1. Arab Republic of Egypt: Egypt announced its position on this process, on 4 August 1990, where the president, Hosni Mubarak, said: Egypt refuses to intervene in the
affairs of other countries, and called for the withdrawal of the Iraqi forces from
Kuwaiti territory, and contain the crisis in the Arab framework, and to prevent
interference by any foreign power and the convening of an emergency Arab summit
in Cairo, and Egypt participated in Arab forces that were sent to Saudi Arabia and the
125
2. Arab Republic of Syria: Since the first days of the invasion of Kuwait, the Syrian government announced its condemnation of the use of force or threat of force between
the Arab countries. The Syrian government called for immediate withdrawal from
Kuwait, and the return of the Kuwaiti government. Syria was the first Arab state that
called for an emergency summit in Cairo to address the crisis. Moreover, Syria took
advantage of the crisis to rearrange its position at the Arab regional and international
level. It invested in the crisis to recover the strengths that had been lost, because of the
international isolation that the West had imposed on Syria. Also, Syria contributed by
sending troops to Saudi Arabia to participate in the international coalition (Yasin, et
al. 1990).
3. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: There is no doubt that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was the second most affected country of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Despite a non-
aggression treaty between it and Iraq, there was a state of fear in the Kingdom. It did
not exclude the possibility that after settling Iraqi matters in Kuwait, Iraq would attack
the Kingdom to settle accounts. This was due to the Kingdom's position on the
invasion, which was to call on Arab and Islamic forces to defend its territory, and
with the international powers to confront the Iraqi threat. The Iraqi military attacked
the Saudi border at the town of Hafr Al-Batin, though this assault was defeated by the
alliance forces in what was known as the Hafr Al-Batin Battle. In addition, the
Kingdom was involved in the implementation of Security Council resolutions, and
stopped pumping Iraqi oil through a pipeline, which passes through the territory of
Saudi Arabia (Yasin, et al. 1990).
4. Kingdom of Jordan: The Jordanian position was confused between trying to keep
126
parties. Jordan had built its position on the basis of trying to maintain balanced
relations with Iraq and the Arab world, with a focus on containing the problem within
the Arab framework, without the interference of foreign powers. It was also focused
on the Israeli threat to Jordan, and denounced the foreign intervention in the region.
Jordan tried to conduct peaceful endeavours since the beginning of the crisis.
However, because of Jordanian sympathy with Iraq, remittances from the Gulf were
stopped from Jordanian workers and Gulf States halted their material assistance to
Jordan (Yasin, et al. 1990).
5. Turkey: From the beginning of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Turkey condemned it,
and demanded the withdrawal of Iraqi forces and the return of the legitimate
government of Kuwait. However, the Turkish government deliberately did not take
the initiative to impose counter-measures on Iraq, and participate in the international
coalition. It was waiting for compensation for economic losses and the negative
political effects resulting from the crisis (Emad 1991). After negotiations with the
USA concerning the price that Turkey would get militarily or economically, and after
the issuance of the Security Council resolution on Iraq, Turkey halted pumping Iraqi
oil through its territory and closed its border with Iraq. In addition, Turkey was not
involved directly in the military action by the international coalition, and limited its
contribution to allowing coalition military aircraft to take off from its territory.
6. Iran: The policy of Iran was clear, which was condemnation of the invasion from the
first moments, emphasising peace with Iraq, and departure of foreign troops from the
Gulf, and stressing the role of Iran in the future security arrangements in the / Gulf.
These issues shaped Iranian interactions with the parties of the Gulf crisis (Yasin, et
127
the Gulf crisis successfully, and was able to manage its actions with maximum
benefit.
7. Israel: Israeli policy was based on the exploitation of the crises to ensure the
achievement of its objectives, most notably to improve its international and regional
image. It worked to make more friends and supporters, and reduce the opponents of
its policies (Yasin, et al. 1990). Israel employed the Gulf crisis to gain financial and
military aid from the US under the pretext of war in the Gulf, and the threat to its
security, because of Iraqi missile attacks at the time. Israel was committed to
neutrality, because of its unwillingness to be directly involved in this conflict, which
would increase its regional problems (Emad 1991).