Iraq News by Laurie Mylroie
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 .
IRAQ NEWS, MONDAY MAY 17, 1999
I. BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL, THE DANGERS WITHOUT UNSCOM, MAY 14
II. THE IDF: IRAQ IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO ISRAEL, HAARETZ, MAY 5
The Boston Globe editors, May 14, warned of the dangers in the
prolonged US neglect of Iraq, including the possibility that Baghdad
might acquire fissile material, and shortly thereafter produce a bomb.
Indeed, an understanding of how advanced Iraq's nuclear program
actually was only came to light after Hussein Kamil's Aug 95 defection.
Subsequently, in Dec, 95, when Shimon Peres, as Prime Minister, and Ehud
Barak, as Foreign Minister, visited Wash DC, they raised the danger of
an Iraqi nuclear breakthrough with US officials. Barak did so in
exceptionally strong terms.
Although the media reporting in the immediate wake of Barak's
election as prime minister has focused on the implications for the peace
process, perhaps the new Israeli Gov't will be able to tell the Clinton
administration more forcefully and effectively than its predecessor that
the US cannot simply focus on the peace process and ignore the threat
from Saddam?
Haaretz, May 5, reported that the Israeli Defense Forces [IDF] have
prepared a new assessment of the threats facing Israel. The #1 threat
is the missile threat from Iraq and Iran. That is an astonishing
statement. As a basic aim of the Gulf war was to ensure that Saddam
would never again be a threat to US allies in the region, it is
tantamount to saying that the US failed in Iraq.
Indeed, "Iraq News" had long heard of the concern that Israeli
military intelligence had about the Iraqi threat. A senior UNSCOM
official explained to "Iraq News" that in early 1997, officers in
military intelligence with whom UNSCOM worked, said that Israel was very
concerned about Iraq and Netanyahu would raise the matter when he met
Clinton in February.
In May, 1997, a former #2 in Israeli military intelligence told
"Iraq News" that the organization saw a resurgent Iraq as the main
threat to Israel and the region.
Scott Ritter, in his book, "Endgame," reported that in September,
1997, when the chief of Israeli military intelligence met Amb Richard
Butler for the first time, after Butler had become head of UNSCOM, he
told Butler, "When [Saddam] has the capacity to use weapons of mass
destruction, he will. Iraq is the main threat to Israel. Saddam wants
to acquire the capabilities to become a regional superpower, to deter
us, to dominate the supply of oil in the Persian Gulf." (p. 155)
Why that view never received much public expression until now is very
puzzling. Part of the answer may lie in the attitude of Israel's
previous defense minister, Itzhak Mordechai. The Clinton administration
did not want to hear that Iraq was a serious problem which it had to
address and perhaps Mordechai did not want to tell the administration
what it did not want to hear. Indeed, an informed Israeli source
recently characterized Mordechai as a "simple plodder" who "craved" US
support and attention, while he explained that nonetheless, "good people
under him kept telling it to the US straight in the face." Mordechai's
departure from Gov't earlier this year and his replacement by Moshe
Arens, may well have facilitated the issuing of the IDF report and its
clear statement about the danger from Iraq. Indeed, a US reader, with
close ties to Israel, reported that military intelligence regards the
Iraqi danger as "acute."
Finally, the Iranian leader, Mohammed Khatami, is currently visiting
Saudi Arabia, as the NYT reported today. That is the first visit of an
Iranian leader to Saudi Arabia since 1975. Missing in the reporting is
why the Saudis would be interested in cultivating ties with Iran, which,
even under the Shah, they regarded with suspicion. The obvious answer
is their fear of Iraq and "Iraq News" will address that issue shortly.
I. BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL, THE DANGERS WITHOUT UNSCOM
The Boston Globe
May 14, 1999
Editorial
While you were in Kosovo
While the Clinton administration was selecting targets to bomb in
downtown Belgrade, Saddam Hussein was hoarding and updating Iraq's
biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, unobserved by the prying eyes
of the UN Special Commission's weapons inspectors or monitors from the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
There are grave dangers in allowing Saddam to scuttle weapons
inspections mandated by the UN resolutions ending the 1991 Gulf War.
Specialists believe that he is pursuing the acquisition of fissile
material and that once he obtains it, he can have deliverable nuclear
weapons in a matter of months.
Before President Clinton concludes that he has discovered a magic
formula in the exclusive use of air power to resolve all problems in the
world, he ought to contemplate the connections and similarities between
his policies for Saddam's Iraq and Slobodan Milosevic's Serbia. In both
cases, Clinton's willingness to bet all his chips on bombing produced
outcomes that are the antithesis of what the United States wanted to
achieve.
