NEWS ANALYSIS : Conflict in Gulf Is a Make-or-Break Test for President : Politics: Success would virtually assure his reelection. Failure would probably doom his career.

President Bush’s bold but risky decision to commit U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia, directly confronting an Iraqi regime that has not hesitated to use its most horrific weapons against its foes, in one stroke transformed the Persian Gulf conflict into a make-or-break test of his presidency.

If Bush proves even reasonably successful in blocking Iraq’s lunge for the economic jugular of the industrial world, he could virtually assure his own reelection in 1992. Success, coming as it would after Bush had forged almost unprecedented world support for his policy, could even stamp with greatness a presidency that has been known more for caution than for boldness.

Yet, military and other analysts caution that achieving his goals, especially his emphatic vow to roll back the conquest of Kuwait, will be extremely difficult--perhaps impossible without fighting a costly war against a 1-million-strong Iraqi army equipped with chemical weapons and battle-tested in eight years of war with Iran.

Failure would badly scar Bush’s presidency, potentially dooming his chances for reelection. “The President’s off to a very good start in taking command and responding to the crisis, but how this will play out, we don’t know,” Charles Black, spokesman for the Republican National Committee, acknowledged Wednesday.

Said James David Barber, professsor of political science at Duke University and author of several studies of the presidency: “Historically speaking, when a President takes a military action, the polls go up for him. The people rally around the flag . . . but (the support) doesn’t last.”

And if events do not play out as a President said they would, if he fails to achieve his goals or the prices become too high, the political result can be devastating. “If it turns out people can’t rely on what he says, that will contribute to his deterioration as a President,” Barber said.

Also, while Bush can count on the undeniable power of the U.S. military to keep Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from overrunning Saudi Arabia, he will apparently rely on economic attrition to force Hussein into yielding back Kuwait. That strategy may take time, and time is not necessarily an American President’s friend in crises.

As previous chief executives have learned--from Lyndon B. Johnson with Vietnam to Jimmy Carter with the Iran hostage crisis--the domestic political pain of foreign entanglements may be slow in coming, but it is hard to cure once it sets in.

Already, soaring oil prices have set off indignant howls on both sides of the political aisle in Congress. If the embargo against purchases of Iraqi oil proves as effective as it now promises to be, and if it continues for a protracted period, higher energy prices--including higher gasoline pump prices--are all but certain to become facts of life, energy analysts say.

Higher oil prices, having an impact on an already wobbly economy, would tip the United States into a full-fledged recession, economists agree, spreading pain all across the country.

A lengthy threat to world oil supplies is also likely to stimulate new exploration and drilling for oil in the United States. That could be good news for the long-depressed “oil patch” states, but it would also kindle new, politically risky environmental struggles.

In his televised address to the nation Wednesday, Bush described his goals for intervention in the Persian Gulf in terms of “four basic principles”:

Seeking immediate, unconditional and complete withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

Replacing Iraq’s “puppet regime” in Kuwait with the “legitimate government” it displaced.

Protecting the security and stability of the gulf.

Safeguarding the lives of American citizens abroad.

The first two goals pose perhaps the greatest problem and the most potential danger for the United States. Hussein has made it clear that he now considers Kuwait a permanent part of Iraq. Military analysts believe he is willing to go to war to back up his position.

“We don’t think he’s bluffing. He’s capable of almost anything,” said a senior government official. “Right now, the Iraqis are tearing that country up, digesting Kuwait and making it just more a part of Iraq.”

The President’s decision to send troops and war planes to Saudi Arabia has gained wide bipartisan support, and members of both parties have given him high marks for his personal diplomacy in arranging unprecedented international support for an economic and arms embargo of Iraq.

Politically, some Democrats say that if Bush’s actions play out well enough, they may as well concede the 1992 election. “If he puts this together and it works,” said Democratic strategist Mike Berman, “then we ought to cancel our convention in 1992. Even if the economy does turn sour, he could still be in fat city.”

Bush’s Persian Gulf moves also have served to deflect public attention from serious domestic problems, centered around a weakening economy that some analysts say is evolving into a full-fledged recession. But Mitch Daniels, a Republican strategist who served as President Ronald Reagan’s political adviser, describes that as only a “short-term plus” for Bush.

A longer term gain for Bush, says Daniels, would be if Hussein, an “identifiable villain,” continues to make trouble because “people will sustain their support of the President in the face of that.”

So far, support for Bush has been so widespread that it has practically drowned out the relatively few voices of dissent that have been sounded in Washington. But if the experience of past foreign crises is any guide, the longer the crisis lasts, the more likely it is to generate domestic opposition and protests.

Even at this early stage in the crisis, some critics in Washington are calling Bush’s decision to deploy troops unnecessary and warning that it is fraught with potential dangers for the United States.

“I’m afraid we’re seeing the early stages of war hysteria, where people are rallying around the flag without reflecting on the wisdom of the underlying policy,” said Ted Galen Carpenter, director of foreign policy studies of Cato Institute, a Washington think tank.

Carpenter, one of several prominent conservatives who have spoken out in opposition to Bush’s policy, called Baghdad’s aggression “unquestionably odious.” But he said Iraq’s actions “do not threaten truly vital American security interests.”

He cited a recent Cato Institute report that urged the Administration to remove U.S. military forces from the Persian Gulf and said events there are typical of other “unpleasant local or regional disputes” that could become quagmires for the United States and saddle it with unnecessary costs and risks.

U.S. experience in foreign entanglements underscores the danger of temporary military missions turning into long-term commitments, said Doug Bandow, who served as former President Reagan’s special assistant for policy development.

“Look at American temporary military commitments elsewhere in the world,” Bandow said. “They’ve all become permanent. Our troops in Europe after World War II were suppose to be there temporarily, and more than 40 years later, Bush is talking about reducing the American troops there to 200,000. After 40 years, we still have 43,000 troops in Korea.”

The failure so far of Egypt and other Arab nations to join Bush in establishing a multinational force to help defend Saudi Arabia also could increase the risks for Bush’s policy. Saudi officials have privately warned that if Washington had to virtually go it alone in deploying troops, it would antagonize the rank-and-file Arab populations of the Middle East and make it appear that Saudi Arabia’s ruling royal family is little more than a puppet of the United States.

“It could be the curse of death for the king and the royal family” if the general Saudi population suspected they were merely Washington’s “lackey,” said a source close to the Saudi government.