Wednesday, October 26, 2011

  • Wednesday, October 26, 2011
  • Elder of Ziyon
A few months ago an article was published by Hal Brands and David Palkki that took a detailed look at secret Iraqi documents to understand Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions. There is a lot of good information in there. Excerpts:

 On March 27, 1979, Saddam Hussein, the de facto ruler and soon-to-be president of Baathist Iraq, laid out his vision for a long, grinding war against Israel in a private meeting of high-level Iraqi officials. Iraq, he explained, would seek to obtain a nuclear weapon from “our Soviet friends,” use the resulting deterrent power to counteract Israeli threats of nuclear retaliation, and thereby enable a “patient war”—a war of attrition—that would reclaim Arab lands lost in the Six-Day War of 1967. As Saddam put it, nuclear weapons would allow Iraq to “guarantee the long war that is destructive to our enemy, and take at our leisure each meter of land and drown the enemy with rivers of blood.” Saddam envisioned that this war would cost Iraq some 50,000 casualties, to say nothing of Israeli losses.

Until recently, scholars seeking to divine the inner workings of the Baathist regime were forced to resort to a kind of Kremlinology, relying heavily on published sources as well as the occasional memoir or defector’s account. This is now decreasingly the case. The transcript of the March 1979 meeting is one of millions of Baathist state records captured during and after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. These records, many of which are now being made available to scholars, include everything from routine correspondence to recordings and transcripts of top-level meetings between Saddam and his advisers. When combined with previously available primary and secondary sources, they illustrate the dynamics of the regime and the logic of Saddam’s statecraft to an unprecedented degree.

The Iraqi records indicate that the views Saddam expressed in March 1979 did not constitute a mere rhetorical flourish or an aberration in his strategic thought. In meetings and discussions with his top military and civilian advisers between 1978 and 1982, Saddam repeatedly returned to the subject of how an Iraqi nuclear capability could be used against Israel. This was a critical strategic and identity issue for Saddam. Although Saddam styled himself as the transcendent leader who would unite the Arabs and defeat the “Zionist entity,” in private he concluded that Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the Middle East made taking major military action to accomplish this goal an unacceptably risky proposition. In the face of an Iraqi or Arab attack, Saddam believed, Israel could simply threaten to use nuclear weapons against its enemies, thereby forcing them to halt their advance.

Saddam came to see nuclear weapons as a powerful coercive tool for dealing with Israel. Saddam’s aim was not to launch a surprise first strike against Israel; rather, he believed that an Iraqi bomb would neutralize Israeli nuclear threats, force the Jewish state to fight at the conventional level, and thereby allow Iraq and its Arab allies to prosecute a prolonged war that would displace Israel from the territories occupied in 1967. In short, Saddam expected that an unconventional arsenal would permit Iraq to achieve a conventional victory, thereby weakening Israel geopolitically and making him a hero to the Arab world. Although Saddam expressed this view most frequently in the period before his regime suffered two major geopolitical setbacks in the early 1980s—the Israeli attack on the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 and the downturn in Baghdad’s military fortunes in the Iran-Iraq War— he did return to this same basic logic at least once in the late 1980s, and he seems to have reluctantly relinquished the idea only after the 1990–91 war and its aftermath crippled Iraq’s advanced weapons programs and severely constrained Iraqi power.

While various observers have argued that the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 merely convinced Saddam of Israel’s hostility and led him to redouble his efforts to obtain nuclear weapons, the captured records do not indicate that the opposite course—permitting Iraqi nuclear development to proceed—would have been the wiser choice for Israeli offcials at that time.Indeed, in these records Saddam makes the case for preventive Israeli action far more persuasively than Israel’s own ofªcials could have done at the time.

Because Saddam believed that he was destined to lead the Arab world in confronting Israeli designs, for him it followed logically that the Jewish state placed special emphasis on targeting his regime. During the roughly thirty years in which Saddam dominated Iraqi politics, he and his advisers identifed a wide variety of nefarious Israeli intrigues. ...One of the more ludicrous accusations of Zionist perfidy came in 2001, when the Directorate of General Security (DGS) reported to Saddam that the television series Pokemon was in fact an Israeli plot to contaminate the minds of Iraqi youths. “Pokemon” was Hebrew for “I’m Jewish,” the DGS reported.

Saddam’s perceptions of Israeli perfidy were also colored by the anti-Semitism that suffused his worldview. Saddam often claimed in public that his opposition to Israel was based on anti-Zionism rather than anti-Semitism, a stance that was well suited to the international political climate of the 1970s, when the “Zionism is racism” campaign was at its height. As a review of the Iraqi records makes clear, however, there was no clean divide between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism in Saddam’s thinking. Saddam often referred to Israelis as “the Jews,” and anti-Semitic ideas were ubiquitous in his private comments on Jews and Israel. Discussing Israeli politics, Saddam referred to “the Jews” as nefarious, clever characters. “This is the way the Jews are,” he said. “I mean, they are smart, or, rather, wicked.”

