DATE=JANUARY 11, 1996
TYPE=ON THE LINE
NUMBER=1-00495
TITLE=IRAN, IRAQ AND THE SECURITY OF THE GULF
EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY - 619-0037
CONTENT= UPDATED VERSION
THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE
ANNCR: ON THE LINE -- A DISCUSSION OF UNITED STATES
POLICIES AND CONTEMPORARY ISSUES. THIS WEEK,
"IRAN, IRAQ AND THE SECURITY OF THE GULF." HERE
IS YOUR HOST, ROBERT REILLY.
HOST: HELLO AND WELCOME TO ON THE LINE.
SECURITY AND STABILITY IN THE PERSIAN GULF
REMAIN VITAL NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE UNITED
STATES. YET IRAN AND IRAQ CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN
ACTIVITIES THAT THREATEN THE REGION. THE
IRANIAN GOVERNMENT IS THE PRINCIPAL STATE
SPONSOR OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM. IRAN
CONTINUES TO TRY TO DESTROY THE MIDDLE EAST
PEACE PROCESS. AND IRAN HAS INTENSIFIED ITS
EFFORTS TO DEVELOP OR ACQUIRE WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION, INCLUDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. IN
RESPONSE, THE U.S. HAS HALTED ALL TRADE WITH AND
INVESTMENT IN IRAN. ALTHOUGH IRAQ HAS RESUMED
LIMITED OIL SALES UNDER UNITED NATIONS
SUPERVISION, IT IS STILL NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH
U-N RESOLUTIONS. ROLF EKEUS, THE CHIEF U-N
WEAPONS INSPECTOR FOR IRAQ, SAID IRAQ IS ENGAGED
IN ORGANIZED AND SYSTEMATIC CONCEALMENT OF
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
JOINING ME TODAY TO DISCUSS U.S. POLICY AND THE
SECURITY OF THE GULF ARE THREE EXPERTS: ALINA
ROMANOWSKI IS DIRECTOR OF NEAR EAST AND SOUTH
ASIAN AFFAIRS AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
ROBERT SATLOFF IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY. AND
PETER RODMAN IS DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY
PROGRAMS AT THE NIXON CENTER FOR PEACE AND
FREEDOM. WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.
MS. ROMANOWSKI, LET ME BEGIN WITH YOU BY ASKING
IN WHAT WAY IRAN TODAY PRESENTS A THREAT TO THE
VITAL INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND HOW THE
UNITED STATES IS THEN COUNTERING THAT THREAT?
ROMANOWSKI: I THINK YOU HIGHLIGHTED SOME OF THEM IN YOUR
OPENING STATEMENT. IRAN CONTINUES TO BE
DISRUPTIVE TO THE PEACE PROCESS.
HOST: IN WHAT WAYS?
ROMANOWSKI: IT CONTINUES TO SPONSOR TERRORIST GROUPS THAT
UNDERTAKE TERRORISM AGAINST ISRAEL. THE
IRANIANS ALSO CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT TO BUILD THEIR
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CAPABILITIES. AND
[THEY] ARE VERY KEEN AND VERY INTERESTED IN
ACQUIRING THAT CAPABILITY. AND THE IRANIANS
CONTINUE TO POSE A THREAT TO THE STABILITY OF
THE REGION BY SUPPORTING SUBVERSIVE GROUPS,
THREATEN THE STABILITY OF GOVERNMENTS IN THE
REGION ALONG WITH OUR GULF ALLIES. AND, MOST
WORRISOME TO US IS, AGAIN, IS THEIR EFFORTS TO
ACQUIRE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. SO THEY
ARE VERY MUCH A THREAT TO OUR INTERESTS, NOT
ONLY IN THE REGION, BUT WORLDWIDE. IN MAY OF
1995, PRESIDENT CLINTON DID PLACE AN EMBARGO ON
ALL TRADE AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY WITH THE
IRANIANS. OUR POLICY IS TO ACQUIRE AS MUCH
INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE ON IRAN TO ALTER ITS
UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR. AND WE DO THAT THROUGH A
VERY ACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES,
OUR COALITION ALLIES IN THE REGION AS WELL AS
RUSSIA, CHINA AND OTHERS. WE HAVE TAKEN MANY
UNILATERAL STEPS, ONE OF WHICH WAS PRESIDENT
CLINTON'S EMBARGO.
