TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/041690/0416007.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 8.8 KB | 185 lines

                Φ0<                                                          WORLD, Page 30

MIDDLE EAST

Stumbling Toward Armageddon?


Iraq's threats against Israel heat up a region that keeps
growing more dangerous, even as the superpowers back away from
unstinting support for their respective allies

By JILL SMOLOWE -- Reported by Michael Duffy/Washington, Dean
Fischer/Cairo and Jon D. Hull/Jerusalem


    An ordinary politician who had been accused of secretly
developing nuclear weapons might simply issue a fervent denial
or a terse "no comment." But there is nothing ordinary about
Iraq's President Saddam Hussein. One week after his agents were
caught trying to smuggle electrical devices used in nuclear
weapons from Britain to Iraq, Saddam issued an angry disclaimer
that served only to provoke greater international unease and
outrage. "We do not need an atomic bomb," Saddam said. "We have
the dual chemical. Whoever threatens us with the atomic bomb,
we will annihilate him with the dual chemical." Recalling
Israel's devastating 1981 air strike against Iraq's Osirak
nuclear reactor, Saddam warned, "I swear to God we will let our
fire eat half of Israel if it tries to wage anything against
Iraq."

    Saddam's outburst set off alarms in Jerusalem. "Let there
be no doubt," responded Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir,
"Israel will also know how to defend itself in the future and
defeat the evil designs of its enemies." White House press
secretary Marlin Fitzwater said the Bush Administration found
Saddam's remarks "deplorable and irresponsible." Fitzwater
called for concrete steps "to rid the region of chemical and
other conventional weapons and to move toward peace."

    The inflammatory rhetoric showed that tempers are still
hair-trigger short in the Middle East -- while arms
proliferation speeds virtually uncontrolled, rendering the
region a tinderbox. Not only Iraq, but also Egypt, Iran,
Israel, Libya and Syria have chemical weapons, and all possess
the means to deliver chemical warheads to enemy targets, either
by missile or by aircraft. Suddenly, Israel's long-presumed
nuclear capability, still a monopoly despite Saddam's best
efforts, does not seem to be an effective deterrent. "The
situation is similar to the balance between the U.S. and the
Soviet Union in the mid-1950s," says Gerald Steinberg, a
strategic analyst at Bar-Ilan University outside Tel Aviv.
"America had overwhelming superiority, but the Soviets could
have caused great damage if they got off a first strike."

    The comparison seems ironic in light of the ongoing thaw in
superpower relations. As part of that rapprochement, Washington
and Moscow have backed away from unstinting support of their
respective allies in the Middle East. That has forced
realignments in the Arab diplomatic constellation and weakened
Israel's once unchallenged claim to being of strategic
importance to the U.S. But the unwinding of East-West tensions
has done little to alleviate regional stresses. Instead, the
Middle East arms race is escalating.

    The superpower retreat has had the most dramatic impact on
Syria and Israel. U.S. officials speak of a "rough symmetry"
between Moscow's announced intention to draw down its military
support for Syria and Washington's cooling approach toward
Israel. In Damascus, Moscow's moderating attentions have curbed
President Hafez Assad's hopes of achieving strategic parity
with Israel. In the past the Soviets funneled enough hardware
into Syria to leave the country with a $15 billion military
debt; now Moscow speaks of Assad's need for "reasonable
defensive sufficiency."

    Assad's response has been to try to break out of the
diplomatic isolation incurred by his strident anti-Israel
policies and support for terrorism. To that end, he is
cultivating a more moderate image in the West and repairing
relations with other Arab states, including Egypt. Last month
Assad told former U.S. President Jimmy Carter that he was ready
to enter into bilateral negotiations with Israel.

    For Israel the slackening of superpower tensions has brought
significant rewards. Jerusalem has renewed diplomatic relations
with Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, severed since 1967.
Warming relations with Moscow have led to a flood of Soviet
Jewish immigrants, perhaps as many as 100,000 this year. Their
influx will help Israelis maintain a demographic edge in the
combined areas of Israel and the occupied West Bank and Gaza
Strip against an ever increasing Arab population.

