In an attempt to dissuade America from invading Iraq in 2003, the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein agreed to respond to UN demands to destroy the Al-Samoud 2 missiles on February 22, 2003.

the beginning

Iraq had started developing the Al-Samoud 2 missiles (a surface-to-surface tactical ballistic missile that operates on liquid fuel) after the 1991 Gulf War, and its first test-fire was conducted in 1997.

Iraq conducted 8 missile launches between 1997 and 2000, and its mass production began in December 2001. The plan was to manufacture 10 missiles. It is said that Iraq relied on Russian experiences in developing the missile, and that it imported 280 SAM-2 engines. By a Polish company in late 2001, then 100 engines by another intermediary company.

Parts of the Al-Samoud missile in an Iraqi factory (Getty Images)

The 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 adviser in the Iraqi presidential office at the time, Lieutenant-General Amer Al-Saadi, to the head of the Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Committee (UNMOVIC) Hans Blix, stressing that: Baghdad agreed to the request to destroy the missiles and their accessories.

The United Nations demanded the destruction of these missiles, claiming that they exceeded the permissible range under the UN resolutions, which is 150 kilometers, in addition to the destruction of two molds, missile engines, missiles and launchers.

Mint considered that Saddam was ready to sacrifice some weapons in order to stay in power for a longer period (Al-Jazeera Net)

Compromise to survive

Academic political analyst Muhammad Nana` says that Saddam was ready to sacrifice some conventional weapons in order to stay in power for a longer period, in the expectation that his sacrifice of some weapons and the entry of United Nations inspectors into Iraq would give him time to rebuild the regime again and strengthen it after the blow he suffered in 1991. , but his expectations were misplaced.

America used a deep attrition plan to continue weakening the regime and widening the loss of trust between it and the people.

This means - according to Mina'a - that all the committees that were held were politically motivated, most notably Saddam's acceptance of concessions to achieve one goal, which is to relieve external and internal pressures in the hope that he would win more international friends, and succeed in reversing this positive development internally, thus strengthening his regime.

Despite all the accusations leveled against him of possessing weapons of mass destruction, Mina confirms that he did not prove that Iraq possessed this type of weapon, but he worked on limited experiments, and this is what Washington knew, but it exaggerated the issue to justify the invasion of Iraq.

During his speech to Al-Jazeera Net, Mina considered that America wanted to expand its influence and implement the theory of spreading democracy, which carries with it an expansionist project through war and not the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, based on a humanitarian basis represented in the replacement of a popular democratic system in another authoritarian and repressive place, and this idea removed the idea of ​​disarming Weapons of mass destruction were replaced a few days after US forces entered Iraq in 2003.

Al-Bayati considered that Iraq should have prevented inspection teams from entering the arms factories (Al-Jazeera Net)

How did Saddam Hussein go wrong?

However, security researcher Sarmad Al-Bayati believes that Saddam Hussein erred in agreeing to the entry of inspection teams into Iraqi factories, considering that this paved the way for revealing the secrets, elements and capabilities of the Iraqis.

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 factories, despite the heavy sanctions that have been imposed on it, and this has prevented the disclosure of Iranian capabilities so far.

To a large extent, Al-Bayati agrees with Nana’a about Saddam’s hope to prevent war by agreeing to destroy the missiles, considering that the United Nations decision is in violation of international laws, rights and conventions, by not allowing Iraq to possess these missiles on the grounds that their range exceeds 150 kilometers, although they were for defense only .

In response to a question by Al-Jazeera Net about the validity of Iraq's use of Russia 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 navigational control system for Al-Samoud missiles, which is among the approvals of the United Nations Inspection Committee, Only this system was imported.

Al-Bayati justifies the aforementioned contract between Iraq and Russia to the need for ballistic missiles for control and guidance because they are very complex, and 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 it afterwards.

Iraq's possession of locally developed industrial devices and equipment raised the concern of the International Inspection Committee, which prompted them to demand Baghdad to destroy these missiles.

Osama al-Saidi accused America of reviving Saddam's regime and keeping it until 2003 (Al Jazeera Net)

When the system expires

Professor of International Relations Osama Al-Saidi believes that Saddam Hussein's regime has expired since 1991 after the setback of the invasion of Kuwait, and the subsequent expulsions of the Iraqi forces from it and international forces participated in it, and then internally popular protests almost toppled the regime.

Al-Saeedi accused America of reviving Saddam's regime and keeping it until 2003, the year when 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-Saeedi acknowledges that Saddam made concessions to the American side in order to dissuade him from the war by allowing the missiles to be destroyed. Later, it became clear that Iraq did not possess effective missiles that threaten America or Israel, and that the decision to invade Iraq was among the American calculations in the region, and that Saddam’s regime has expired. .

He adds that the decision to invade has been in place since the Congress voted on it in 1999, with the full American conviction of the necessity of US military control over Iraq and the formation of a new political system.