HOST: LET ME ASK ROB SATLOFF: DO YOU THINK THE UNITED
STATES IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK IN COUNTERING THIS
THREAT FROM IRAN?
SATLOFF: WELL, I THINK WE'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK. PART OF
THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN
BE DONE ALONE. IRAN HAS MANY BORDERS AND IT HAS
MANY FRIENDS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD THAT STILL SEE
IN IT A VALUABLE TRADING PARTNER, THAT STILL SEE
IN IT A BEACON OF REVOLUTIONARY APPEAL. SO IT'S
SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED INTERNATIONAL COALITION
SUPPORT TO ACHIEVE, JUST LIKE WE HAVE THE
COALITION AGAINST IRAQ. AND THE PROBLEM HERE
REALLY, I THINK, IS THE EUROPEANS, WHO HAVE
TAKEN A DIFFERENT PATH TO THEIR ENGAGEMENT,
THEIR OPPOSITION TO IRANIAN BEHAVIOR. THE
EUROPEANS SAY THAT THEY OPPOSE THE SAME THINGS
WE OPPOSE. BUT MANY OF THEM HAVE ADOPTED A
POLICY OF CRITICAL DIALOGUE OR ENGAGING WITH THE
POLITICAL LEADERSHIP OF IRAN AND OFFERING
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL INCENTIVES. BUT AS YET,
THERE IS NO SIGN THAT THEIR POLICY HAS WORKED.
AND IN THE MEANTIME, THE IRANIANS HAVE BEEN ABLE
TO PLAY EUROPE AGAINST AMERICA. AND THAT IS A
STRATEGY FOR DEFEAT FOR OUR POLICY.
HOST: WHAT CAN THE UNITED STATES DO IN THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES, PETER RODMAN, IF THE EUROPEANS
REFUSE TO GET ON BOARD WITH THE POLICY OF
ISOLATION?
RODMAN: WELL, IT'S LIKE WINSTON CHURCHILL SAID ABOUT
DEMOCRACY: IT'S A LOUSY POLICY EXCEPT FOR ALL
THE ALTERNATIVES. I THINK THE WEAKNESSES OF THE
POLICY ARE EXACTLY AS ROB OUTLINED: THE FACT
THAT OUR ALLIES ARE NOT COOPERATING AS MUCH AS
THEY SHOULD. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I AGREE
WITH ROB. I THINK WE'RE RIGHT AND I THINK WE
HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE TO PRESS THE
ALLIES AND PRESS THE RUSSIANS AND THE CHINESE.
AND I THINK WE HAD SOME SUCCESS IN GETTING THE
RUSSIANS TO CANCEL SOME ASPECTS OF THEIR NUCLEAR
DEAL WITH IRAN. I THINK WE HAVE SOME QUIET
COOPERATION FROM THE EUROPEANS IN SOME AREAS,
SAY, MILITARY SALES. AND I THINK WE HAVE TO
STEP UP THE PRESSURE ON OUR ALLIES -- WHICH
LEGISLATION DID -- THE GILMAN - D'AMATO
LEGISLATION OF LAST YEAR.
HOST: WHICH NOW MEANS THAT ANY NATION ENGAGED IN TRADE
WITH IRAN ...
RODMAN: COMPANIES. SPECIFIC COMPANIES THAT TRADE WITH
IRAN.
HOST: FORTY MILLION DOLLARS OR MORE IN THEIR ENERGY
SECTOR MAY BE SUBJECT TO SANCTIONS FROM THE
UNITED STATES.
RODMAN: THAT'S RIGHT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN
DOING BUSINESS WITH IRAN OR DOING BUSINESS IN
THE UNITED STATES. SO THIS IS A VERY POWERFUL
WEAPON AND SOME OF THE SQUEALS YOU HEAR FROM OUR
ALLIES, I THINK, REFLECT THE FACT THAT THIS
PARTICULAR SANCTION MAY BE VERY EFFECTIVE IN
LIMITING EUROPEAN AND JAPANESE AND AUSTRALIAN
BUSINESS IN IRAN.
