FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. - Having signed the Congressional resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq and brought the proposal to the United Nations Security Council, it would seem President Bush has made substantial progress in convincing both the U.S. and the U.N. that action must be taken against Saddam Hussein. But a University of Arkansas researcher asserts that the Bush administration has a far more critical audience to persuade - the Arab and Muslim publics and the Iraqi people themselves.

While most countries in the Middle East support an end to Hussein’s regime, a majority of them oppose a U.S. pre-emptive strike to topple the Iraqi dictator, states Najib Ghadbian, assistant professor of political science.

"The United States must establish some sort of public discourse to talk to the people of the Middle East, not just their governments. We should emphasize how much we have in common with them, acknowledge the contributions of the Muslim community in this country and make a clear statement that we have no imperial ambitions for their region," Ghadbian said.

"If the U.S. moves forward without establishing those points, we risk inflaming greater resentment. We don’t want to confirm the terrorist propaganda by presenting this as a clash of civilizations or a war of the West against Islam," he continued. "Bush must make this clear."

Ghadbian, an expert in Middle Eastern politics and U.S.-Mideast relations, has followed public sentiment in Arab countries closely since Bush’s first intimations of a war against Iraq. In addition, he’s been sought out several times over the past month to provide political commentary and to present the U.S. perspective for Arab news networks, including Al Jazeera.

According to Ghadbian, the Arab media has portrayed U.S. aggression as a campaign against Iraq - not just against Hussein or to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, but an effort to dominate the region and seize control of its resources. Further, he notes that the Arab public remains largely unconvinced by the case the United States has made against Iraq. Without proper justification, any military action, particularly a unilateral American attack to overthrow the Iraqi regime, would likely be construed as an imperialist invasion, Ghadbian said.

Yet despite their mistrust of U.S. intentions, most Arab citizens support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. In fact, some of the greatest proponents of regime change in Iraq are Hussein’s own citizens, the Iraqi people. Acquiring their support and service would bolster any military campaign against Hussein, Ghadbian stated. Unfortunately, it’s among the Iraqi people that mistrust of American intention runs deepest.

With good reason, according to Ghadbian. In 1991, the first President Bush called upon the Iraqi people to rebel against their leader, yet when they did, provided no support to prevent Hussein from quashing the rebellion. Similarly, in 1996, the CIA trained opposition forces in northern Iraq only to stand by and watch when Hussein snuffed them out.

Considering that precedent, it’s no surprise that the Iraqi public may hesitate in supporting an American-led attack. But without Iraqi help, the United States could face a dangerous, drawn-out campaign.

"It’s hard to say how willing the Iraqi people will be to help topple the regime. Some of the generals may defect. We may have the support of the public. And this would contribute to a swift, surgical removal of Hussein," Ghadbian said. "But that’s the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that the Iraqi people put up a fight and drag the war into urban combat. That strips us of our technological advantage, and that presents the possibility of many more American casualties."

Ghadbian clearly considers it unwise for the United States to instigate an attack without the support of the international community, but gaining that support will require both finesse and negotiation.

In addition to working with the Iraqi public, the United States must be conscious of its relationship to the entire region and must consider the consequences of any action it takes in Iraq, Ghadbian cautioned. American carelessness during the Gulf War and the ensuing sanctions we imposed caused resentments that have festered into many of the problems we now face in this region - including the proliferation of terrorist groups, he said.

Considering the current messages running through Arab media and public opinion, a U.S.-led invasion may be the worst move our nation can make in winning over this region.

"It is a rash and probably temporary fix. We should be considering more long-term options," Ghadbian said. "Lift the sanctions except on military equipment. Reach an agreement with the international community on how to monitor Iraq. Reintegrate Iraq into the international community and open the country to investments and reconstruction. Then empower the Iraqi civil society and let them do their job."