    Jerusalem's gains are offset by strains in the U.S.-Israeli
relationship that have been growing since the Palestinian
intifadeh erupted in the occupied territories 28 months ago.
Those differences hit a new intensity last month, when Shamir
rejected Secretary of State James Baker's plan to initiate
talks between Palestinians and Israelis in Cairo on elections
in the occupied territories. Jerusalem was further chilled by
Senator Robert Dole's recent proposal for cuts in foreign aid
to America's five chief recipients in order to free funds for
the fledgling democracies of Eastern Europe and Central
America. Among those affected would be Israel, which receives
$3  billion annually.

    Those larger issues, however, have been overshadowed by the
extraordinary -- and extraordinarily dangerous -- ambitions of
Saddam. During the Iran-Iraq war, he shocked the world by using
chemical weapons against Iran and rebellious Iraqi Kurds. Now
he may be maneuvering to challenge Egypt's President Hosni
Mubarak for leadership of the Arab world. Saddam's bellicose
posturing discomfits many of his fellow Arab leaders,
particularly Mubarak, who heads the only Arab country to have
signed a peace treaty with Israel. But none of Saddam's peers
dare to risk challenging his anti-Israeli threats. When the
foreign ministers of Egypt, Jordan, North Yemen and Iraq met
last week in Amman, they defended the right to counter Israel's
undeclared nuclear arsenal with any available weapons.

    Saddam's paroxysm seems particularly reckless and
unbalanced. It began last month with the hanging of a
British-based, Iranian-born journalist as a spy, after the
reporter went to investigate an explosion at a military complex
south of Baghdad. The provocative behavior has since
accelerated. Analysts offer several possible motivations. They
point to Saddam's fear of a pre-emptive strike by Israel and
his determination not to suffer a reprise of the 1981 Osirak
humiliation. There is also his hunger for domination, backed
by a 1 million-man military, far and away the largest of any
Arab state. Then there is the man himself: insecure, ruthless
and megalomaniac -- a supremely unpredictable combination.

    "We must not take his threats lightly," warns former Israeli
Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Yet Israelis are acutely aware
that they lack the surgical options that made the 1981 Osirak
strike possible. Iraq has dispersed its most sensitive weapons
facilities in heavily reinforced sanctuaries. It has also
strengthened air defenses and developed missiles capable of
reaching Israeli targets.

    In turn, Israel has increased its own vigilance. Last week
the country dramatized its determination to maintain a military
and technological edge by launching Ofek-2, a satellite
intended to spy on its immediate neighbors. The lift-off proved
that Israel has missiles capable of carrying a warhead 1,500
miles, well within range of Baghdad. Since last July, Israel
and the U.S. have been working on a ground-based missile that
can fly nearly two miles a second, the speed required to
intercept a tactical ballistic missile at high altitude. The
program, called ARROW, is 80% funded by Washington. Israel
hopes to launch the first test missile this summer.

    One positive effect of Saddam's threats was to produce a
rare moment of unity last week among Israel's factious
politicians, pushing aside the machinations that followed the
March 15 collapse of Israel's national unity government. Last
Wednesday Labor leader Shimon Peres claimed that he had cobbled
together a coalition to displace the caretaker Shamir. Peres
plans to present his new government to the Knesset this week
for a vote of confidence.

    Whether Peres takes power or not, neither he nor anyone else
seems capable of braking the new arms spiral. "The superpowers
can't impose a settlement," says Martin Indyk, executive
director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
"They can only encourage the parties to settle." Perhaps the
only hope is that the sheer terror of Armageddon, if not
reason, will bring all parties back to their senses. That
terror helped keep the superpowers from each other's throats for
45 years. Whether it can do so in the Middle East is another
question altogether.