• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

UNSCOM, Terrorism

Iraq News, AUGUST 14, 1998

The central focus of Iraq News is the tension between the considerable, proscribed WMD capabilities that Iraq is holding on to and its increasing stridency that it has complied with UNSCR 687 and it is time to lift sanctions. If you wish to receive Iraq News by email, a service which includes full-text of news reports not archived here, send your request to Laurie Mylroie .

I.    US FOUGHT SURPRISE IRAQI INSPECTIONS, WASH POST, AUG 14
II.   NYT ED, "SADDAM HUSSEIN MAKES HIS MOVE," AUG 14
III.  HELLE BERING, "DID SADDAM SEND THE BOMBERS?" WASH TIMES, AUG 13
IV.  SHADOWY ISLAMIC GROUP SPELLS OUT DEMANDS, AFP, AUG 11
  Already, Apr 23, Jim Hoagland wrote that the Clinton administration 
was shifting to a new policy of "deterrence," in which it would no 
longer back up UNSCOM with the threat/use of force [see "Iraq News," Apr 
30]. And the London Times, Aug 10, reported that after the Feb 23 Annan 
accord, the US had put UNSCOM on a short leash to prevent clashes with 
Baghdad [see "Iraq News," Aug 11].
   Today's Wash Post reports the same, adding information that the UK is 
in cahoots in this sham.  As the Wash Post explained, "Beginning in 
June, according to knowledgeable officials, the UN inspectors developed 
secret plans-withheld from most members of their own staff-for surprise 
raids at two sites where they believed they would find evidence of 
forbidden chemical and biological weapons and the ballistic missiles 
capable of deploying them. ... Butler dispatched senior lieutenants to 
London and Washington in late June to provide highly classified 
briefings on the intended inspection 'targets,' the sources said. ... 
The two governments, according to knowledgeable officials, acknowledged 
to Butler's deputies that UNSCOM had the right to make its own 
decisions.  But they worked in concert in the weeks that followed to 
dissuade Butler from going forward with the inspection plan.  After 
consultations in Washington, Derek Plumbly, director of the British 
Foreign Office's Middle East command, flew to New York for a July 15 
meeting with Butler.  He told the Australian diplomat in no uncertain 
terms that the time was not ripe for a provocative challenge to Iraq, in 
part because Baghdad was still cooperating, ostensibly, on a 'schedule 
of work' intended to resolve open questions, the sources said.
  "Shortly after that meeting, US Ambassador Peter Burleigh, the 
second-ranking delegate to the United Nations, called on Bulter for a 
consultation in which he raised a long list of US questions and concerns 
about the planned raids. Reading from prepared guidance, he told Butler 
the decision was UNSCOM's, but left the inspection chief with the plain 
understanding that the United States did not support his plan, according 
to a knowledgeable account of the meeting.
  "Butler canceled the raids in July but laid contingency plans to 
reschedule them this month after meetings on Aug 3 and 4 in Baghdad with 
Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.  Aziz announced late on the first day 
that Iraq would answer no further questions about its forbidden weapons, 
asserting that all the answers had long since been made.  Butler had 
brought a senior inspection team led by Scott Ritter, who heads UNSCOM's 
efforts to penetrate Iraqi counterintelligence efforts against the 
inspectors. ... On Aug 4, Butler notified the US government that he had 
authorized Ritter's team to conduct the raids on Aug 6.  That same day, 
he got word that Albright wished to speak with him and traveled to the 
US Embassy in Bahrain for a secure discussion.  Albright argued, 
according to knowledgeable accounts, that it would be a big mistake to 
proceed because the political stage had not been set in the Security 
Council.
  "Butler agreed to a three-day delay, to Aug 9, in hopes that he could 
build broader support for UNSCOM during informal consultations with the 
Security Council.  But after he briefed the council governments in New 
York, he got another high-level American call on Friday urging him to 
have the Ritter team stand down.  The same day, he ordered them home."
  On May 21, the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee and its Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee held a joint hearing on Iraq [see "Iraq 
News," May 23].  In that hearing, Sen Sam Brownback [R, KS], Chair of 
the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East, while questioning 
Under Sec State, Thomas Pickering, cited press reports that said the 
administration was moving to a strategy of "deterrence."  Brownback, in 
a display of politeness and deference, told Pickering that he had taken 
his remarks to mean that that was not so.  Pickering assured Brownback 
that that was the case, the administration was not moving to a strategy 
of "deterrence" in which the US would ignore Iraqi challenges to UNSCOM. 