HOST: YET, AT THE SAME TIME, A NATO ALLY OF THE UNITED
STATES -- TURKEY -- HAS ENGAGED IN [A] MAJOR
ECONOMIC ENERGY AGREEMENT WITH IRAN. IS THAT
GOING TO AFFECT OUR ATTEMPT TO CONTAIN IRANIAN
INFLUENCE AND ACTIVITY?
ROMANOWSKI: WELL, WE HAVE LOOKED VERY CLOSELY AT THAT
AGREEMENT. IT'S RELATIVELY RECENT. WE'RE
MONITORING CLOSELY THE ONE PART OF IT THAT WE
REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT. OF COURSE, [IT] IS IF
THERE IS ANY MOVEMENT IN THE DEFENSE AND
SECURITY SECTOR AT THIS POINT, WE DON'T SEE ANY
EVIDENCE FOR THAT. IT'S A BIT EARLY TO TELL
WHAT EXACTLY THAT GENERAL AGREEMENT IS GOING TO
PRODUCE IN TERMS OF COMMERCIAL AGREEMENTS OR
TRADE OR WHATEVER. AT WHICH POINT, WE'LL HAVE
TO LOOK AT THAT VERY CAREFULLY TO SEE HOW AND IF
THAT ACTUALLY ...
HOST: BUT, SINCE IT'S IN THE ENERGY SECTOR, MIGHT THIS
TRIGGER THE SANCTIONS FROM THIS NEW BILL THAT
PRESIDENT CLINTON SIGNED? DO YOU KNOW?
SATLOFF: MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE'S A TECHNICAL
DISCUSSION OVER WHETHER THIS AGREEMENT WAS IN
FACT CONSUMMATED BEFORE THE APPLICATION OF THIS
LAW. BUT YOU DO POINT AT A LARGER PROBLEM WHICH
IS: THERE IS A NEW LEADERSHIP IN TURKEY WHICH
DOESN'T VIEW IRAN THE SAME WAY EITHER [AS] WE
VIEW IT OR THE PREVIOUS LEADERSHIP VIEWED IT:
NAMELY, AS MUCH OF A THREAT TO WESTERN INTERESTS
AND WESTERN VALUES AS IT IS. SO, THAT'S ITS OWN
STRATEGIC PROBLEM THAT WE FACE.
HOST: LET'S TALK ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE THREAT FROM
IRAN IN A MILITARY FASHION FOR A MOMENT. IRAN
SEEMS TO HAVE UNDERTAKEN A CONVENTIONAL MILITARY
MODERNIZATION PROGRAM, PARTICULARLY IN THE NAVAL
AREA WITH THE ACQUISITION OF FAST-ATTACK BOATS
FROM CHINA, SEA-TO-SEA MISSILES AND SO FORTH.
IS THAT SIGNIFICANT IN TERMS OF U.S. INTERESTS
IN THE STRAITS OF HORMUZ AND THE FREE FLOW OF
OIL? ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT IRAN'S CONVENTIONAL
CAPABILITIES? ANY OF YOU.
ROMANOWSKI: WE CERTAINLY ARE MONITORING THAT AND LOOKING AT
IT CLOSELY. WE ARE WORRIED. MANY OF OUR
DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR ALLIES AND RUSSIA AND CHINA
ARE DESIGNED ACTUALLY TO LIMIT THE KINDS OF
CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS AND ARM SALES TO THAT
REGION. THE NAVAL MODERNIZATION PLANS THAT THEY
HAVE CERTAINLY INCREASE THE PROSPECTS OF THE
IRANIANS TO DO HARASSMENT AGAINST NAVAL
SHIPPING, TO CERTAINLY MAKE IT A NUISANCE FOR US
IN THE REGION. IT IS OF CONCERN TO US.
HOST: IT INCLUDES, I THINK, THREE RUSSIAN SUBMARINES.
