My wife and I were invited to a dinner in June 2002 at the home of my old friend secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld. Also there was deputy- secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz. Even though it was a family dinner, we talked about several issues. I have known Don for a long time now, since the 1980s when he was former U.S. President Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East. I actually knew him before he assumed that particular post. And we maintained a close friendship ever since. I also have permanent contacts with the Iraqi leadership under President Saddam Hussein. On coming back from my trip to the U.S [also in June], I was approached by some Iraqi friends to talk about my visit to Washington and my meetings with several people there. And since then I warned them about America's policy toward the Middle East and mainly the Iraqi issue. I had several meetings with my Iraqi contacts here and I encouraged them to have a genuine rethinking of the Iraqi policy toward the whole issue concerning the U.N Resolution 687, especially regarding disarmament. At the end of January and early February of this year, the contacts with the Iraqis became more intense and I felt that they were feeling a threat from the U.S., since the latter's attitude was increasingly tougher. So, I was invited to visit Baghdad and meet with Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in order to discuss the whole situation and the Iraqi-U.S. and Iraqi-European relations. I had several meetings with many Iraqi officials in Iraq and we discussed at long length the whole problem that we are all currently facing. The whole Middle East is concerned about what is happening in Iraq.

I found President Saddam Hussein to be very determined, very calm and building an efficient system to resist the U.S.-led military coalition against Iraq. And in fact he was counting on several elements to build his defensive strategy. One is the Iraqi Army. And it must be remembered that the Iraqi Army is the only one in the Arab world to have real experience of war. They had the Iran-Iraq War for eight years [1980-1988] and the Kuwaiti War [1990-1991], and they contributed to the Arab effort in the two Arab-Israeli wars in 1967 and 1973. So the Army has much experience and is very well trained. The second element is the Republican Guard which is a presidential unit that is very well equipped and trained. And third is the paramilitary branch of the Baath Party. They are also highly motivated and devoted to the Baath ideology and they are determined to defend the regime. Fourth, there are the tribes. And here Saddam Hussein did something very interesting. In the beginning, the Baath Party was trying to impose its authority and will on the tribes and to assimilate tribes into the Baath Party. Saddam Hussein finally understood that this was a bad policy because it is a way to create problems with the tribes and also to create a kind of hostility, so he shifted his policy towards a real flirt with the different tribes. He gave them some power and a kind of autonomy in their domestic affairs. Since then, most of the tribes became more sympathetic to the regime because they were given privileges they did not previously enjoy. That is why Saddam Hussein can count on these tribes. Their role should not be underestimated. They are spread all over Iraq and in the remote areas. And this may explain some of the resistance we see against the coalition forces. But I was expecting this kind of resistance. And for the time being the Iraqis are still resisting even in the Shia dominated areas of the south. Also there was a deep effort to fill the gap between the Sunni and the Shia communities in Iraq. The Shiites were given a lot of villages. The same was done with the Kurds. I know that even now there are some contacts open between the Iraqi leadership and people close to [Massoud] Barzani [leader of the Kurdish Democratic Party] despite the alliance built between the Americans and Barzani. The Iraq regime was prepared for a clash with the U.S. and that is why President Hussein was calm when I met with him in Baghdad in February.

As I explained and I need to be clear about this. I do not hold any initiative from the Iraqis to the West and/or vise versa. I was not up to me to deliver messages. But it is because of my close ties with some influential people in Washington and my friendship with Iraq, the endeavor was an attempt after several meetings in Iraq, the U.S. , Europe and the Vatican, to try and find a possible common ground and ideas for a proposal. But it was really personal, I don't have the pretension to be a go-between the Americans and Saddam Hussein. In fact, I felt that it was very important for people with contacts with both parties to try to find out in there was an exit out of the possibility of war…maybe a miraculous way out would introduce itself. At the time, I was also encouraged by the events that were taking place in the United Nations Security Council, the worldwide demonstrations, the impasse to allow U.S. troops to be stationed in Turkey and also the anti-war positions of the Anglican Church in the UK and the Vatican. I was also encouraged at that time that the U.S. and Iraq seemed open to talk. I was invited by President Hussein and received in Washington as well as in the Vatican and Paris.

Really, I felt that both parties were determined to go war. The U.S., they were really reluctant to start negotiations towards a compromise. And Saddam was very determined to resist and to fight. He was confident that he could do so. I can say that my impression of the mood in Iraq and the U.S. was not favorable for a compromise and a peaceful initiative.

