White House Mulls Opposing Policies on Iraq

WASHINGTON —  Faced with growing domestic and foreign criticism, as well as its own assessment that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is unlikely to be toppled any time soon, the Clinton administration is deliberating options to reinvigorate its policy on Iraq, according to senior U.S. officials.

The White House is in effect being forced by conflicting criticism from both congressional foes and foreign allies to privately rethink and publicly debate its strategy.

“Both feel it’s time to take decisive action. But the actions each wants us to take couldn’t be more different,” an administration official lamented.

U.S. assessments of Iraq’s internal politics have added further pressures. Specifically, long-standing hopes that an internal coup would topple Hussein are fast fading.

“We have to disabuse ourselves of the idea that someone is going to bump off Saddam,” another U.S. official said. “That’s not going to happen any time soon. We have to develop a long-term strategy, and we need to have patience.”

Congress, Allies View Iraq Differently

Yet just what to do is the source of disparate and often divisive debate.

To tighten the squeeze on Baghdad, Congress now appears on the verge of backing initiatives such as a “Radio Free Iraq” and a campaign to indict Hussein as a war criminal, both steps designed to hasten the Iraqi leader’s demise.

“A thoughtful policy toward Iraq involves an active effort to deal with the root of the problem--not just weapons of mass murder, but the sadistic despot who has already used them against his own people,” said Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach). “Neither Iraq’s people nor its neighbors can enjoy lasting security while Hussein remains in power.”

A resolution calling for creation of an international tribunal to indict and try Hussein is likely to reach the Senate floor this week, according to Senate staffers.

An informal Senate working group has also been formed to develop tactics to oust Hussein and to press the White House for a more aggressive U.S. strategy. The group includes Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) of the Armed Services Committee and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.).

On the opposite end of the policy spectrum are allies such as Russia and France, which favor easing the squeeze on Baghdad. Since U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan signed the new deal with Baghdad on Feb. 23, key European allies have launched a campaign to pressure Washington to accept the possibility that it will work and to acknowledge that economic sanctions should be lifted once disarmament efforts are complete.

During her stop in Paris today, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright will be pressed to “look at the long term,” a French envoy said.

“We think there’s something missing from U.S. policy,” the envoy said. “It’s very one-sided and based on an assumption that Iraq will not comply” with the deal to track and destroy its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Over the past two weeks, France has twice sent a top envoy to Iraq to push its “light at the end of the tunnel” approach--persuading Iraq to comply fully with the U.N. agreement in exchange for its own pledge to work to persuade Washington to lift sanctions.

“The answer we got from Iraq is that it is committed to the U.N. deal,” the French envoy said.

The Clinton administration wants Iraqi compliance on other U.N. resolutions, including provisions requiring Hussein to demonstrate his “peaceful intentions” and to honor human rights, before it ends the toughest economic embargo ever imposed on a nation.

Not Waiting for Hussein to Fall

Given Baghdad’s record, including two crises over the past five months, the administration remains convinced that Hussein will try to hold on to parts of his deadliest arms, making a future showdown inevitable, U.S. officials said.

For the moment, the administration is sticking with its strategy to “contain” Hussein through a four-point policy of economic sanctions, “no-fly” zones over northern and southern Iraq, the disarmament program and the threat of force.

Yet the administration is being forced to consider further steps in the wake of two new assessments:

First, after years of premature predictions of his demise, U.S. officials now concede that Hussein probably will hang on to power for the foreseeable future.

The administration had recently seen signs of domestic pressures on the regime. But those pressures appear to have dissipated because Hussein was able to avoid a U.S. military strike and also because of a U.N. resolution doubling the quota of humanitarian relief.

“Coups don’t take place in a vacuum. Conditions have to be there for them to happen,” a U.S. official said.

The collapse of several covert intelligence efforts between 1992 and 1996 has forced Washington to start almost from scratch to create those conditions.

Second, challenges by Baghdad might be so small that the United States could not justify punitive military action. An Iraqi decision to fly religious pilgrims to the annual hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia this month and next month, for example, would be a violation of the “no-fly” zone in the south--but politically costly for Washington should it order an airstrike.

Among the steps now being considered by the administration to shore up containment:

* Intensifying contacts with the Iraqi opposition. Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi, once backed by the CIA, met with White House officials last week. U.S. officials have also had recent contacts with Shiite Muslim opposition groups based in London and Kuwait, including one backed by Iran, and a Kurdish representative from northern Iraq is expected in town next week.

Chalabi proposed a detailed plan to create a government in exile and take control of an enclave within the southern “no-fly” zone. But the administration has been reluctant to get involved. The divided opposition “has a lot of room to grow,” the administration official said.

* Tightening sanctions. One idea on the table is to shut down Iraq’s burgeoning illegal oil exports, possibly by moving interdiction ships into Iraqi waters. Iraq now nets up to $600,000 a day from illegal oil exports, U.S. oil analysts say.

* Expedite movement on the Arab-Israeli peace process. On the day Annan signed the deal in Baghdad, President Clinton called Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Jordan’s King Hussein and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The goal was not only to jump-start the peace process but also to respond to the biggest Arab complaint about U.S. policy: that it commits diplomatic clout and military might to Persian Gulf peace but allows agreements reached between the Arabs and Israel to go unfulfilled.

As it monitors Iraqi behavior, the administration hopes to spark new movement on the peace process--and in turn keep the Gulf states on board for its Iraq policy.

For the moment, however, the ball is in Baghdad’s court.

“We don’t have to make decisions until we see what Saddam does,” the administration official said. “Then we’ll see what kind of adjustments need to be considered.”

Another Option: Direct Talks With Iraq

Meanwhile, Jordan’s King Hussein traveled the Middle East last week discussing an option barely mentioned in Washington: direct talks between U.S. and Iraqi government officials.

“Given the repeated crises, why shouldn’t there be such a dialogue to bolster the stands adopted at the Security Council or elsewhere?” King Hussein was quoted as saying Thursday in the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat.

The Iraqis have long signaled a desire for reopening direct contacts, but the United States has remained cool to the idea since the Persian Gulf War, preferring not to give Saddam Hussein’s government legitimacy.

King Hussein plans to bring up the possibility in Washington late this month, according to press reports in the Arab world.

*

Times staff writer John Daniszewski in Cairo contributed to this report.