Saudis Offer U.S. Implicit Support for a Strike on Iraq

After six hours of talks in a luxurious desert encampment, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright announced Monday that the Saudis have agreed with the United States that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s “lawless behavior” could provoke “grave consequences” if he does not accede to diplomatic efforts and comply with an international disarmament regime.

U.S. and Saudi officials “see eye to eye on the issues involved,” she told a news conference after some of the most critical talks during her swing through the Persian Gulf region.

The Saudi government on Monday did not openly back the use of U.S. airstrikes to force Baghdad to allow unfettered United Nations weapons inspections, nor did it commit itself to allowing bases on its soil to be possibly used for staging aerial assaults against Iraq.

But the kingdom did give an implicit, if reluctant, go-ahead for military action, saying in a statement: “Failure of [diplomatic] means would lead to grave consequences whose responsibility would lie exclusively on the Iraqi regime, following [its] insistence on noncompliance with all Security Council resolutions.”

The Americans and Saudis agreed on “the necessity of total and unconditional compliance” by Iraq with the “will of the international community,” it added. Compliance with Security Council resolutions represents the best means of preserving Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as ending the plight of the Iraqi people, the brief Saudi statement said.

Saudi Arabia, the most strategic nation on the Arabian Peninsula, is the largest Gulf exporter of oil to the United States as well as one of America’s closest Arab allies.

In talks that went twice as long as scheduled, Crown Prince Abdullah expressed “strong determination and support for the position Albright laid out,” said a senior U.S. official traveling with Albright.

Because of King Fahd’s deteriorating health, the crown prince is now the effective ruler of Saudi Arabia. As head of the National Guard, he is also a key player in the country’s national security apparatus.

Still to be addressed, however, is the potential American use of Saudi military bases for possible airstrikes aimed at forcing Hussein to comply with the U.N. weapons inspectors.

For both military and psychological reasons, the United States--which has troops and weapons here, though mostly for training forces of the kingdom or reconnaissance over Iraq--wants to have access to Saudi facilities.

But the Saudis fear they will pay for their role in any U.S.-led military action against Baghdad. Using Saudi territory as a staging area for an aerial assault on Iraq could lead to Iraqi military retaliation, as happened in 1991 when one Saudi civilian and 28 U.S. service personnel were killed in about 40 Scud missile strikes against the kingdom. If Hussein survives yet another U.S. military action, the Saudis are also concerned about deepening tensions in the region as well as a backlash within the Arab world.

Albright sidestepped a specific answer about which way the Saudis are leaning on the bases issue. A senior U.S. official later told reporters traveling with her, “If we had gotten a yes, we would have said so.” The Saudis pledged to “weigh” the matter as Albright moved on to Bahrain late Monday and headed toward a stop in Egypt today, the official said. This topic also is expected to resurface when Defense Secretary William S. Cohen travels in this area later this week.

In Washington, officials said the United States would be only slightly hobbled in mounting an air campaign against Iraq if the Saudis alone barred Americans from using aircraft based on their soil, officials say. “We have aircraft with a full range of capabilities elsewhere in the region,” an Air Force spokesman said.

The impact would be greater, however, if other allies--perhaps prodded by such a move by the Saudis--imposed similar prohibitions. That would leave the U.S. to mount an air campaign mostly with aircraft from Navy carriers and B-52 bombers from the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

But Cohen said Monday that he expected “all of the Gulf states to agree and support whatever military action needs to be carried out.”

The U.S. now has in Saudi Arabia 30 F-15C fighters, 30 F-16C fighters, four EF-111 radar-jamming aircraft as well as reconnaissance and cargo planes and a few HH-60 helicopters, according to the Air Force.

The F-16s would be highly valuable in blowing up Iraqi air defense systems, and the EF-111s would be useful in jamming Iraqi radar to protect U.S. strike aircraft.

If the Saudis bar use of U.S. aircraft from their soil, the Air Force could theoretically move some aircraft to Kuwait. But if Kuwait and all other U.S. allies in the region prevented U.S. planes from flying from their countries, “it would reduce our punch and limit our options,” said Kenneth Pollack, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Land-based aircraft usually have greater range and wider capabilities than those based on carriers. Navy tankers, for example, don’t carry as much fuel for in-flight refueling or fly as far as Air Force tankers.

If the United States were limited to carrier-based aircraft, it could not fly as many planes as far into Iraq. As a result, in those circumstances, the Pentagon might decide to limit strikes to the southeastern corner of Iraq, and perhaps even eliminate consideration of some more distant targets, around Baghdad for instance, analysts say.

Without land-based aircraft, the U.S. protection against Iraqi air defenses also might be less sophisticated technologically, which could put more American planes at risk.

The most important element of U.S. air forces now in Kuwait is six F-117 radar-evading “stealth” fighters. In Bahrain, the U.S. contingent includes two B-1 bombers. The U.S. now has six B-52 bombers at its Diego Garcia refueling station.

Wright reported from Riyadh and Richter from Washington.

* RUSSIAN ‘DEAL’ SHORT-LIVED: Kremlin announces pact with Iraq, but Baghdad denies it. A8