Iraq has been forced to lay bare in a 12000-page document its weapons programmes and other military details; Unrestrained, UN weapon inspectors are moving around the Iraqi presidential palace in search of weapons of mass destruction; And, the US is waiting for Saddam to offer the flimsiest of excuses to set rolling its much publicized military juggernaut.

Today, Iraq has become a laboratory for testing and tuning post-Cold War American world order, which is no longer governed by the structural realist paradigm constructed by Kenneth Waltz. Hierarchies among states are being reworked and the “self-help” paradigm is being reconstructed by the tenets of international political economy (IPE) working under the direct guidance of a single hegemonic power.

The nuclear weapons that Iraq had allegedly built to make it a power to reckon with and assert its authority and legitimacy as an independent state, are now threatening its own sovereignty and security. Much to the chagrin of Saddam and Musharraf, nuclear weapons are no longer instruments of power. Rather than enhancing the status of a state, nuclear weapons are aiding powerful players slice the sovereignty of weak states. In the emerging security milieu, transparency, rather than secrecy, is becoming the norm, especially when it comes to defining the rules for the small states. Under the new dispensation, the absolutes of sovereignty are being challenged and the maximum which states may possibly enjoy is truncated sovereignty.

A new rule-set is being designed through the example of Iraq for others to emulate and follow. The concerns about the territorial security of the state are being expanded to include governance and human rights issues.

The question is why is Iraq being targeted in this manner when offenders like North Korea and Pakistan go scot-free? Why has the world chosen to isolate Iraq? Why did the West not try “engagement policy” with Saddam, who has a history of being a liberal?

One very Hollywood kind of explanation is that Bush is waging a war against Saddam to take revenge. But, the more plausible explanation is that oil politics determine the course of actions in West Asia. But then, why should business require such massive military endorsements to achieve commercial objectives? According to Clausewitz, ‘War was a continuation of politics by other means.’ That being so, where does business fit into war designs?

If states, in nexus with ideology, were the prime movers of international relations during the Cold War, then, one can safely say that in the post-Cold War era, it is the state-market nexus which is guiding the destinies of the world. Therefore, the state is not withering away; it is only reorienting itself to work as an agent of the market.

This explains why American and Russian oil giants are evincing interest in Iraqi oil fields through their respective government’s military might; thus, converting the Clausewitzian dictum to read: war is a continuation of business by other means. It could be argued that it is not for the first time that war is being used to further business interests of a particular section. However, the big difference between the twentieth century business wars and the present one is that while the former were used to strengthen the states’ capacities, the current one is being used to serve particular groups with narrow business interests.  The other difference is that military in Clausewitzian era was deemed to be used as means to public good and as an instrument of national strategy. The post modern military is being slowly reduced to a business strategy tool working to secure private interests. And all this is being done in the name of bridging the public–private divide.

It is mainly for this reason that many are apprehensive of US intentions with regards to Iraq. If the Bush administration is able to convince that the war against Iraq is for the larger economic well being of the world, then people might appreciate its geo-economic necessity. However, if the driving force behind creating a new world order is solely market, then it is time the world speaks up against unilateralism practiced under the garb of global peace and security.