“They brought this war to us and we will now bring it back to them,” President Bush told United States Navy personnel that were preparing to deploy to the Gulf several weeks ago.

I tried to understand the impact of these words.

Last week, Vice President Cheney told an interviewer that “the policy of containment does not work against terrorism.” Containment had been US foreign policy since the beginning of the Cold War.

It was the reason for the Korean War and the Vietnam War and it was successful. Communism was “contained” on all fronts and with the assistance of NATO stopped in its initial goals to overtake Europe and beyond. Then, everything changed.

The Communist threat was replaced by the increased use of the “terror weapon”. Increased use, because the United States has been the target of terrorism for the past 30 years, long prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

American civilians and military personnel were killed in Subic Bay, the Philippines; Kabul, Afghanistan; Beirut, Lebanon; Tehran, Iran and the US Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan.

They were attacked in Istanbul, Turkey; Costa Rica; San Juan, Puerto Rico; El Salvador; Athens, Greece; in the West Indies; in Germany; in Barcelona, Spain and in Naples, Italy.

They were attacked in Panama City; in Somalia; at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran; in Nairobi, Kenya and aboard the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen.

The difference that Sept. 11 made was the attacks took place on their home soil. So, the Bush administration took the conscious decision to change US foreign policy to combat its enemy.

He began with a definition of terrorism as violence directed against “noncombatants.” This definition included citizens and military personnel that are unarmed or not on duty. The next step was to state that not only individual groups would be classified as “terrorist organizations” and systematically dealt with but that countries were to be named as sponsoring terrorism. This list includes Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, Cuba and Syria.

The weapons to be employed in this war against terrorism were to include economic sanctions and military operations to destroy the infrastructure of the terrorist organizations.

It does not follow, however, that there is a secret campaign to attack all states sponsoring terrorism or to overthrow all governments that support terrorism clandestinely.

The reason the Bush administration is suddenly so motivated to assist the Palestinians in their long struggle for freedom is because it is now aware that it is this single issue that is the spearhead of the so-called “positive” terrorist acts and organizations, i.e. those fighting with an element of justification.

A free state of Palestine is now the key to eliminating the excuse for terrorism. Americans must succeed in this effort regardless of the impact it will have on US-Israeli relations.

They must also avoid repeating the mistakes that they made in Afghanistan, where President Karzai was left to deal with thousands of armed rebels roaming the streets.

In a postwar Iraq, the US will install a military government to ensure disarmament takes place and that the transition to a democratic Iraqi government is not undermined by any individual faction.

This transition needs to be as brief as possible. The next steps the United States will take in its war against terrorism will depend upon the reaction of the individual terrorist organizations and the seven countries listed as terrorist sponsors. The US has already announced that it is Iran and North Korea it watching most closely.

How Iran reacts to a postwar Iraq and a free state of Palestine is extremely important. The United States does not want an open confrontation with Iran, it wants to send the message that the support of terrorism needs to be a policy of the past. An exchange of diplomatic relations between these two countries would be a wise move, and Iran understands this concept.

If the United States can succeed in doing all of these things then it will have won its war against terrorism. It could then set aside its current foreign policy and replace it with a policy that promotes economic and cultural exchanges throughout the Middle East.

Oddly enough, the harsh lessons the US is learning in this part of the world is exactly what can prepare it to become a genuine partner in the future development of the Middle Eastern world.

(Adrienne McPhail is a freelance journalist based in Riyadh.)

Arab News Opinion 23 March 2003