U.S. Lawmakers Say Saudis Are Key to Action

Key members of Congress said Saturday they will support any military options President Bush decides to exercise in the event of an Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia, but they acknowledged that there is little the United States can do unless the Saudis themselves take sides.

“Saudi Arabia is the key to the whole thing. It’s the key to any military action we take; it’s the key to any economic action we take,” said Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

One of the key problems faced by U.S. policy-makers is that it appears the Saudis may be intimidated into acquiescing to the wishes of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of Iraq’s lightning invasion of Kuwait, according to knowledgeable lawmakers.

“It seems the main reason the Saudis have not put their armed forces on alert yet is that they’re afraid of antagonizing Iraq,” Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said after a briefing on the Persian Gulf crisis by CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency officials.

Aspin, interviewed on CNN’s “Newsmaker Saturday” show, said he was particularly disturbed by the cancellation of a summit meeting that was to have brought Hussein together with some other Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia this weekend.

“That cancellation is very disturbing. . . . It means that any action and any decision made by Saudi Arabia is effectively postponed,” Aspin said, adding that “time is on the side of Saddam Hussein.”

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), appearing on CNN’s “Evans and Novak,” agreed that Washington’s options are limited if Saudi Arabia lacks the will to challenge Hussein.

“We cannot protect Saudi Arabia if the Saudis will not cooperate. They have to give us landing rights, at least, and they have to be willing to take a firm stand,” said Specter, who serves on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

Specter’s observation, which was echoed by other lawmakers Saturday, illuminates the dilemma facing the Bush Administration as it weighs its options in the latest and potentially biggest Persian Gulf crisis.

An Iraqi move against the Saudis, who supply 15% of America’s oil imports, would constitute a direct threat to vital U.S. interests in the region.

Yet despite the desire expressed by several lawmakers to “draw a line in the sand” that Iraq must not be allowed to cross, “we can’t protect someone who doesn’t want to be protected,” Specter said.

Senators emerging from Saturday’s intelligence briefing said the Iraqis now have seven military divisions and about 2,000 tanks in Kuwait, some of them stationed within just a few miles of the Saudi border.

That is more than enough men and armor to seize control of Saudi Arabia, they noted, although Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) added that Iraq’s intentions toward the Saudis are still “totally unclear” at this point.

Lawmakers from both parties have been nearly unanimous in warning that an Iraqi move into Saudi Arabia would almost certainly trigger a U.S. military response that Congress would fully support, provided it were carried out in concert with other nations.

“I see little possibility of American troops being sent (to fight) on Saudi soil, but there are other military options . . . naval or air . . . that we could undertake,” Cranston said.

Such options could include an economic blockade, enforced by naval vessels, and air strikes to sever the two pipelines--one through Saudi Arabia and the other through Turkey--through which Iraq exports most of its oil to the West, other lawmakers said.

“The use of airpower and the destruction of the pipelines is where they would be most vulnerable,” said Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.).

Iraq has the world’s fourth-largest army. And, as a result of its eight-year war with Iran, it is the world’s most battle-tested army. Calls for military retaliation and other congressional chest-thumping that came in the immediate wake of the invasion of Kuwait have since been tempered by this realization.

“This is not a Panama. This is not a Grenada. This is not an attack on Tripoli,” former Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. William J. Crowe Jr. said on CNN’s “Newsmaker Saturday.” “If you want to attack Iraq, we can put ourselves in a position to do that . . . (but) you cannot assume Iraq won’t react to those attacks.”

For that reason, many lawmakers said they favor an economic blockade as the first option. “We should be doing our best to bring about an economic blockade to bring Iraq to its knees and compel them to stop this marauding,” Cranston said.

But Aspin saw as a “worst case scenario” a situation in which Iraq neither invades Saudi Arabia nor remains physically in occupation of Kuwait. In that case, he said, there would be virtually nothing the United States could do to help Kuwait or reverse the consequences of the actions already undertaken by Iraq.

“The worst case for us . . . the most difficult situation, is if Saddam Hussein pulls out his troops and leaves a puppet government behind,” Aspin said, adding that the crisis would then recede, leaving the Iraqis with a fait accompli: the takeover of Kuwait and the intimidation of the entire Persian Gulf.

Indeed, congressional sources with close ties to the intelligence community said they believe that this is the scenario that best represents Iraq’s strategy.

“I think the massing of troops along the Saudi border is meant to intimidate the Saudis into silence, for if they remain quiet--and they’ve never been very brave or bold in the past--then there is really nothing anybody else can do,” one source said.

“Yesterday everybody was mad about Kuwait. Today everyone is worried about the Saudis and tomorrow, when the threat to the Saudis recedes, everybody will breathe a sign of relief and forget about Kuwait,” said another source.

“If Saudi Arabia plays ball, we could deal with Saddam Hussein,” Aspin said. “But if it takes a get-back-into-the-weeds sort of approach . . . then its going to be very, very difficult.”