U.S., Allies Seek to Rally Support for Strike on Iraq : Persian Gulf: Britain, France join in weighing whether to act without a new U.N. mandate. White House charges Hussein is ‘stonewalling’ inspection team.

The United States and its chief allies are moving rapidly toward a decision on whether to intervene militarily in Iraq, possibly with a series of air strikes designed to force Baghdad into complying with U.N. cease-fire terms.

Angered by President Saddam Hussein’s brazen defiance of U.N. attempts to inspect Iraqi records on missiles and nuclear weapons production, the United States, Britain and France have been trying to win broad international support for another U.N. resolution that would authorize new military action.

But several days of preliminary consultations here have convinced some diplomats the three big powers are unlikely to muster the backing they are seeking from more than a handful of the 15-member Security Council. And they are beginning to shift their strategy to direct action on their own.

As a result, the emphasis here apparently has changed. Diplomats from several key countries, including the United States, said that technically no new resolution is needed because the allies still have leftover enforcement powers from the Persian Gulf War resolution that the Security Council passed in 1990.

And some analysts speculated that if the major powers decide to launch a strike, they will do so without warning and then seek a mandate from the United Nations after the fact.

“Everything that’s going on is going on back in capitals (and not at the United Nations),” one diplomat said.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration, hoping to convince Hussein that the United States is serious about the possibility of a military strike against Iraq, escalated its rhetoric sharply Wednesday.

In his strongest public statement yet about the Iraqi affair, White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater charged that Baghdad is “stonewalling” a U.N. inspection team trying to obtain data on Iraq’s weapons program, and he warned that the United States will consider whatever steps are appropriate, “including the use of military force.”

“The Iraqi regime must be held accountable for its defiance of the U.N. resolutions and for the safety of all U.N. personnel in Iraq,” Fitzwater told reporters. He said the stalemate with Iraq is “about as serious as any we’ve faced” since the Gulf War.

The confrontation with Iraq intensified when the U.N. inspectors in Baghdad, who have been trying for days to gain access to Iraq’s Agriculture Ministry building, were forced to withdraw early Wednesday morning to protect themselves from harassment and possible violence.

Rolf Ekeus, the senior U.N. official in charge of arms inspections, told reporters here that a member of the U.N. team was attacked Wednesday by a man who tried to stab him with a skewer but that Iraqi guards simply let the man go. The U.N. official escaped only by defending himself, Ekeus said.

“These incidents have numbered in (the) dozens in just the past several days,” Ekeus said. He called the situation “totally contrary to the promises that had been made” by the Iraqi government. And he repeated warnings that Iraq would face “serious consequences” if it continues.

Diplomats say Iraq also has refused to renew procedural agreements that it had with the United Nations concerning humanitarian relief efforts and sales of Iraqi oil and has served notice it will not participate in a special commission on boundary demarcation, set up to settle its border disputes.

The action in the United Nations on Wednesday was mainly behind the scenes. Cape Verde representative Jose Luis Jesus, the Security Council’s current president, met with Iraq’s U.N. ambassador, Abdul Amir Anbari, to warn him about the harassment of U.N. personnel.

The Security Council itself did not meet Wednesday, and diplomats insisted that no new proposals are being circulated and that there is no indication the panel will take up the Iraqi issue any time soon. They said there was little enthusiasm for dealing with the Iraqi problem.

Although the Security Council rallied to Washington’s side when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August, 1990, officials said Wednesday there is not the same sense of urgency about Iraq’s defiance now. And many Third World countries appear to resent Western aggressiveness in dealing with Iraq.

One diplomat from a developing country said that while Third World governments are not fond of Hussein, they are reluctant to support any strike because they continue to believe that Iraq, as a developing country, is being subjected to a double standard.

There also was a further complication--the question of how to ensure the safety of the 70 U.N. inspectors now in Iraq if the United States and its allies should launch attacks. Ekeus said the United Nations has some contingency plans, but he declined to discuss them.

While Russia, Belgium and Venezuela are considered likely to go along with a new resolution, some Third World countries on the Security Council, such as Zimbabwe and Morocco, are expected to oppose the measure flatly, while others, such as China and India, are considered apt to abstain.

The West’s fast-rising impatience is a reaction to Hussein’s new, increasingly blatant defiance of the Western-dominated Security Council. Although the Iraqi leader has repeatedly taunted the major powers, this time he may have pushed them to the limit.

Over the past several weeks, Baghdad has rebuffed U.N. attempts to inspect the Agriculture Ministry building, which Western officials believe has become a repository for nuclear, chemical and biological warfare documents. And it has threatened and intimidated U.N. personnel all over Iraq.

The Bush Administration indicated Tuesday that it has prepared a detailed plan for carrying out air and naval strikes if needed, ranging from punitive sorties against remaining nuclear weapons sites to attacks against Iraqi military strongholds.

What will happen after that is anyone’s guess. If Hussein backs down, either before the expected air strikes or after, the United Nations’ dealings with Iraq are still expected to remain strained and tense. If he does not, some analysts say, the military intervention could escalate--quickly.

Meanwhile, the major Western powers apparently remained convinced that Hussein must be penalized harshly if he continues to flout the U.N. demands. If Iraq is allowed to get away with it, “where is our credibility?” a European diplomat asked.

He said officials are worried that if Iraq is allowed to thumb its nose, the other situations could escalate.

Besides Iraq, the United Nations also is facing challenges to its authority from the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and the Serbs and Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina, one diplomat noted.

Persian Gulf Tensions

Prospects for a limited allied air strike in Iraq have been heightened by a standoff over a weapons inspection. The White House is saying it is not ruling out use of military force:

U.S. Forces in the Region: About 200 warplanes, some at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and others aboard the aircraft carriers Independence in the Persian Gulf and on the Saratoga in the Mediterranean.

Agriculture Ministry: U.N. weapons inspectors pull back from ministry, citing safety fears

Other Disputes With Iraq

-- Iraq has repudiated cease-fire resolution that ended the war and has demanded that it be annulled.

-- Iraq, restricted by trade embargo, refuses to sell $1.6 billion in oil under U.N. proposal to buy food and medicine and pay for weapons destruction.

-- Iraq maintains virtual blockade of Kurdish areas in north, where one U.N. guard has been killed, two injured.

-- Iraq refuses to renew agreement under which relief workers aid Kurds in north.

Sources: Times staff reports, wire services, Defense Department