN inspectors in their search for prohibited weaponry. He agreed with the Iraqis that the US had based its case on false accusations. Asked why he thought Washington would make up evidence, Mr Wehbe replied, "You have to ask the Americans why they are saying that." The official Syrian daily, al-Thawrah, said the presentation of "alleged pieces of evidence \ a prelude to invading Iraq and creating a new \ formula for Iraq and the whole region ."
The Jordan Times called Mr Powell's performance "unconvincing." "Many of his claims about Iraq's alleged chemical and biological programmes were old allegations that the US made prior to the November 8th passage of resolution 1441," the editorialist wrote. "Many people will question the authenticity" of the audiotapes, satellite photos and anonymous reports included in Mr. Powell's address, the paper said.
The liberal United Arab Emirates' daily, al-Khaleej, said Mr Powell's speech must be viewed as a means for "speeding up the attack on Iraq." Algeria's al-Watan observed, "Overall, the world was treated to only a bundle of quite strong presumptions, which, it must be recognised, were inadequate, legally as well as morally, to justify the destruction of a country or even a political regime." The Saudi-owned pan-Arab Al-Sharq al-Awsat called upon the Arabs to increase their efforts to avoid war. "The expression 'time is running out' must not paralyze our efforts to avoid war." The London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi summed up, "It is difficult to believe that [Mr Powell's presentation] is going to change the views of many in the Arab and Muslim worlds who suspect the US' true intentions and motives, namely the seizure of Iraq's oil and the entire Arab region."
The Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi called for more time for weapons inspectors to scour Iraq in order to avoid war.
After talks with British counterpart Jack Straw in London, Kharrazi said his government was happy to open a dialogue with Washington but not while it talked in terms of "power and domination".
Peter Hirschberg in Jerusalem adds:
Top-ranking Israeli military officers yesterday estimated that a US strike on Iraq would begin no later than early March, and that Israel would not encounter an Iraqi Scud barrage like it did in the 1991 Gulf War, when some 40 missiles rained down on the Jewish state.
Maj Gen Amos Gilad, a former military intelligence officer who has been designated as the national spokesman to explain matters to the public in the event of an Iraqi missile attack, said his personal assessment was that "the war is likely to start in the coming weeks." Asked whether he believed a US offensive would begin toward the end of February or the beginning of March, he replied: "Yes. Absolutely." Senior Israeli military sources have estimated that, at most, Israel will be hit by one or two rockets, but that even that scenario is unlikely, considering Saddam Hussein's reduced capability.