Democrats Hint at Gulf Fund Cutoff : Mideast: If war is waged without Congress’ approval, it will probably stop paying for Desert Shield, Gephardt declares. He urges Bush to give sanctions time to work.

Democratic leaders of Congress probably will move to cut off funding for Operation Desert Shield if President Bush orders an attack against Iraq without congressional approval, House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) declared Saturday.

Gephardt, signaling a hardening of top Democratic policy on the Middle East, urged that economic sanctions against Iraq be given at least 18 months to work before any military action is taken.

“The sanctions are hurting (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein), and they’re hurting Iraq,” the congressman said in a CNN television interview. “I simply think that if you give them a chance, keep the (anti-Iraq) coalition together, we can win this conflict without having to go to war.”

Meanwhile, Bush said he has a strong hunch that Hussein will withdraw his troops from Kuwait.

“My gut says he will get out of there,” the President said in a Time magazine interview to be published Monday. “But that flies in the face of what some of the Arab leaders tell me--which is that he cannot get out. . . . He cannot do it and survive domestically.”

In another development, Vice President Dan Quayle departed late Saturday on a quick trip to Saudi Arabia to spend Monday and New Year’s Day with American troops and to visit Saudi leaders and the exiled emir of Kuwait. The trip comes two weeks before the Jan. 15 deadline imposed by the United Nations for Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait.

Gephardt, interviewed on CNN’s “Newsmaker Saturday,” reiterated the contention of Democratic leaders that the President is required by the Constitution to win the consent of Congress to wage war.

But he went a step further, declaring that if Bush decides to use force on his own, “Congress has to reach for the only tool left to it, which is to cut off the funding for the war, for the effort.”

Alluding to the Vietnam War, Gephardt acknowledged that Congress has been reluctant in the past to cut off funding for a military operation. “But by the same token,” he added, “I think the Congress would show great displeasure with the President . . . riding over the Constitution where it is at its clearest.”

The second-ranking House leader said he is uncertain what Congress will do on the Persian Gulf crisis when it convenes Thursday for a new two-year session. But if it appears that Iraqi troops will not withdraw from Kuwait by the Jan. 15 deadline, Congress may take up a resolution urging reliance on sanctions instead of war, he said.

He explained that many lawmakers are worried that, if Bush does not seek war-making authority and if Congress is silent on the matter, the President might feel “that gives him some implied power or authority to use force.”

Gephardt said he expects that a majority of Democrats would vote for a resolution urging further patience, and he predicted that a number of Republicans would support it, too. In a letter last week, 110 House Democrats urged Bush to give sanctions an opportunity to work.

In calling on the President to “stay the course,” Gephardt said that economic sanctions “by their very nature . . . take some months--maybe nine months, maybe a year, maybe a year and a half--to really have their full effect.”

He called the coalition of nations arrayed against Iraq “the best . . . in the history of the world” and termed the economic embargo “virtually airtight.”

He said he is not sure, from his conversations with Bush, how soon the President will be ready to employ force.

“I’m not sure where he is on letting the sanctions work for longer than January the 15th or for certainly nine months or a year and a half,” Gephardt said. “I hope that he can be convinced that that’s the best policy for us and for the world.”

Bush and congressional leaders will meet Thursday before Congress assembles for swearing-in ceremonies.