TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 041690 / 0416007.000 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1993-04-15 | 9.2 KB | 190 lines

<text id=90TT0925> <link 93HT0530> <link 90TT2635> <link 90TT0860> <title> Apr. 16, 1990: Stumbling Toward Armageddon? </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990 Apr. 16, 1990 Colossal Colliders:Smash! The Gulf:Desert Shield </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> WORLD, Page 30 MIDDLE EAST Stumbling Toward Armageddon? </hdr> <body> 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. </body> </article> </text>