Jordan Arms Sale Proposal

A Jordan that is better armed for self-defense and encouraged to remain aligned with moderate forces and the West serves American national interests. So does a Jordan that is firmly and overtly committed to making and keeping the peace with Israel. President Reagan’s proposal for up to $1.9 billion in arms sales to Jordan emphasizes the former aim. A Congress that has already leaned heavily toward insisting on concrete evidence of Jordan’s involvement in the peace process emphasizes the latter. Both positions, in the view of those who argue them, put first things first. It is over this contentious ground that the issue of arms for Jordan will be fought.

Our own view is that the arms sale to Jordan ought to go through, though without any illusions about what it means. Upgraded weapons would improve Jordan’s ability to deter aggression, but won’t give it anything near an arms equivalency with Syria, its most threatening neighbor. Neither will the air defense fighters and the anti-aircraft missiles that Jordan is seeking do much to counter the subversion or assassination that, as a practical matter, remain the greatest threats to the survival of King Hussein’s regime.

Finally, the earnest of American friendship that an arms sale would imply won’t by itself nudge Jordan any closer to the negotiating table with Israel. Hussein, as Israel’s Prime Minister Shimon Peres has acknowledged, no doubt would like to make peace. What Hussein not unreasonably fears is that to gallop along that path independently would be to invite his own destruction. That’s a major reason why Hussein insists on acting in conjunction with that part of the Palestine Liberation Organization that Yasser Arafat still controls. By having the PLO along as a passenger Hussein can claim that in moving toward peace with Israel he is not selling out the Palestinian cause. This alliance so far has done more to impede than to further the peace process. But for Hussein--weak and threatened--it is an unavoidable linkage.

Jordan’s conflict with Israel has been dormant for 18 years. But a technical state of war still exists. Given this, opponents of the arms sale ask if it makes any sense for the United States to become a supplier of first-line weapons to both sides. It’s a reasonable question. The reasonable answer that is that while Israel’s security remains paramount among American concerns in the Middle East, other interests can’t be ignored. Foremost among those is helping out Arab states that are imperiled by the forces of radicalism.

There can, of course, be no guarantee that U.S. weapons supplied to Jordan will never be turned against Israel. Sometimes American arms provided for one purpose are indeed put to other uses. Israel demonstrated that with a vengeance when, contrary to U.S. law, it conducted a disastrous war in Lebanon with American-supplied arms. It demonstrated it again this week, when its bombers attacked a PLO headquarters in Tunisia. What will help assure that Jordan uses American arms only for its defense? Planes without spare parts can’t fly for long. As Iran has learned, when Washington wants to it can sever a supply line very quickly.

A better-armed Jordan might marginally complicate Israel’s military planning. But the deal that has been proposed would leave Israel’s overall military superiority essentially unaffected. Any real signs to the contrary would undoubtedly prompt quick congressional action to restore the old balance. Making sure that Israel is able to defend itself remains very much a U.S. interest. The credible argument being made by the Reagan Administration is that it is also a U.S. interest to help Jordan to do the same.