RODMAN: THAT'S RIGHT. THE THIRD SUBMARINE IS ON ITS WAY
RIGHT NOW TO THE GULF FROM RUSSIA. I DEFER TO
OUR PENTAGON EXPERT, BUT I THINK THE U.S. NAVY,
I'M SURE, CAN DEFEAT THE IRANIAN NAVY. BUT THE
PROBLEM IS: FOR THE LAST FIFTY YEARS, THE U.S.
NAVY HAS DOMINATED THE GULF WITHOUT FACING EVEN
THIS KIND OF NUISANCE OR POTENTIALLY LETHAL
THREAT. I DON'T THINK THERE HAVE BEEN HOSTILE
SUBMARINES THAT WE'VE HAD TO FACE. SO IT HAS TO
BE MORE THAN A NEGLIGIBLE INCREASE IN THE
PROBLEM THAT WE FACE THERE.
HOST: AND ONE WONDERS. IRAN APPARENTLY HAS HAD A
DECLINE IN ITS STANDARD OF LIVING SINCE THE
REVOLUTION OF ROUGHLY FIFTY PERCENT. AT THE
SAME TIME, THEY HAVE HAD THESE TREMENDOUS
EXPENDITURES FOR THESE CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS. AND
ALSO THERE ARE ATTEMPTS TO ACQUIRE OR CONSTRUCT
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. SO WHEN YOU'RE
FACED WITH A TREMENDOUS DECLINE IN THE WAY IN
WHICH YOUR PEOPLE LIVE AND YET ARE WILLING TO
DEDICATE THOSE KINDS OF RESOURCES TO MILITARY
CAPABILITIES, THEY MUST BE SERIOUS ABOUT THOSE
MILITARY CAPABILITIES SERVING SOME STRATEGIC
ENDS. WHAT ARE THOSE ENDS?
SATLOFF: I WOULD AGREE. I THINK THAT UNDERSCORES THE
PROBLEM WE HAVE IN IRAN. I THINK MOST ANALYSTS
WOULD SAY THAT AMONG THE THREE TYPES OF THREATS
-- WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, CONVENTIONAL
MILITARY AND TERRORISM -- THE LACK OF MONEY HAS
PROHIBITED OR HALTED OR SLOWED DOWN THE
CONVENTIONAL BUILDUP AS FAST AS THE IRANIANS
WOULD LIKE IT BECAUSE IT COSTS A LOT TO HAVE AN
AIR FORCE, AN ARMY AND A NAVY. IT DOESN'T COST
NEARLY AS MUCH TO HAVE A CHEMICAL WEAPONS
CAPABILITY, BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS AND TO FUND
TERRORIST GROUPS. THAT'S A PITTANCE. YOU CAN
DO THAT FOR CHANGE, REALLY, IN STRATEGIC TERMS.
SO THE IRANIANS ARE SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY ON
THOSE TWO ENDS OF THE THREAT SPECTRUM AND ARE
TRYING TO ACQUIRE THESE CAPABILITIES THAT CAN
THREATEN, AS ALINA ACCURATELY SAID, THE PEACE
PROCESS, AMERICAN CITIZENS THROUGHOUT THE
REGION, U.S. ASSETS AND PROPERTY THROUGHOUT THE
REGION. WE MAY EVEN LEARN EVENTUALLY THAT THE
IRANIANS WERE THE KEY SUPPORTERS AND AGENTS
BEHIND THE AL KHOBAR BOMBING IN SAUDI ARABIA.
ROMANOWSKI: I THINK ONE OF THE IRANIANS' AIMS, CERTAINLY IN
A REGIONAL CONTEXT, IS THEY ARE INTERESTED IN
VERY MUCH DOMINATING, MILITARILY, THE GULF. AND
ALL OF THESE CONVENTIONAL ACQUISITIONS CERTAINLY
ALLOW THEM A CERTAIN GREATER LEVEL THAN THEY HAD
IN THE PAST. THERE'S NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT,
IN A CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES
NAVY AND THE IRANIAN NAVY, THAT WE WOULD COME
OUT ON TOP. BUT THEY ARE DEFINITELY A NUISANCE
AND A PROBLEM FOR OUR COALITION FRIENDS AND
PARTNERS IN THE REGION.
