Major: warning on troubled times in Middle East

John Major has broken his silence on the looming Gulf War, warning that the US and Britain must ensure they have detailed plans for the reconstruction of a war-damaged Iraq.

Signalling that it will be more difficult to "win the peace" than defeat Saddam Hussein, the former prime minister predicts tough times ahead in the Middle East.

"The destruction of the whole hideous apparatus of Saddam's regime has an aftermath with ramifications far beyond Iraq," he says in an article for The House Magazine.

"It would be folly beyond belief to plan only for a swift and successful war followed by a smooth transfer of power. It may be not all these problems will arise - but some surely will.

"We must prepare for the many problems ahead for it would be ironic to win the war only to lose the peace."

While he insists that war is not yet inevitable, Major warns that Britain and the US cannot walk away from a showdown with the Iraqi regime.

"It looks like war but it is not yet unavoidable: Saddam could back down or be deposed, or accept an offer of sanctuary although, sadly, none of these options is likely," he writes.

"President Bush could not - and will not - back down and, with one-quarter of the British Army committed, nor can Britain."

Major, who as prime minister sent troops into battle in the Gulf war of the early 1990s, says the US-led coalition will defeat Saddam.

"If it does come to military action, the United States will win. Iraq, with her massive but ill-equipped army, cannot withstand the most powerful military force the world has ever seen," says Major.

"The US spends more on defence than the next nine high spending nations added together - and such power is irresistible.

"But the fact that the US will prevail militarily is one of the few certainties that lie ahead. The danger of Saddam unrestrained is well understood but the short and long term risks in restraining him have had little public airing.

The former premier says that the risks to the Middle East "are stark".

"At worst, there is the risk that Saddam, believing he has nothing to lose, will use all his arsenal in the forthcoming conflict including biological and chemical weapons," he observes.

"If so, what would be his target? It could be the invading army. Or he could attack Saudi Arabia for being staunch allies of the US and as revenge for the Saudis' financing of the Gulf War.

"Or, of course, his target could be Tel Aviv in order to draw Israel into the war in the hope of maximising Arab support.

"He will be likely to use conventional weapons to set alight the Iraqi oil wells in an attempt to maximise economic chaos.

"He would justify this latter act of destruction by deploying the populist but misguided view that the aim of the US is to control Iraqi oil.

"He may also seek to contaminate or set alight oil wells in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

"He might also leave as his legacy a gift of weapons of mass destruction to terror groups so that they might strike against the US and her allies for years to come.

"This, of course, assumes he has not already done so. None of these scenarios may come about but none dare be ignored."

Tony Blair and George Bush must also put in place a detailed plan for a post-Saddam Iraq, says the former Huntingdon MP.

"We must plan also for what may happen in Iraq itself once the immediate battle is over. There may well be chaos, near civil war, revenge taking and the onset of anarchy," he writes.

Major says the US will have "a task to keep Iraq as one entity" in the months after the conclusion of a war.

"What happens post-Saddam? What nature of government is likely to take power? Another 'strong man' is unattractive for he may be as bad as Saddam. The US would have great difficulty in governing Iraq and, no doubt during a UN-supervised interlude, there will be efforts to form a new Iraqi government," he writes.

Any replacement government "may not be benign", the former premier warns. "The concept of a Western style democracy can be dismissed," says Major.

"In practice, voting by clan would mean power would pass from the less-than-20 per cent Sunni minority to the overwhelming Shi'ite majority.

"This would be bitterly resisted by both Sunnis and Kurds. Even if any new government is dressed up in some form of regional representation and minority involvement, it would still be dominated by the Shi'a.

"We would awaken to a Shi'ite Iraq alongside a Shi'ite Iran which would harbour ambitions to dominate the Gulf."