PERSPECTIVE ON THE MIDDLE EAST : Lethal Threat Beyond Quick Fixes : Libya’s chemical plants are a threat, but Iraq’s malevolence and regional proliferation are of special urgency.

Breathtaking reports from Germany and the rest of Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, Nicaragua and even South Africa might lead us to assume that “peace is breaking out all over.” The “victory” of the United States in the Cold War has led many American analysts to predict a diminished need for American activity abroad.

These positive developments have dulled our sensitivities to a major new peril with global implications emerging almost under our noses--the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, long-range missiles and the potential proliferation of nuclear weapons. Now the State Department has acknowledged that Libya, already identified as the manufacturer of poison gas, may be at work on a second chemical weapons factory.

These horrifying arms in the hands of the erratic and unpredictable Moammar Kadafi, with his long record of support for terrorism and general international trouble-making, are particularly jarring. This latest development may lead to a new round of Libyamania, but the problem is deeper and broader because several countries in the Middle East are busily moving to develop comparable weapons of their own.

As dangerous as Kadafi may be, he is not the cause of greatest immediate concern. Saddam Hussein of Iraq has announced that if Israel tries to destroy his rebuilt nuclear reactor, he will rain chemical weapons over the Jewish state. His threats are credible. Hussein employed chemical weapons and long-range missiles against Iran in the late stages of their war, thereby helping to persuade the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to agree to a cease fire. Then Hussein turned his chemical weapons against rebellious Kurdish residents of his own country. This act, violating a widely accepted taboo since World War I, was greeted with muted condemnation and apathy.

What has the United States done in response to these horrifying new dangers? We have protested, expressed our revulsion, talked with our allies and “dialogued” with the Soviets. In other words, we have been on the side of the angels. But angels don’t take concrete actions in the real world. If we fail to develop dramatic, concerted and effective steps soon, it is only a matter of time until these weapons are used in the Middle East. They could be used against civilians--including Americans who happen to be there. The Iraqis are demonstrating that these weapons can enhance a state’s prestige. If Middle Eastern states can get away with their deployment and perhaps even their use, it is only a matter of time until nations in other parts of the world develop similar weapons.

What should we do?

We must first increase the priority of the issue. The President and the secretary of state must raise the matter more dramatically and more frequently.

And we must stop being soft on Iraq. Our intervention in the Persian Gulf was a decisive factor in Iraq’s successes late in its war with Iran. We thereby helped put Saddam Hussein in the strengthened military position that he enjoys today. Yet our protestations about his recent actions have resulted only in a deterioration of relations with Baghdad. We must demonstrate that we mean business about these lethal weapons by cutting off all credits and assistance we now provide Hussein’s regime. The Bush Administration has thus far opposed sanctions.

We should also increase the pressure on Iraq by moving with greater vigor to improve relations with Iran, starting with a major relief offer for Thursday’s devastating quake. The Iran-Contra affair and the sorry Iranian record on hostages have given overtures to Iran a bad name. But the growing threat from the proliferation of weapons in the region is a matter of far greater impact. Saddam Hussein enjoys his current level of prestige because he has managed to pretend that Iran has been defeated and isolated.

America should raise efforts to begin regional arms-control negotiations to a status equal to our efforts to achieve an Arab-Israeli settlement. At the same time, we must accelerate our programs for controlling arms transfers and assistance from private European companies and new arms suppliers such as Brazil, China and North Korea.

Finally, we must understand that quick fixes will not work. The Israeli attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor in June, 1981, and the American punitive attack on Kadafi’s headquarters in April, 1986, both served to inhibit the actions of these regimes until they devised new ways of proceeding with weapons developments and terrorist activities. Subversion and selective military strikes may be useful under certain circumstances, but they are no substitute for a coordinated high-level program to combat this growing danger.

If Libya’s reported new plant mobil- izes us into action, we should be grateful. We need a program to counter these new weapons and we need it now.