HOST: LET'S TALK ABOUT THE OTHER NUISANCE AND THAT IS
IRAQ, WHICH, OF COURSE, WAS MORE THAN A NUISANCE
BEFORE THE SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF A WAR
AGAINST THEM. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IS THE STATUS
OF IRAQ TODAY AS A CONCERN FOR U.S. SECURITY IN
THE AREA?
ROMANOWSKI: FROM A MILITARY STANDPOINT, THE IRAQIS PROBABLY
HAVE STILL ONE OF THE LARGEST MILITARIES IN THE
REGION BUT CERTAINLY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO
REBUILD TO ANYWHERE NEAR THE LEVELS OF BEFORE
DESERT STORM. BETWEEN THE U-N SANCTIONS, THE
UNSCOM INSPECTIONS AND ACTIVITIES -- SOUTHERN
WATCH -- WE HAVE A VERY GOOD HANDLE ON EXACTLY
WHAT THE IRAQIS ARE DOING FROM A MILITARY THREAT
AND STANDPOINT.
HOST: AND WHAT ARE THEY DOING?
ROMANOWSKI: WE ARE NOT CONFIDENT THAT THEY HAVE COMPLIED
WITH THE U-N SANCTIONS THAT DEAL WITH WEAPONS OF
MASS DESTRUCTION AND THEIR CAPABILITIES THAT
THEY HAD TO DESTROY AFTER THE WAR. AS YOU
MENTIONED EARLIER, ROLF EKEUS SAYS -- AND WE
AGREE WITH ROLF EKEUS -- THAT WE NEED TO PURSUE
THAT.
HOST: WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON IRAQ NOW? ONE UPSETTING
STATEMENT BY MR. EKEUS IS THAT THERE ARE STILL
SIXTY UNACCOUNTED-FOR SCUD MISSILES IN IRAQ
WHICH, BY THEMSELVES, MIGHT NOT BE ALL THAT
DISTURBING UNTIL YOU SEE THAT THEY WERE
OUTFITTED FOR THE DELIVERY OF CHEMICAL AND/OR
BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. WHAT IS SADDAM HUSSEIN
TRYING TO DO BY PRESERVING HIS CAPABILITIES IN
THIS AREA?
SATLOFF: I'M VERY WORRIED ABOUT THE SITUATION WITH THE
IRAQIS. THERE ARE TWO FACTORS TO WORRY [ABOUT].
DOES THE GUY HAVE INTENTIONS THAT ARE MALICIOUS?
AND DOES HE HAVE CAPABILITIES TO ACT ON THEM? I
THINK WE ALL HAVE NO DOUBTS ABOUT SADDAM'S
INTENTIONS. HE HAS WITHSTOOD U-N SANCTIONS FOR
SIX YEARS NOW AND GIVEN UP A HUNDRED BILLION
DOLLARS' WORTH OF REVENUE BECAUSE HE WANTS TO
KEEP MISSILES AND OTHER WEAPONS THAT HE CAN
SOMEDAY USE. WE SAW HIM USE THEM IN AUGUST
AGAINST THE KURDS IN THE NORTH. AND I THINK
IT'S VERY WELL FOR US TO THINK THAT HE WILL USE
THEM AGAINST ONE OF HIS ENEMIES -- AND HE HAS
LOTS OF THEM -- SOMEWHERE IN THE REGION. AND WE
KNOW NOW THAT HE STILL HAS BALLISTIC MISSILE
CAPABILITIES. SO, I THINK WE SHOULD BE VERY
WORRIED ABOUT SADDAM'S INTENTIONS AND
CAPABILITIES AND, THEREFORE, HIS AGGRESSIVE
POTENTIAL.
HOST: PETER RODMAN?