  But that does not seem to be so.  And the editors of the NYT warned 
today, "The two international inspectors who know the most about Iraq's 
efforts to create new weapons of mass destruction have raised an alarm 
that President Clinton and other world leaders must not ignore.  Richard 
Butler, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, and Mohammed 
el-Baradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy 
Agency, informed the Security Council this week that they no longer had 
the means to monitor and prevent Iraqi programs to develop nuclear, 
chemical and biological weapons.  The warning from the two men means 
that international efforts to keep Iraq from rearming have deteriorated 
swiftly since Saddam Hussein ended cooperation with inspectors last 
week.  If aggressive inspections are not quickly resumed, Iraq may soon 
replenish its supply of chemical and biological weapons and take steps 
to rebuild a nuclear weapons program that was far advanced before the 
Persian Gulf war. ... Mr. Clinton has had other things on his mind this 
month, including the terrorist attacks on American Embassies in Kenya 
and Tanzania.  Yesterday he spoke movingly of the 12 Americans who were 
killed in the bombing in Nairobi. Mr. Clinton is also preparing for his 
grand jury testimony next Monday in the Monica Lewinsky case. But he 
must not let these other matters prevent him from dealing firmly with a 
crisis in Iraq that grows more dangerous by the day."
   And what about the Kenya/Tanzania bombs?   Helle Bering, deputy 
editorial page editor of the Wash Times, wrote yesterday, suggesting 
they were the work of Saddam Hussein.  First, she criticized the Clinton 
administration for its approach to terrorism, treating it as a law 
enforcement issue, with the focus on bringing perpetrators to justice, 
rather than a national security issue, with the focus on determining 
state sponsorship and punishing and deterring the state sponsors of  
terrorism.  
  "'These acts of terrorist violence are abhorrent; they are inhumane," 
Mr. Clinton said indignantly during an appearance in the White House 
Rose Gar-den on Friday. the day of the bombings.  We will use all the 
means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter 
what or how long it takes.' ...
  "But the fact is that for all Mr. Clinton's bluff and bluster, the 
record of his administration when it comes to punishing acts of 
terrorism is a sorry one indeed.  As has often been the case with Mr. 
Clinton's foreign policy, there's a yawning gap between rhetoric and 
reality. ... Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has spent the past 
week looking as thoroughly implacable as only she can.  However, Mrs. 
Albright's statement following the bombing did not match her scowl, nor 
promise much hope that the perpetrators would be caught and punished.  
In fact, the secretary of state urged caution, which--no mater how 
sincere your respect for law and order--is not exactly what you would 
expect when your country is under attack. ...
  "It seems at least plausible that Mrs. Albright's caution may have 
something to do with the possible state-sponsorship of the bloody deed. 
In recent days, we've heard much about how difficult it is to track 
shadowy fundamentalist groups.  But the kind of planning demanded to 
pull off simultaneous bombings in two countries is not usually 
characteristic horse and buggy outfits--like the hitherto unknown 
Islamic Army for the Liberation of Holy Places, which rushed to "take 
responsibility" on Friday.  The level of organization indicates state 
sponsored terrorism at work; terrorism, let's not forget is not just 
'the weapon of the weak,' but also of rogue states...  
  "Today, one candidate who disappeared much too soon from the line up 
of suspects in the embassy bombings is Saddam Hussein.  While Iraq was 
mentioned during the first day after the bombing, by the weekend talk 
shows, the administration had turned suspicion towards Osama Bin Laden, 
a crazed Saudi businessman based in Afghanistan. ...
  "In 1993, [Saddam] experienced firsthand what retribution 
Clinton-style feels like when we bombed an empty Baghdad office building 
at night as punishment for an Iraqi terrorist plot to kill former 
President Bush during a visit to Kuwait.  Not exactly a sign of respect 
for Mr. Bush. When terrorism hit in Saudi Arabia, where a 30,000 strong 
U.S. force remains to forestall Iraqi aggression, the investigations 
petered out, and little effort was made to connect the bombings of 
Khobar Towers with the most obvious source.  In 1995 the American 
government training center in Riyadh was bombed, killing seven, 
including five Americans.  And the following year, the US Air Force 
barracks in Dhahran was bombed, killing 19 of the American flyers whose 
job it was to patrol the skies over Iraq's southern no-fly zone.
