PERSPECTIVE ON THE MIDDLE EAST : A Baptism by Fire for Clinton : Saddam Hussein will be a problem as long as the U.S. lacks a policy with purpose. Watch for Iran to exploit the vacuum.

Air strikes against Iraq will not end Saddam Hussein’s testing of American resolve to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions. Nor will they produce either great relief among our allies or unrest among our adversaries in the Middle East.

If anything, the strikes appear to be George Bush’s parting-shot response to Saddam Hussein’s final test of his American nemesis. This will not be the last we have heard from Saddam, nor do I expect that it will be the last Iraq’s leader will hear from the United States.

There is a great weariness and a wariness in the Middle East today. Saddam Hussein is not viewed as a hero in any quarter. There is almost a universal desire to see the passing of his regime so that there can be an end to the suffering that his government and its punishment by international sanctions have imposed on the Iraqi people.

What troubles our allies, however, is that all of our actions against Iraq have been, at best, tactical or reactive. There is no underlying, articulated policy, purpose or goal governing these actions.

Iraq is now crippled and to a large extent dismembered. Saddam Hussein remains in power and his people are despairing about their future. Iraq’s Kurds, protected under the cover of a U.N. “no-fly zone,” have moved toward self-governance only to see their Turkish kin increasingly victimized by repression in that country.

Neighboring Iran has taken advantage of the power vacuum in the Gulf to rearm at an alarming rate, to once again export terrorism and flex its muscles and otherwise rattle its Arab neighbors.

Meanwhile, our Gulf War allies are turning to the United States to provide both security assistance and a commitment to a long-term policy that would ensure peace and stability in the all-important Gulf region.

In one week, Bill Clinton inherits U.S. involvement in the Gulf. He will be tested by both Iraq and Iran. While he has indicated a commitment to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq and to support the security of our Arab allies, he must do more than play cat-and-mouse with Saddam Hussein and respond reactively to every crisis that occurs in the region.

As President, Clinton must articulate a regional policy that protects long-term U.S. interests and promotes peace and stability. This policy must include a commitment to support the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq, and it should hold out the incentive of multi-lateral support for the rebuilding of Iraq after the passing of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

It will be equally important to reconvene our Gulf War allies in a regional security conference to develop cooperative strategies that are responsive to issues unresolved by the Gulf War--the question of Kurdish rights; the provision of emergency relief to the people of Iraq independent of the government in Baghdad, and the creation of a Gulf security pact to contain Iranian aggression.

Clinton also must reinvigorate the Middle East peace process. Creative U.S. engagement brought about the historic Madrid agreement and subsequent talks, and helped elect a new government in Israel. Since then, the process has floundered and it is now at an impasse, and Israel’s expulsion of Palestinians to Lebanon is bound to have a negative effect. Maintaining momentum in the peace process is critical for the United States, both to protect against the charge of a double standard with regard to the enforcement of U.N. resolutions and also to remove the encumbrance of our historic and divisive two-track policy toward the region.

Bill Clinton will inherit old conflicts and old commitments in the Middle East. His best chance for success will come if he begins his tenure with a mind toward developing new policies for durable, comprehensive solutions to the region’s problems.