The bid to wipe out weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was flawed from its inception.

Flawed because Iraq is being singled out to surrender its deadly arsenals. Flawed because the world is turning a blind eye to similar weapons elsewhere in the region. And flawed because the move was an American ploy to settle some old scores with Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein.

The United States has warned it has 'zero tolerance' for any violations of United Nations resolutions. Yet it is carrying out daily bombing raids in the American-declared 'no-fly-zones' in southern and northern Iraq where both acts, the 'no-fly-zones' and the military strikes, have not been authorised by any UN resolution.

But UN resolutions have often been flaunted by many countries. Take for example, the battery of UN resolutions calling on Israel to respect the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.

It is therefore not surprising that there is a cogent perception among the Arabs that US actions are fuelled by a deep-seated, and often irrational, fear of Islam. No wonder, Saddam's defiance has struck a chord in the Islamic world. So, too, has Osama bin Laden's.

Indeed, another war against Iraq will only heighten Muslims anger against the West. But President George W Bush is determined to do what his father had failed to do. There is no doubt he is emboldened by his relatively easy victory against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Iraq, however, promises a far bigger price. After all, it has the world's second largest oil reserves. For a country which imports half of its oil and this is set to rise to two-thirds by 2020 having Iraqi oil on tap will be crucial for US to maintain its grip on the global economy.

Not surprisingly, American oil executives have already met the Iraqi opposition (read: US-appointed minions) to discuss the divisions on the spoils of war.

Israel's nuclear arsenals

While one understands the American interests in Iraq, it is nevertheless astonishing that other governments have opted to don war paints and hitch themselves to the Bush's wagon. Surely, they know full well that the US' publicly avowed reason for waging war that is, to disarm Iraq is pure hogwash.

A week before the 1991 Gulf War, former Iraqi foreign minister Tareq Aziz reminded then US secretary of state James Baker during a meeting in Geneva that Israel had an arsenal of 200 nuclear weapons considered the major source of insecurity in the Middle East.

"The only credible assurance is that we should reach an agreement on the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction in the region," he said.

Aziz proposed, in addition to an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, a comprehensive peace plan for the Middle East. This was rejected by Baker.

Clearly, the total elimination of all weapons of mass destruction is not on the American agenda then and now.

So long as certain countries get to retain their weapons of mass destruction, the selective campaign for their removal in Iraq will be received with great cynicism and derision, especially when the move was engineered by the country which has, yes, the largest stockpile of such weapons.

All terrorists big and small

But US double standards does not end there, nor is it confined to Iraq.

Examples abound. Here's one. In 1985, Israel sent bombers to attack Tunis, where the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was then based. The attack, which killed 75 people, was justified as a retaliation for the murder of three Israelis in Larnaca, Cyprus.

At the time of the bombings, the murderers had been caught and were already facing trial. And both Israeli and American intelligence conceded that nobody in Tunis was responsible. It was, they said, organised by PLO splinter groups based in Syria.

Syria, of course, is not your garden variety type of villain. It had a rather sophisticated missile defence system. So some weaker Arabs would have to pay for the terrible crime in Larnaca.

The US applauded Israel for the attack, calling it a legitimate response to terrorism.

But make no mistake. Terrorism is terrorism whether its perpetrators are individuals, groups or states.

In the 'City of God', St Augustine tells the story of Alexander the Great who, during one of his military exploits in the Mediterranean Sea, interrogated a captured pirate.

"How dare you disturb the seas with your crimes?" Alexander asked.

"I have a small boat, so I'm a thief," said the pirate. "You have a navy, so you're an emperor. How dare you disturb the world with your crimes?"

That was 390 BC. And it appears nothing much has changed since. Terror is still being unleashed by all types of terrorists both big and small.