Denis Healey: Tony Blair must not support an attack on Iraq

A successful attack would probably lead to the disintegration of Iraq, provoking a civil war

The last attack on Iraq during the Gulf War of 1990-91 was a disaster for the West as a whole. By killing innocent civilians it simply strengthened Saddam Hussein's grip on Iraq. Another attack in the present situation would be even more disastrous. President Bush is already seen in much of the Muslim world as "the Great Satan". By using the word crusade to describe his policy he simply invites a Muslim Jihad or holy war in return. Yet there is no evidence available to the public that shows any connection between the Iraqi regime and the sort of terrorism practised by al-Qa'ida. However, a new attack on Iraq would shift Muslim opinion in favour of militant terrorists, not only throughout the Arab world, but even further east, in Pakistan, the Philippines and Indonesia. It is no surprise that all the West's allies in the Muslim world oppose such an attack – as Prince Abdullah of Jordan made clear the other day.

Worst of all, though, the US has no exit strategy. It has failed to produce an alternative to Saddam Hussein who would command the support of the Iraqi people – and, indeed, of the rest of the Muslim world. Thus a successful attack would probably lead to the disintegration of Iraq as a state, provoking a civil war between Kurds, Sunnis and Shias. This could have a dangerous effect on Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey, all of which may be pressed to offer the US bases for an attack on Iraq. As Field Marshal Lord Bramall, formerly Britain's chief of the defence staff, said: "Britain risks being dragged into a very, very messy and long-lasting Middle East war."

The rest of the world is rightly concerned with Saddam's acquisition of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. But there is no guarantee that a successful invasion of Iraq – which would require hundreds of thousands of Western troops – would get rid of those weapons. Indeed, those weapons are easily hidden, and they could end up being acquired by Muslim terrorists. So Saddam's recent offer to accept inspection by the UN should be accepted, despite the obvious risk that he may attempt to evade inspection.

Unfortunately, Rolf Ekeus, Sweden's head of the UN weapons inspectorate from 1991 to 1997, has recently said that the US manipulated him for its own ends and even put two of its spies into his team.

Britain is the only American ally that might support an attack on Iraq. But if we did support them, our position throughout the Muslim world would be irretrievably damaged. So the British government would do itself and the world a great service by making it clear an American attack on Iraq would not have its support.

There is, in any case, growing opposition to an attack on Iraq. Senator Joe Biden, the head of the Senate Committee for Foreign Relations has insisted that Bush should consult Congress before taking any action. There is also growing opposition in the British Parliamentary Labour Party.

The Iraqi problem gives added urgency to the need for a change in Washington's policy towards Israel. America must use its substantial leverage on the government of Israel to stop it from undermining the Palestinian Authority, to end the creation of new settlements in Palestinian territory and to initiate talks for a settlement. Sharon's current policy creates a breeding ground for new Islamic terrorists and undermines Western influence throughout the Arab world.

Tony Blair must openly oppose President Bush's attempt to get rid of Yasser Arafat as the Palestinian leader. In other words, the challenge of Saddam Hussein has created a need for a fundamental change in Western policy towards the Middle East. Above all, it is essential that the Western powers should seek the authority of the United Nations for any military action against Iraq.

Post-1945 Western policy in the Middle East has always suffered from ignorance and shortsightedness. The Suez crisis of 1956 produced the only successful use of economic sanctions against an aggressor – and it was America that got them imposed, against its British ally. And that led to the collapse of the premiership of the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, who was replaced by his Chancellor, Harold Macmillan, a man who had been a passionate supporter of the campaign until its economic consequences made it difficult for him at the Treasury. Politics is an uncertain business.

The last Gulf War has a further lesson for us now. Although the initial landings in Kuwait were successful, the West never had sufficient troops to occupy Iraq for long enough to enable a democratic government to be established. The American commanding officer of the time, General Norman Schwarzkopf, said: "The analysts write about war as if it's a ballet, like it's choreographed ahead of time, and when the orchestra strikes up and starts playing, everyone goes out there and plays a setpiece. What I always say to those folks is, 'Yes, it's choreographed, and what happens is the orchestra starts playing and some son of a bitch climbs out of the orchestra pit with a bayonet and starts chasing you around the stage.' And the choreography goes right out the window."

That lesson still stands.

Lord Healey is a former Labour Chancellor and Secretary of State for Defence