RODMAN: WELL, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY
CORRECT IN KEEPING THE PRESSURE ON IRAQ. AND
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TEMPTATION AND DIPLOMATIC
PRESSURE FROM, AGAIN, THE EUROPEANS AND THE
RUSSIANS AND OTHERS TO LIBERALIZE SANCTIONS
AGAINST SADDAM OR TO GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE
DOUBT OR EVEN TO BRING HIM INTO THE GAME AS A
COUNTERWEIGHT TO IRAN. AND I WISH IT WERE
POSSIBLE. I WISH THAT IRAQ WERE A FIT PARTNER
FOR US AGAINST IRAN. BUT THE TROUBLE IS, AS
LONG AS THIS REGIME IS THERE, AS LONG AS IT
CONTINUES, ESPECIALLY, ITS WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION, AS ROB HAS DESCRIBED, WE HAVE NO
CHOICE BUT TO TRY TO MAINTAIN THE MAXIMUM
PRESSURE ON SADDAM. AND, AGAIN, I GIVE THE
ADMINISTRATION CREDIT. I GIVE ROLF EKEUS
ENORMOUS CREDIT FOR REFUSING TO GIVE THEM A
CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH AND THEREBY MAINTAINING THE
DISCIPLINE IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL ON THE
SANCTIONS QUESTION.
HOST: CAN ANYTHING MORE BE DONE? OF COURSE, THE U-N,
AS I MENTIONED IN THE INTRODUCTION, IS NOW
ALLOWING THE LIMITED SALE OF OIL FOR
HUMANITARIAN PURPOSES AND TO HELP FUND SOME OF
THESE MONITORING ACTIVITIES ON THE WEAPONS. IS
IT JUST STEADY AS WE GO? KEEP THE PRESSURE UP?
KEEP THE INSPECTIONS GOING?
ROMANOWSKI: I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL THAT WE KEEP
THE PRESSURE ON, [THAT] WE KEEP SADDAM HUSSEIN
AND IRAQ IN A BOX, THAT WE MAINTAIN THE U-N
SANCTIONS AND SUPPORT FOR THAT, THAT WE MAINTAIN
SUPPORT FOR UNSCOM FOR ITS ACTIVITIES, AND THAT
ALSO WE MAINTAIN OUR PRESENCE, A STRONG U.S.
PRESENCE, IN THE REGION. THAT IS VERY MUCH AN
IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF OUR POLICY VIS A VIS
IRAQ.
HOST: BOB SATLOFF?
SATLOFF: I JUST WANTED TO ADD: I THINK, WHILE ALL THAT IS
NECESSARY, WE NEED TO START THINKING ABOUT DOING
MORE THAN THAT. AT SOME POINT, AFTER SOME
NUMBER OF YEARS OF SADDAM'S REFUSAL TO COMPLY
WITH UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS, OUR NATION MUST
REACH SOME CONCLUSION ABOUT WHETHER SADDAM WILL
EVER COMPLY. AND, THEREFORE, WHAT DOES THAT
IMPLY FOR OUR POLICY? I THINK WE'VE REACHED
THAT POINT. AND I THINK THE FACT THAT OUR
ALLIES' COMMITMENT IS ERODING SLOWLY BUT SURELY,
GIVES US A LIMITED TIME TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT
WHETHER WE SHOULD UP OUR LEVEL OF CONFRONTATION
WITH SADDAM OR FACE WHAT SEEMS TO BE AN ALMOST
INEVITABLE EROSION OF OUR ABILITY TO CONTAIN
SADDAM OVER TIME. IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT
DECISION POLITICALLY AND MILITARILY. BUT I
THINK WE NEED TO FACE THAT DECISION VERY SOON.
HOST: OK. WELL, I'M AFRAID THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE
HAVE THIS WEEK AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK OUR
GUESTS -- ALINA ROMANOWSKI, DIRECTOR OF NEAR
EAST AND SOUTH ASIAN AFFAIRS AT THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; ROBERT SATLOFF FROM THE
WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY; AND
PETER RODMAN FROM THE NIXON CENTER FOR PEACE AND
FREEDOM -- FOR JOINING ME THIS WEEK TO DISCUSS
U.S. POLICY AND THE SECURITY OF THE GULF. THIS
IS ROBERT REILLY FOR ON THE LINE.
10-Jan-97 3:02 PM EST (2002 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