The sense that Jews and Israelis were devious individuals motivated by sinister designs was a virtual article of faith within the Iraqi regime. At Iraq’s Special Security Institute, students were told that “spying, sabotage, and treachery are an old Jewish craft because the Jewish character has all the attributes of a spy.” This assessment fit nicely with Saddam’s own beliefs. In one extended monologue on the subject, Saddam told his inner circle that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a notorious anti-Semitic forgery) was an accurate representation of Jewish/Israeli aims. “The Zionists are greedy—I mean the Jews are greedy,” he said. “Whenever any issue relates to the economy, their greed is very high.” Indeed, Saddam believed that the Protocols provided a blueprint of sorts for understanding Israeli designs: “We should reflect on all that we were able to learn from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. . . . We should identify the methods adopted by these hostile Zionist forces; we already know their objectives. "

Saddam believed that the conflict would be a pan-Arab war under Iraqi leadership. On some occasions, he indicated that the outright destruction of Israel was envisioned; more often, Saddam seemed to foresee military action designed simply to force Israel back to its pre-1967 borders. [Footnote: For evidence of the more extreme aim of destroying Israel, see SH-SHTP-A-000-635, “President Saddam Hussein Meeting with Ministers”; SH-PDWN-D-000-341, “Speech at al-Bakr University”; and Kevin M. Woods, Williamson Murray, and Thomas Holaday, with Mounir Elkhamri, Saddam’s War: An Iraqi Military Perspective of the Iran-Iraq War, McNair Paper, No. 70 (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 2009), p. 94..]
...In 1981, an Israeli air raid destroyed the Osirak reactor, setting the Iraqi program back by several years.

After the destruction of the Osirak reactor, Saddam acknowledged that the Israeli airstrike was a reasonable response to Iraqi nuclear development. In one meeting, he bragged that Iraq’s technological progress “made Begin spend sleepless nights.” At another gathering with his advisers, he conceded, “Technically, they are right in all of their attempts to harm Iraq. . . . They might hit Iraq with an atomic bomb someday if we reach a certain stage. And we are prepared, and if God allows it, we will be ready to face it.”

In Saddam’s view, Israel had good reason to feel alarmed by Iraq’s growing power and technological advancements. The destruction of the Osirak reactor did not put an end to Saddam’s desire for a nuclear capability and an eventual collision with Israel. Saddam’s government reinvigorated the nuclear program during the 1980s, and by early 1990 Iraq was perhaps only a few years away from developing a rudimentary nuclear weapon. In a meeting in early 1990, Saddam predicted that Iraq would have “one or ten” nuclear weapons within a half-decade, and as before, he argued that these capabilities would make possible the liberation of Arab lands. “Now, if the Arabs were to have a nuclear bomb,” Saddam hypothesized, “wouldn’t they take the territories that were occupied after 1967?”

During the period between late 1988 and early 1990, in fact, Saddam again began to tout the idea of waging a war of liberation against Israel. Hamdani recalls that Saddam instructed the Republican Guard leadership to prepare for the eventual launching of such a conflict, and that his unit “continued training, attending lectures and workshops to raise our army’s standards in preparation for the war with the Zionists.”

During the Persian Gulf conflict in 1991, Saddam thus viewed his arsenal of chemical weapons, complemented by biological weapons and delivery systems, as a deterrent to Israeli nuclear retaliation. Saddam recognized that his chemical weapons were not as powerful as Israel’s nuclear weapons, yet told his advisers, “If we want to use chemicals, we will exterminate them, you know.” He boasted that Iraq had acquired chemical weapons whose destructive power was “200 times more” than that used against Iran, adding that at most one or two countries could match the quality or quantity of Iraq’s chemical or biological weapons arsenals.

As one of Saddam’s advisers told him prior to the Gulf War, Iraq’s acquisition of binary chemical weapons and longrange delivery systems had ended Israel’s regional dominance and replaced it with a balance of forces. This new “balance of forces” increased Saddam’s confidence in 1991 that he could attack Israel with conventional warheads without facing WMD reprisal. “Iraq is in possession of the binary chemical weapon,” Saddam told an interviewer a month before invading Kuwait. “According to our technical, scientific, and military calculations, this is a sufficient deterrent to confront the Israeli nuclear weapon.” The West was furious about Iraq’s acquisition of binary chemical weapons, he explained on another occasion, because “they thought they could strike us. Well, let them try.”

According to the state-controlled Iraqi media, the imperialists and Zionists had recognized Iraq’s new “parity with the Arab nation’s enemies.” For Saddam, chemical weapons were now playing the deterrent role that he had earlier intended for nuclear weapons.
The article does make clear that Iraqi work on nuclear weapons was severely curtailed after the 1991 Gulf war, but Saddam's obsession to acquire WMDs was no myth.