The main problem presented itself as the following. Saddam Hussein was very cooperative and open to discuss United Nations Resolution 1441 and he considered that the implementation of the resolution is the main international legal issue. And he was willing to fully cooperate on the resolution. By contrast, the Bush administration by and large considered that its [the U.S.] previous experiences with Saddam Hussein were not encouraging; they had no confidence in that the he would disarm. It is really a problem of trust; the Bush Administration does not trust the Iraqi leadership. And I felt that the U.S. mixed resolution 1441 with regime change in Iraq. They believed that the only way to implement 1441 was to get rid of the regime in Baghdad. The main point is that Saddam Hussein was saying that he was willing to implement 1441 and the Bush administration could not trust that he would fully do it. Also, my feeling was that the U.S. wanted to get rid of the whole Iraqi military strategy. A perception in the U.S., I felt, was that the Iraqi army was too big and too numerous in number for such a small country and such a delicate region. It was felt that Iraq did not need such a big army and it needed to be reduced. The logic was that such a big army would remain to be a threat to the region.

I have heard this in Washington…[Virginia Congressman Jim] Moran. And for sure that Israel will be the first beneficiary of this war.

Please. I want to make it very clear that I am not willing to give any indication of the persons that I met in Washington and it is very well know that I met Mr. Rumsfeld in June and you don't need to mix all the meetings together. And I don't at all want to mention whom I met recently during last trip to Washington in February. What I told you previously in the interview is the result of meetings that I had with some influential people. I don't want to give any names because I don't want to embarrass them. You know it is very embarrassing for these people to conduct any kind of negotiations while they are engaged in military operations.

In my opinion it is a war about ideas more than it is about land or regime change. For the U.S. and others too, they believe that the terror that they have faced in the last few years has its roots in the revolutionary mentality based on Marxism and fundamentalism. These two are considered to be the main platforms for terrorism. They believe that Marxism gave birth to terrorists like Carlos and Abu Nidal as well as other organizations. Fundamentalism also gave birth to Islamic fundamentalist groups as well as the likes of Osama Bin Laden and others. They believe that they need to change the culture of the region in order to get rid of these two phenomenons. Of course Marxism is less of a threat now since the collapse of communism. But Islamic fundamentalism is still growing. They also believe that they can find a strong common ground between the culture of the East and the West…between Islamic and Christian civilizations. But in order to bridge this gap, they believe they need to get rid of some schools of thought in the area and that would be fundamentalism and extremism. And that is why it is about ideas and not oil as is commonly thought.

I don't think so. There will be no ceasefire before the real war in Iraq beginnings that basically means the siege of Baghdad. And it could also depend on the outcome of the U.S. military campaign that currently being waged.

No, not for the time being. The ones that I know of are the Putin-Primakov initiative and the Vatican initiative presented to President Bush when Monsignor (Pope's envoy) went to Washington. As far as I know, they have been put on hold. The Putin-Primakov one is the most efficient one, primarily because of the warm relations between President Bush and President Putin as well as the good relationships between Moscow and Baghdad. These could work and I am in touch with both the Russian authorities here and the Vatican.

You know that the terms are continuously changing with the events on the ground, and the balance or power and the balance of terror and the willingness of each party to discuss the way out.

I felt that it is out of question for the U.S. to negotiate with the regime in Baghdad as a whole…not just Saddam Hussein. I am in touch with some officials who are concerned with the state of affairs in Iraq and I don't foresee that there are any credible talks for the time being.

I was trying very hard to try to get results that would lead to a prevention of war even though I knew it was very difficult. Don't forget that in February, U.S. intentions towards Iraq were very clear and that their plans were very advanced. And the U.S was at that time deeply involved in war preparations. Their dice had already been rolled and their cards had been shown.

I am sure that it will bring fundamental change to the area and there will be a kind of Pax-Americana for a while that will shake several regimes in the area. At least in the beginning, most regimes will find it in their interests to deal with the U.S. You can be against and angry at the U.S. But once the war will be finished, Pax Americana will be evident and there will have to be acceptance and cooperation with this, at least for a while. America's powerful military machinery and powerful economic tools will be physically present in the area. This is also why the Europeans with have to put aside their anger and build bridges to the U.S. Neither Germany nor France will be able to afford remaining hostile to the U.S. I know that Russia and China are actually in permanent contacts with the U.S and have several open communications channels. This fait accompli will be accepted. And the U.S. will build on its relations to spread new ideas and a new mentality in the area as well as reconciling with the people of the region. There will be a strong and important initiative dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli predicament. They also want to build bridges with Islam. And the resolution of the Palestinian Israeli issue could be an opening for stronger relations between the U.S. and Islamic countries.

Yes, I believe that they really do. The plan is very ambitious because it is not easy to face such a completely different mentality and a long heritage of sectarianism and fundamentalism. But, I did feel that when I was in the U.S. that the officials were aware that their objectives were ambitious…but they are ambitious determined people and they believe that they can achieve this historic achievement in order to make way for a new era in the region. If you want to make a comparison, it is the following: that the first President Bush launched a new world order that had mainly economic connotations. The current president Bush has a view of the new world order with ideological connotations.