PARIS: Charles Saint-Prot, a Sorbonne University professor and one of France’s foremost specialists on Iraq, says he’s convinced that the United States has already taken its decision to go ahead with an attack on Saddam Hussein and that it will do so even if it has to stage it on its own. Even if this means, he adds, that to do so it has to go against a veto by the United Nations Security Council.

Saint-Prot is the author of a seminal work on Iraq, ‘History of Iraq — From Sumer to Saddam Hussein’, published by the prestigious state-run thinktank, the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS).

In recent public appearances to promote his books, he goes so far as to suggest that America probably prefers to stage an attack on its own, this in order to not compromise any of its plans or have to undergo the pressure of some of its Western allies, who’ve expressed doubts as to the feasibility of a strike on Iraq, or who, in his estimation, appear concerned as to the true consequences for regional stability if the US attack goes according to plan and President Saddam Hussein — as President Bush would like — is physically eliminated.

Saint-Prot, who has advised successive governments as to French policy with regard to the Middle East and Arab world, also seems to be convinced that France, as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, will undoubtedly veto any resolution that accords the United States a green light for its attack.

“Even given this possibility,” he notes, “I am convinced that America plans to stage its attack whether or not the Security Council gives its accord.”

In a talk delivered this week in Abu Dhabi, at the Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research (ECSSR), Saint-Prot said that he’s convinced “that the US will definitely act alone without the UN. They don’t care about the international community. They will do what they want even if a decision to strike is vetoed by a permanent member of the council.”

As for a post-strike scenario, Saint-Prot predicts that “the situation in a post-war Iraq will be even worse than it is today.” And this, he adds, “because the Iraqi opposition has no roots on the ground there. They will remain as long as do the Americans, but who knows for how long the United States will be able to stay around once they arrive.”

“It’s foolish on their part,” he notes, “for the Americans to think they will be welcomed with open arms by the Iraqi people” — a people, he notes, “which will certainly not accept the occupation by Yankee troops.”

His solution to the problem is basically the very same position that France has put forth in recent weeks: “Saddam Hussein just has to allow the return of the (UN) arms inspectors,” he states very firmly.

And, he adds, “if France has refused so adamantly to support the American attack plans on Iraq, it’s largely because the French refuse any interference in the internal affairs of Iraq, for they consider the Iraqi people to be capable of choosing their own leaders.”

Saint-Prot also took a few pot shots at what he characterized as America’s “double standard” with regard to human rights violations, “especially when it comes to Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians.”

According to a US government document from which he quoted, he said the goal pursued by the US was “to ensure control over this highly strategic zone (i.e., Iraq in particular and Central Asia in general), to dominate petroleum reserves, create a strategic partnership with Israel, aid in establishing a Turkish-Israeli military alliance, and prevent emergence of any strong and independent Arab state or group of states.”