  "Last week's bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam happened at the 
same time that Iraq announced its decision to cease cooperation with the 
UN weapons inspectors, provoking scathing denunciations by team leader 
Richard Butler, who warned strongly against Saddam's continued 
capability to wage biological warfare. Coincidence? Perhaps, but not 
likely.  With an extensive intelligence network operating since 1991 out 
of Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, Kenya's neighbor to the north, Saddam 
certainly has the network to pull off a major terrorist operation. 
Saddam also has a habit of reminding the world how much trouble he can 
cause if continually crossed.  Kenya, it may be recalled currently sits 
on the UN Security Council and has not been voting Iraq's way on the 
lifting of sanctions.
   "All of which, if true, would mean a major gamble on the part of 
Saddam Hussein.  He would have to bet that Mr. Clinton was unable or 
unwilling to mount the massive military retaliation called for if an 
Iraqi connection to the bombings is established.  Or just maybe, he 
doesn't consider it much of a risk any more."
   Indeed, after the Aug 7 bombing of the US embassy in Nairobi, Kenya 
protested its innocence, claiming it had done nothing to deserve such a 
fate.  Really?
   Kenya, didn't you read the letter sent to you, a UNSC member, by 
Iraq, May 1, protesting that sanctions had become intolerable? [see 
"Iraq News," May 5].  The letter said that "America was intoxicated by 
an empty, blind, reckless and destructive desire and ... the importance 
of using power against the entire world so that all will kiss the hands 
of the tyrants, while sitting on their chairs in the black house, or, at 
least, all will submit."
  Isn't that you Kenya?  You abstain on the votes concerning Iraq.  As a 
third world country, you are sympathetic to the suffering of the Iraqi 
people, but you are afraid of the US.  So, you sit on the fence and 
don't vote for Iraq.  Maybe, once you come to recognize the consequence, 
you will show more sympathy for the suffering of the Iraqi people and 
you will vote for Iraq and not merely abstain.
  Iraq's May 1 letter also said, "Honorable ones: This is a shameful 
situation; however, it is a situation that prompts us to competently 
adhere, after relying on God, to our rights, sound path, and to great 
jihad for the sake of the rights of our people, nation, and mankind.  
This will not push us to despair, because we are confident that after 
the tyrannical force reaches its highest peak, it will slide into the 
bottomless abyss. ...  Honorable UNSC members, our methods may not be 
familiar, especially at a stage where many officials, not people, 
imagine that the United States decides matters of life and death; 
however we believe that God alone decides matters of life and death. ... 
We wanted to draw your attention to bitter facts about the barbarism of 
the barbarians who belong to the Security Council, the weakness of the 
weak, and the inability of those who have influence to realize their 
influence and use it as they should.  We wanted to tell you 
emphatically, In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate: To 
those against whom war is made, permission is given to fight, because 
they are wronged, and truly God is most powerful for their aid" [Koranic 
verse].
   Get it Kenya?  And what about the other non-permanent UNSC members?  
One does not know the future and what will happen next.  Yet if the 
non-permanent UNSC members should ever swing, the US/UK will be isolated 
at the UNSC, as a majority of the Perm-5--Russia, China, France--all 
support Iraq.   
   Then what about the highly touted Osama bin Laden?  ABC evening news, 
Aug 12,  breathlessly reported on his pronouncements, issued from his 
high-tech cave in Afghanistan, as did the NYT today.  The statements of 
Osama bin Laden, as reported by ABC News and the NYT, began in Feb, 
during the second Iraq crisis.  What an odd coincidence. 
   The NYT today, ABC News Aug 12, and AFP Aug 11, all reported the 
demands of bin Laden et. al: 1) US forces must leave Saudi Arabia; 2) 
Muslims detained in the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia must be released; 
3) and sanctions against certain Muslim countries must be ended, 
according to AFP.  The NYT reported a fourth demand, the liberation of 
Al Aqsa Mosque, in Jerusalem, and the Holy Mosque, in Mecca, from the 
grip of the US and its allies.  
  How is that agenda different from Saddam's, save for the second 
demand, easily a red herring?  Why can't there be coordination between 
Baghdad and Osama Bin Laden?  They have the same enemies.  Both are 
Sunni Muslim.  Both are Arab.  And Bin Laden, before he left for his 
cave in Afghanistan, was in Sudan, where Iraq has a major intelligence 
presence, as Bering noted.