The purpose of the December bombing of Iraq was to compel Saddam to
cooperate with the UN inspectors. The primary effect was to terminate
the weapons inspections. Similarly, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia that
began on March 24 was justified as an action necessary to protect
Albanian Kosovars. Since the bombing began, more than a million and a
half people have been terrorized and driven from their homes.
Clinton's futile bombing of Iraq may have helped persuade Milosevic
that a few weeks of falling ordnance would be a tolerable price to pay
for a chance to wreak a final solution in Kosovo. What is known is that
Serbian military officials consulted with their Iraqi counterparts
before hunkering down for NATO's air war.
Clinton has taken more risks to punish Milosevic for Serbian pogroms
in Kosovo than he has to prevent a vengeful Saddam from acquiring
nuclear weapons, although the threat from Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction is far less circumscribed than Milosevic's crimes against
humanity.
II. THE IDF: IRAQ IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO ISRAEL
Tel Aviv Ha'aretz in Hebrew 5 May 99 p B1
[Article by Ze'ev Schiff: "A Shift in the Definition of Threats"]
[FBIS Translated Text] Over the past several months, the IDF [Israel
Defense Forces] General Staff has held a series of discussions to
prepare the army for the third millennium (working plan "IDF
2000"). The discussions pointed to an important shift in the perception
of threats facing the State of Israel in the future. The change is
substantial because it will affect the structure of the IDF, its
operational plans, the way its forces are employed, and, naturally, the
allocation of resources. For years, the IDF has perceived the threats in
the following order: In first place was the threat of a conventional war
in which the neighboring countries would operate large armored forces,
paratroopers and commando units, supported by their air forces.
According to this concept, the threat would increase if Israel was
surprised, as it was in the Yom Kippur War, and the war was waged on
several fronts at once.
By the end of the 1980's, a new threat developed, starting with Iraq.
A distant Arab state with no common border with Israel started to
develop surface-to-surface missiles whose range makes the Israeli
population centers vulnerable. This threat grew even further when it
turned out that Iraq is developing chemical and biological warheads for
its missiles, as well as nuclear weapons. Iraq was indeed defeated in
the Gulf war but did not forsake its aspirations with regard to missiles
and nonconventional weapons. When it turned out that Iran, too, started
developing long-range surface-to-surface missiles and weapons of mass
destruction, the threat went up a rung and the General Staff even
defined it as a threat to Israel's existence.
Rated third on the list of threats, far behind the first two, was
terrorism. That threat was initially defined as something on the level
of a tactical irritant. Later, it was agreed that it is a strategic
threat because it threatens a strategic Israeli goal: the attainment of
peace. Still, investment in dealing with this threat remained very
small, both in relative and in absolute terms.
The feeling was that we could deal with the problem with one hand
tied behind our back. The shift is expressed in a total change of the
threat scale. The relative weight of what used to be the primary threat
- the standing armies of Arab countries bordering on Israel - shrank
and, in fact, "dropped" to number three, the bottom slot. The peace
accords signed with Egypt and Jordan and the absence of an eastern front
must have had their impact. The primary threat today is the external
circle of distant states, Iraq and Iran, because they are equipping
themselves with all types of weapons of mass destruction. This
constitutes a threat to Israel's existence which will keep growing in
the future. Because the threat comes from a distance, it is hard to
overpower the enemy and remove the threat.
At the same time, terrorism and guerrilla activity within the inner
circle, formerly viewed as merely a disturbing threat, climbed up and is
now rated second on the scale of threats. This circle includes a
possible confrontation with the Palestinians and guerrilla warfare along
the Lebanese border, for example. This, too, is a threat that might
expand in the future and be directly affected by the situation of
Israeli society and its power of endurance. Israel's answer to the
greater threat posed by the external circle - such as the Arrow
missiles, surveillance satellites, and the F-15I - is being currently
built. Clearly, this is a complicated and most expensive answer. There
is no real alternative to the advanced fighter planes and satellites.
Under these circumstances, strategic concepts such as deterrence and
tilting the balance are painted differently. Clearly, Israel will not be
able to address that type of threat on its own. It needs the assistance
of the United States and the support of the international community.
There is great uncertainty with regard to the issue of terrorism and
guerrilla warfare, which is currently rated high on the threat scale,
because it is not clear whether Israel is headed toward peace and
reconciliation or violent clashes and war. Although Israel has gained
significant experience in combating terrorism and guerrilla activity
during the years of its existence, we are at a new starting point. This
stems from the fact that there is a large Palestinian force that is
armed (although with light weapons only) and located in the heart of the
territory - which changes the situation in the event of a confrontation.
It seems that the establishment is becoming aware of the situation and
willing to invest large sums at once, provided that the proposal that is
raised is a good one. At the same time, there is a feeling that the IDF
and the other security apparatuses have not yet devised a comprehensive
security concept regarding the question of how to deal with this threat
should the peace process collapse.
[Description of source: Independent, liberal, intellectual]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
