Arab nations joined the international criticism of Baghdad on Thursday, but Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein showed no sign of backing down in the face of threatened American airstrikes.
Clinton administration officials said that chances were fading for a diplomatic outcome, as Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz denounced the United States and ruled out resumed United Nations weapons inspections unless economic sanctions are eased.
Airstrikes appear to be “imminent,” said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who has been in touch with administration officials.
The U.S. has been moving additional forces into place that will double the number of combat aircraft in the region and bolster Army troops in Kuwait.
Defense Secretary William Cohen said a U.S. attack would be “significant,” presumably meaning more damaging and sustained than the “pinprick” reprisals in the past against targets such as anti-aircraft defenses.
“I have not seen anything coming out of Baghdad that would indicate (Hussein) is interested in complying with Security Council resolutions,” Cohen said.
“Saddam Hussein has to realize that he cannot continue to play this game with the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our friends,” Cohen said. “We expect full compliance, and that means full compliance.”
In a significant shift by Arab nations, foreign ministers from Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar issued a joint declaration putting the responsibility on Iraq for the crisis.
“The ministers call upon Iraq to abandon its decision and cooperate fully with (UN weapons inspectors) to reach a diplomatic solution to the crisis,” the statement said.
Most Arab states have made their opposition to military action clear in past crises, but the statement said it was up to Iraq to avoid military action. “The Iraqi government is held responsible for any consequences that might arise from its refusal to back down from its decision to expel the UN weapons inspectors,” they said.
The statement also said Iraq’s decision would “expose the innocent Iraqi people to more miseries and tragedies.”
While turning up pressure on Iraq with the threat of “sustained” airstrikes, administration officials have not set out publicly what long-term goals they think can be accomplished by bombing.
Some officials believe that bombing would mark the end of the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) that has been conducting the inspections in Iraq. The U.S. is expected to initially target the weapons factories and laboratories that have been the subjects of UN monitoring as well as bases of the Revolutionary Guard and secret police forces that help keep Hussein in power.
“If UNSCOM cannot operate, then one purpose of military force is to reduce (Hussein’s) ability to reconstitute and deliver weapons of mass destruction,” said a senior administration official.
“It is unlikely this will be 100 percent effective, but the same red lines will remain in the future: If he reconstitutes, then we will react.”
Some lawmakers, such as Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), said the goal should be to topple Hussein. Independent analysts doubt that can be accomplished by bombing alone and suggest that airstrikes will, at most, destroy possible weapons sites and weaken Hussein’s overall military capabilities.
“We have thought well beyond hour one, day one and week one,” Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott said during an appearance at the Brookings Institution, a Washington research group. “There are lots of ways we can make sure he loses on day one and thereafter.”
In Baghdad, Aziz said the UN weapons inspectors could resume their work only if the UN Security Council is prepared to begin lifting economic sanctions. Aziz, appearing before a televised news conference in military uniform, complained that Iraq had cooperated with UN inspectors for 7 1/2 years since its invasion of Kuwait but still had not been freed from UN sanctions because of pressure from the U.S.
“There will be no peaceful solution to this situation unless the United States agrees to the principle of lifting sanctions,” Aziz said.
He did appear to hope for a visit by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who defused a similar confrontation in February. Annan has been reluctant to play that role in the latest showdown, set off when Iraq broke pledges made to him in February.
Annan meets Friday with the Security Council, but there were no indications that he was planning to go to Iraq to negotiate personally with Hussein.
Even Russian UN envoy Sergei Lavrov, usually in favor of Annan’s personal diplomacy in Iraq, did not openly advocate a trip to Baghdad. “We believe he is in the best position to decide what kind of action he will take,” Lavrov said.
In contrast to past crises, there has been little of the high-profile diplomacy that sent Annan and various friendly foreign ministers rushing to Baghdad to negotiate a deal. Iraq seems more alone than at any time since the Persian Gulf war, isolated from old friends in Arab nations, France and Russia.
“There’s really nothing to negotiate here. The international community sent a strong, clear message to Saddam Hussein,” said White House spokesman Joe Lockhart. “The question is, will he hear it?”
Clinton continued trying to round up support among U.S. allies, telephoning leaders in Germany, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands. So far, only Britain has said publicly that it would participate in military action.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright spoke by phone to the foreign ministers of Germany, Slovenia, France, Portugal, Japan and Sweden and also was speaking with key members of Congress.
“The trigger is the president’s decision as he evaluates the situation on the ground and the various options,” said a senior administration official. “Obviously, however, the longer Iraq goes on without UNSCOM inspection, the more dangerous the situation becomes, and the president will make a judgment that this is the time to act.
“Saddam is under the misconception he can wriggle out this time. He cannot. Just as there are dangers associated with any military action the United States takes, there are dangers associated with no action.”
On Capitol Hill, where support for military action is strong, Lugar encouraged the White House to consider doing whatever is necessary to remove Hussein from power, even if that would require U.S. ground troops.
Throughout the day, White House officials discussed the crisis with congressional leaders.
The State Department recommended Thursday night that Americans around the world “maintain a high level of vigilance” and a low profile.
———-
MORE ON THE INTERNET: Find background on the Iraq situation at
chicagotribune.com/go/iraq
