The most ardent supporters of the Kurdish cause, which are the liberal and left-wing circles in the U.S. and Europe, are at the forefront of the opposition to the current administration's policy of regime change in Iraq. Ironically, you now find yourself in alliance with the so-called hawks and in conflict with your traditional backers. Is this a lonely place?
I don't think so. I talk to many liberals and Democrats on the Hill and try to explain this is about freedom. This is not about invading another country. I, as a Kurd, am calling for international assistance to help us overcome our terrible situation -- to face evil and tyranny. I think any liberal-minded, intellectually honest person will support that contention. It's not for me to get involved in the American debate. But as an Iraqi, my perspective is consistent. We have always called for American and Western support for our struggle for democracy. I think my liberal friends must focus on what is to come -- what should be the intended objective. Are we replacing a dictator with another or are we going to do something fundamental? Is U.S. military power going to be used for superficial change in Iraq or are we going to embark on a real process of change at the heart of the Middle East -- that should be the debate. I hope many of my human-rights activists and liberal friends who were on our side will engage in this debate and articulate their vision as forcefully as some of the other friends.
What about in Europe, where the opposition to U.S.-led military action is even stronger?
I think we need to work harder with the public opinion in Europe. We have a perspective on these things. No doubt U.S. has its own priorities as well. But there is a convergence of interests on this [regime change] between the people of Iraq and the United States. This should be about freedom and removing one of the worst dictators history has ever known.
One oft-cited fear is that, with anti-American sentiment running as high as it is, a move on Baghdad could trigger popular instability in the Middle East.
I have a view on the Arab street from my office. Everyday I am besieged by people who come to me with problems about electricity, water supply, education. In the evening when I go home and watch Arab satellite televisions, I see nothing but the Arab-Israeli conflict. People are people whether they are in Amman or Cairo or Riyadh or Kuwait. They have day-to-day problems that are important to them. Arab media, no doubt motivated by the governments, have been very skilled in diverting attention from the problems of the people. Arab governments have no problem controlling their streets when it comes to corruption, lack of democracy, denial of human rights. But somehow they become so sensitive when it comes to international support for the people of Iraq overcoming their misery and predicament. This is truly an irony.
Observers of the Middle East should look deeper into this and not just believe what they see on the screens of Arab satellite television. The Arab street of Iraq is angry because they feel let down and defenseless in the face of tyranny, and they feel the international community, and particularly the Arab countries, have turned their back on the people of Iraq in their hour of need. The same applies to our neighbors. They have been dealing with this instability imposed by the dictatorial regime in Baghdad. For decades it's been a source of instability with wars and other regional problems in conflict after conflict. The main beneficiary [of regime change] after the people of Iraq will be the neighbors of Iraq. They have sensitivities and concerns some of which are understandable. But ultimately we all live there and they cannot look at stability in isolation from the rights of the Iraqi people. Until we solve the problem of Iraq, the region and our neighbors will continue to endure this instability. It's in their fundamental interest to provide the environment for the right kind of change in Iraq.
Speaking of neighbors: Iran is privately signaling that it would not object to a U.S.-led effort to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Could a U.S-Iranian rapprochement be among the unintended consequences of a war?
Both [countries] will have a common interest in a stable democratic Iraq and in resolving the problem. Iran has been a victim of aggression of the present government of Iraq and knows better than most the dangers it poses. I feel Iranians have a fundamental interest in bringing about a democratic representative government in Iraq.
Are you concerned about the rise of anti-Americanism around the world?
In my opinion [fears of anti-Americanism] are highly exaggerated; much depends on what will happen. If the American intervention is to replace a dictator with another dictator, people will probably see it in a different light. But if it is to support the people of Iraq in regaining their lives and country and starting a democratic process, then I think the international public opinion will commend the U.S. for taking a leadership role in this matter.
There are very few cases in history when the moral and the political arguments would coincide. It's morally right to help the people of Iraq, to stop genocide or end these terrible abuses. It's politically right for stability in the Middle East to bring about a representative government that will be at peace with the region.
About the writer
Asla Aydintasbas is a New York journalist. Her writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the International Herald Tribune, the New York Times and other publications. She has written about Northern Iraq extensively and traveled widely in the region.
Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)
Salon Directory (browse by topic)