U.S. Tries to Juggle Policy Goals in Gulf

In the Reagan Administration’s increasingly strident campaign to win congressional and public support for its plan to protect Kuwaiti tankers in the war-torn Persian Gulf, it is emphasizing two objectives: keeping the gulf open to international oil traffic and preempting a Soviet drive for greater influence in the area.

Both goals seem vital to American interests, and U.S. policy-makers have pursued them for years under Democratic and Republican Presidents. Under present circumstances, however, the aims seem to conflict, a clash that could force the U.S. government to decide whether it is more important to keep the oil flowing or to block the Soviets. It may not be possible to do both.

U.S.-Soviet cooperation clearly would be more effective in keeping the oil flowing, but it certainly would increase Soviet influence in the region.

Common Interests

“The Soviets are already in the area, and they have interests there,” said Harold H. Saunders, once the State Department’s top Middle East expert and now a visiting fellow at Washington’s Brookings Institution. “Keeping the Soviets out of the Middle East may be an American interest, but it is not a real-world possibility.”

Besides, Saunders told reporters Tuesday, the United States and the Soviet Union “do have common interests in the gulf.”

At least on paper, Washington and Moscow have remarkably similar attitudes toward the 6 1/2-year Iran-Iraq War. Both nations are nominally neutral, though both tilt toward Iraq. Both support the policy of free navigation in international waters.

The Soviets already have chartered three Soviet-flag tankers to Kuwait and have vowed to protect them with warships. The United States is completing arrangements for re-registering 11 Kuwaiti tankers under the American flag, which would entitle them to U.S. Navy protection.

Kuwait sought help from both superpowers in an effort to keep clear of Cold War rivalries. Presumably, the Kuwaitis would applaud a joint U.S.-Soviet effort. Moscow has not indicated whether it would agree to a joint operation, but the Reagan Administration is openly hostile to the idea.

“We don’t want to see the Persian Gulf become a place where the Soviet Union has any major role,” Secretary of State George P. Shultz said Tuesday. “That oil flows to the West. And so maintaining the ability of that oil to flow is something that we need to step up to.”

Vital to U.S.

Shultz said it is vital to U.S. interests to prevent the oil lines from “falling under the umbrella” of the Soviet Union.

Economically, the United States has a far greater interest than the Soviet Union in maintaining the free flow of oil from the gulf. Although the United States gets only about 7% of its oil from the region, U.S. interests would be hard hit by sharp price increases that would inevitably result from an interruption in gulf shipments.

“Oil is an internationally traded commodity. . . . In a sense, it flows into a world oil pool,” Shultz said. “We are the biggest consumer of oil in the world, and we’re the biggest importer of oil in the world, so we have a big stake in all of this.”

The Soviet Union, as a net oil exporter, might be helped economically by a price boost. But much of the Soviet export volume goes to Communist-ruled nations of Eastern Europe on barter agreements that are not very sensitive to the world price. Nevertheless, the Soviets have clearly thrown their lot on the side of Kuwait and its Arab neighbors by agreeing to rent ships to the Kuwaitis.

So far, the advantage in the political jockeying seems to be with Moscow.

“The Soviet exposure will be much less than our own, but they are getting as much political benefit out of it,” said William B. Quandt, a former National Security Council Mideast expert now on the staff of the Brookings Institution.

Soviets Key to Policy

George Carver, a former deputy director of the CIA now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said that keeping the Soviets at bay may be more important than protecting the flow of oil.

“The Administration is on very solid ground,” Carver said. “Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, first the British and then the United States have been trying to keep the Soviets away from warm-water ports. If the Soviets were to come in as the protectors of the Kuwaitis, we would be giving them a place at the table that it is not in our interest for them to have.”

Nevertheless, Quandt said the Soviets may be able to cause more mischief if they can remain aloof. If U.S. policy resulted in an armed clash with Iran, he speculated, the Tehran regime might call on Moscow for help. And the Soviets might respond favorably.

“Iran is the strategic prize in the region,” Quandt said. “I think the Soviets would be delighted to improve their own position in Iran and they will do so if we give them an opening.”