(h/t Zach N)

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"


EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz





For $18 donation

Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years


Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون

This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 14 years and 30,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.


Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options

One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs


#PayForSlay Abbas liar Academic fraud administrivia al-Qaeda algeria Alice Walker American Jews AmericanZionism Amnesty Amnesty 2022 analysis anti-semitism anti-Zionism antisemitism apartheid Arab antisemitism arab refugees Arafat archaeology Ari Fuld art Ashrawi ASHREI B'tselem bahrain Balfour bbc BDS BDSFail Bedouin Beitunia beoz Bernie Sanders Biden history Birthright book review Brant Rosen breaking the silence CAIR Campus antisemitism Cardozo cartoon of the day CEDAW Chakindas Chanukah Christians circumcision CJ Werleman Clark Kent coexistence Comix Community Standards conspiracy theories COVID-19 Cyprus Daled Amos Daphne Anson David Applebaum Davis report DCI-P Divest This double standards Egypt Elder gets results ElderToons Electronic Intifada Ellen Horowitz Embassy EoZ Trump symposium eoz-symposium EoZNews eoztv Erekat Erekat lung transplant EU Euro-Mid Observer European antisemitism Facebook Facebook jail Fake Civilians 2014 Fake Civilians 2019 Farrakhan Fatah featured Features Fervent Embrace fisking flood libel flotilla Forest Rain Forward free gaza freedom of press palestinian style future martyr Gary Spedding gaza Gaza Platform George Galloway George Soros German Jewry Ghassan Daghlas gideon levy gilad shalit gisha Goldstone Report Good news Grapel Guardian guest post gunness Haaretz Hadassah hamas Hamas war crimes Hananya Naftali hasbara Hasby 2014 Hasby 2016 Hasby 2018 hate speech Hebron helen thomas hezbollah history Hizballah Holocaust Holocaust denial honor killing HRW Human Rights Humanitarian crisis humor Hypocrisy ICRC IDF IfNotNow IJ Benjamin Ilan Pappe Ilhan Omar impossible peace incitement indigenous Indonesia infographic international law interview intransigence iran Iraq Islamic Judeophobia Islamism Israel Loves America Israeli culture Israeli high-tech J Street jabalya James Zogby jeremy bowen Jerusalem jewish fiction Jewish Voice for Peace jihad jimmy carter Joe Biden John Kerry jokes jonathan cook Jordan Joseph Massad Juan Cole Judaism Judea-Samaria Judean Rose Judith Butler Kairos Karl Vick Keith Ellison ken roth khalid amayreh Khaybar Know How to Answer Lebanon leftists Linda Sarsour Linkdump lumish mahmoud zahar Mairav Zonszein Malaysia Marc Lamont Hill Marjorie Taylor Greene max blumenthal Mazen Adi McGraw-Hill media bias Methodist Michael Lynk Michael Ross Miftah Missionaries moderate Islam Mohammed Assaf Mondoweiss moonbats Morocco Mudar Zahran music Muslim Brotherhood Naftali Bennett Nakba Nan Greer Nasser al-Lahham Nation of Islam Natural gas Nazi Netanyahu News nftp NGO Nick Cannon NIF Noah Phillips norpac NSU Matrix NYT Occupation offbeat olive oil Omar Barghouti Omri Boehm Only in Israel Opinion oxfam PA corruption PalArab lies Palestine Papers pallywood pchr PCUSA Peace Now Peter Beinart Petra MB philosophy poetry Poland poll Poster Preoccupied Prisoners propaganda Proud to be Zionist Puar Purim purimshpiel Putin Qaradawi Qassam calendar Quora Rafah Ray Hanania real liberals RealJerusalemStreets reference Reuters Richard Falk Richard Landes Richard Silverstein Right of return Rivkah Lambert Adler Robert Werdine rogel alpher roger cohen roger waters Rutgers Saeb Erekat Sarah Schulman Saudi Arabia saudi vice self-death self-death palestinians Seth Rogen settlements sex crimes SFSU shechita sheikh tamimi Shelly Yachimovich Shujaiyeh Simchat Torah Simona Sharoni SodaStream South Africa Sovereignty Speech stamps Superman Syria Tarabin Temple Mount Terrorism This is Zionism Thomas Friedman Tlaib TOI Tomer Ilan Trump Trump Lame Duck Test Tunisia Turkey UAE Accord UCI UK UN UNDP unesco unhrc UNICEF United Arab Emirates Unity unrwa UNRWA hate unrwa reports UNRWA-USA unwra vaccination Varda Vic Rosenthal Washington wikileaks Winstanley work accident X-washing Y. Ben-David Yemen YMikarov zahran Ziesel zionist attack zoo Zionophobia Ziophobia Zvi

Best posts of the past 6 months


A new, better definition of antisemitism

Blog Archive