At a time when the United States is finding it hard to assemble a 'coalition of the willing' to launch a war against Iraq, Washington has complicated matters by locking horns with the Iraqi opposition over the nature of a post-Saddam administration.

The differences came to the fore mostly recently over the weekend, after four days of talks between opposition leaders and US officials in Salahudeen in northern Iraq, part of the US-British administered 'no-fly zone'.

If and when an US-led war is carried out in Iraq, Washington is inclined to have US military rule backed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the State Department at the helm in Baghdad, its officials have indicated.

US pointman o­n Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad told the meeting with the opposition that there would be a period of US military rule, but insisted it would not last longer than necessary to stabilise the country.

US President George W Bush also indirectly put forward a case for an interim military set-up o­n Saturday. He said: ''It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions and war.''

But the Iraqi opposition views this as undemocratic and an extension of the existing Baathist regime under Saddam Hussein, because minus the top brass, Washington is keen that senior officials in the present administration be part of the new government.

The opposition is keen to have a six-member leadership council assume power o­nce Saddam is toppled. This is the stand of the various factions representing the ethnic groups - Sunni, Shiite and Kurd - who buried their differences by forming a 65-member joint committee at a landmark conference in London in December.

They are now looking to put o­n a public show of political credibility that will help catapult them to the seat of power in Baghdad.

True intentions

For political analyst Nasseb Al Saleh, the US plan exposes Washington's true intentions in waging war.

''The original call was for elimination of weapons of mass destruction, regime change and restoration of democracy,'' he said.

Having US military rule would indicate an end of Iraqi state for a while, the UAE-based Ajman University professor said.

''That could encourage breakaway forces to seize control of as much territory as they can, making the re-emergence of a central government that much more problematic.''

Washington is also seen to be pressuring the opposition into giving prominent positions to pro-Israeli delegates, agreeing to US protection of Iraq's oil fields, playing down the role of Islam in any future political or legal system and allowing Turkish troops in the north of the country.

Another key area of disagreement is US insistence that a future has to include ''those who have suffered under Saddam'', meaning regime insiders, in a post-Saddam administration.

All these differences have made the council increase contacts with Shiite Iran, which has always supported the cause of the Iraqi Shiite Muslims, who are a majority ruled by minority Sunnis.

The council is also preaching a programme of massive ''de-Baathification'', where democracy is introduced and all in the present administration are not o­nly purged, but held accountable for their actions in power.

More importantly, it is threatening a provisional government the moment Iraqi army falls or surrenders to the US-led coalition. While Iran has hinted it would recognise such a government, the US has rejected it outright.

Lack of trust

Though Washington issued a statement Sunday that it is committed ''to a democratic, representative, broad-based future Iraqi government that respects the principles of justice, the rule of law, and the human rights of Iraq's people,'' the opposition is unimpressed.

Part of the problem is the opposition's lack of trust in the United States. Washington has "betrayed'' it twice in the past - in the Kurdish uprisings of 1975 and 1991 - by encouraging them to revolt against Saddam and then withdrawing without supporting the rebellion.

''The opposition, particularly the Kurds, now fears that it will be betrayed for the third time,'' says Iqbal Ismail Mubarak, a research fellow at the University of Sharjah in the UAE.

Iqbal asks: ''How can political and military planners in Washington dictate the future of Iraq? The arrogance of the Bush administration's enterprise in Iraq is mind-boggling, particularly since previous US regime change efforts have had mainly negative results.

Among many such examples, he cited the 1974 US intervention in Cyprus, which is still an unresolved thorn in Greece-Turkey relations.

He also pointed to the overthrow half a century ago by the CIA, aided by British intelligence, of Iran's nationalist President Muhammad Mossadeqh and the return of the Shah to his throne until his overthrow in 1979.

'In none of the countries where Washington attempted and succeeded in effecting regime change did it follow up by seriously by investing in the rebuilding of the lives and infrastructure destroyed during the transformation,'' he added.

Provisional government

According to Barham Salih, prime minister of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which governs the eastern sector of Kurdistan in northern Iraq, US help is welcome, but ''after the war Iraqis must chart their own course''.

''The US-led coalition will be instrumental in getting rid of dictatorship But peace in post-war Iraq, much less democracy, cannot be established without the full participation of the nation's secular democratic movements and other indigenous political groups, including religious establishments and even tribes,'' he said in an article in Sunday's Los Angeles Times.

''A delay in handing over power to a national authority will play into the hands of undemocratic anti-Western forces, not o­nly in Iraq, but also in the wider Islamic world,'' he added.

In a report released Monday, the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs said that overthrowing Saddam might give the United States more clout in the Middle East and beyond, but it would not necessarily guarantee a safer, more stable Iraq over the longer term.

Ajman University professor Naseeb favours the installation of an Iraqi provisional government after Saddam is ousted. ''The provisional government would then sign agreements under which the US-led forces can stay in Iraq and fulfill stabilising tasks.''

This would avoid making Iraq legally an occupied territory, and yet allow an allied force for a fixed period. The provisional government would then fulfill Iraq's obligations under the 18 UN Security Council resolutions, preparing the way for a lifting of the sanctions, he added. - IPS