Despite the accusations leveled against Iraq of possessing weapons of mass destruction, this was not proven, and the US invasion took place
In an effort to dissuade America from invading Iraq in 2003, the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein agreed to heed United Nations demands to destroy Al-Samoud 2 missiles on February 22, 2003.
the beginning
Iraq had begun developing the Al-Samoud 2 missiles (a tactical surface-to-surface ballistic missile operating on liquid fuel) after the 1991 Gulf War, and its first launch test was conducted in 1997.
Iraq conducted 8 missile launch tests between 1997 and 2000, and mass production began in December 2001, when the plan was to manufacture 10 missiles, and it is said that Iraq relied on Russian expertise in developing the missile, and that it imported 280 SAM-2 engines. Via a Polish company in late 2001, then 100 engine via another intermediary company.
Parts of the Al-Samoud missile at an Iraqi factory (Getty Images)International weapons inspectors supervised the process of destroying the missiles at the Taji missile factory (north of Baghdad), after the Iraqi government sent the letter signed by the advisor in the Iraqi presidential office at the time, Lieutenant General Amer Al Saadi, to the head of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Committee (UNMOVIC), Hans Blix, confirming that Baghdad agreed to the request to destroy the missiles and their attachments.
And the United Nations demanded the destruction of those missiles, claiming that they exceeded the range permitted under UN resolutions, which is 150 kilometers, in addition to the destruction of two casting molds, missile engines, missiles and launchers.
Nana considered that Saddam was willing to sacrifice some weapons in order to stay in power for a longer period (Al-Jazeera Net)Assigning to survive
Saddam was ready to sacrifice some conventional weapons in order to stay in power for a longer period, expecting him to sacrifice some weapons and the entry of United Nations inspectors into Iraq to give him time to rebuild the system again and strengthen it after the strike he suffered in 1991, but his expectations were misplaced. As academic political analyst Muhammad Na’na says: America has used a deep attrition plan to continue weakening the regime and widening the loss of confidence between it and the people.
This means – according to Naana – that all the committees that were held were politically motivated, the most prominent of which was the Iraqi president’s acceptance of making concessions to achieve one goal, which is to reduce external and internal pressures in the hope that he would win more international friends, and succeed in reversing this positive development internally and strengthening his regime.
Despite all the accusations leveled against him of possessing weapons of mass destruction, Naanaa asserts that up to this point he has not proven that Iraq had this type of weapons, but he worked on limited experiments, and this is what Washington knew, but it inflated the issue to justify the invasion of Iraq.
During his speech to Al-Jazeera Net, Nanaah considered that America wanted to expand its influence and apply the theory of spreading democracy that carries among its folds an expansionary project through war and not the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, based on a humanitarian basis represented by the establishment of a popular democratic system in another repressive, tyrannical place, and this idea removed the idea of removing Weapons of mass destruction replaced them a few days after the American forces entered Iraq in 2003.
Al-Bayati considered that Iraq should have prevented inspection teams from entering weapons factories (Al-Jazeera Net)How did Saddam Hussein go wrong?
However, former Iraqi army officer Sarmad Al-Bayati believes that Saddam Hussein made a mistake by agreeing to the inspection teams entering Iraqi factories, believing that this paved the way for revealing the secrets, components and capabilities of the Iraqis.
And he expressed his surprise that Iraq did not take the same approach as Iran, which still refuses the entry of international teams to its nuclear plants, despite the heavy sanctions imposed on it, and this has prevented the Iranian capabilities from being revealed so far.
To a large extent, Al-Bayati agrees with Nana about Saddam’s hope to prevent war by agreeing to destroy the missiles, considering that the United Nations decision violates and violates international laws, rights and agreements, not allowing Iraq to possess these missiles, given that their range exceeds 150 km, even though they were for defense only .
In response to a question by Al-Jazeera Net about whether or not Iraq is seeking Russia’s assistance to develop missiles, Al-Bayati denies providing any Russian assistance in this matter, but the agreement between the two parties included a contract to import the Al-Samoud navigational control system, which is within the approval of the United Nations inspection committee. And only this system was imported.
Al-Bayati justifies the aforementioned contract between Iraq and Russia to the need for ballistic missiles to control and direct because they are very complex, and they also need engines and rudders in order to direct them, and he also says that these systems did not exist in Iraq because they were completely destroyed, and the missiles were mixed with Iraqi and Russian parts, to be returned Arrange them after that.
Iraq’s possession of locally developed industrial equipment and devices raised the concern of the International Inspection Committee, which prompted them to demand Baghdad to destroy these missiles.
Osama Al-Saeedi accused America of reviving Saddam’s regime and keeping it until 2003 (Al-Jazeera Net)When the system expires
International Relations professor Osama al-Saidi believes that Saddam Hussein’s regime has expired since 1991 after the relapse of the invasion of Kuwait, and the subsequent expulsions of Iraqi forces from it, in which international forces participated, and then internally, popular protests that nearly toppled the regime.
Al-Saeidy accused America of reviving Saddam’s regime and keeping it until 2003, the year in which Washington needed wars to open arenas to confront armed groups and factions opposed to it, and led the first war against it in Afghanistan, then Iraq in the aforementioned year.
Al-Saeidy acknowledges that Saddam made concessions to the American side in order to dissuade him from the war by permitting the destruction of missiles, so that it became clear later that Iraq did not possess effective missiles threatening America or Israel, and that the decision to invade Iraq was among the American calculations in the region, and that Saddam’s regime had expired. .
He adds that the decision of the invasion has been in place since Congress voted on it in 1999, with the full American conviction of the necessity of US military control over Baghdad and the other provinces and the formation of a new political system.
More news
.
