CRISIS IN THE PERSIAN GULF : No Defense for Missiles, Israelis Say : Military: An Iraqi attack would come with little warning, they say. They predict that conventional explosives, not chemical warheads, would likely be used.

Two leading Israeli military strategists admitted Sunday that the country has no effective defense against long-range Iraqi missiles and would probably have very little warning in case of attack.

Reserve Maj. Gen. Aharon Yariv, head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, and the center’s deputy director, Joseph Alpher, told a news conference here that the chance of war in the Middle East today is at least 50-50.

But, they said, the chance that Israel would become involved in the conflict is much less than even.

At the same time, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, in a brief remark to Israel Radio, said he believes that a “last-minute” diplomatic solution to the Persian Gulf crisis will be found and that war “will not break out.”

Still, Shamir said he was not surprised by Saddam Hussein’s speech Sunday in which the Iraqi president described the possible fight ahead as “a battle for the liberation of Palestine.” Earlier, Foreign Minister David Levy called the speech “a declaration of war.”

The two Jaffee Center experts said that if Hussein launched a missile strike against Israel, there would be very little the Israeli armed forces could do about it.

“I don’t think we have a serious capability of knocking down missiles,” Yariv said.

U.S. sources said in Washington last week that two Patriot air defense batteries designed to protect Israel against an Iraqi missile attack have arrived here but that neither the weapons nor the crews that will operate them will be ready for several months.

Israel’s present antiaircraft defense system is built around the U.S.-made Hawk missile, which is designed to shoot down medium- and low-altitude aircraft but not missiles.

Both Yariv and Alpher said they believe that if Iraq launches missiles at Israel, the weapons would probably be conventional high explosives rather than warheads containing chemical or biological elements.

Iraq could deliver conventional explosives or the chemical and biological kind in long-range missiles or in bombs flown by planes, they said, but aircraft would have a much more difficult time than missiles penetrating Israel’s defenses.

If Iraq strikes at Israel, said Yariv, a former longtime chief of military intelligence, Israel should be flexible in its response.

Israel’s retaliation should be based on the amount of damage done, Yariv argued, and “not automatic.”

Alpher added that all the political and military variables should be factored in before Israel decides on a response, particularly since it could affect the relationship between the United States and its gulf allies.

However, they were firm in saying that Hussein should face retaliation for any attack on Israel and suggested that the degree of response would be tied to the extent of damage and casualties caused by any attack.

The analysts said they do not think Hussein would launch a preemptive attack against Israel because, if he had such a plan in mind, he would probably have done it already.

Yariv and Alpher gave their views on the occasion of the publication of the annual survey of strategic issues in the Middle East, the “Middle East Military Balance 1989-90.” Jaffee Center is affiliated with Tel Aviv University.

One factor the government should consider in retaliating for any Iraqi assault, the strategists emphasized, is the harm that attacking through neighboring Jordan’s airspace might do to the regime of that nation’s King Hussein.

Alpher said that Jordan serves as a valuable buffer zone between Israel and Iraq and that overflights or other military action might force Jordan to respond against Israel or risk the fall of the king.

“It is Israel’s desire to see the buffer maintained,” Alpher said. If Jordan ceased to be neutral, the relationship linking Syria, Iraq and Israel could change for the worse, he said.