U.S. Wins Support but No Mandate Against Iraq

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wrapped up her whirlwind tour of the Mideast and Europe on Tuesday without winning a united mandate from U.S. allies to launch what could be the most punishing military strike against Iraq since Operation Desert Storm.

Yet, in key areas, the United States achieved more than it expected in six days of consultations with 10 allies over a response to Baghdad’s refusal to comply with U.N. disarmament efforts.

“Wherever I’ve gone, I’ve had terrific discussions,” Albright told a news conference in Bahrain after talks with Sheik Isa ibn Salman Khalifa, the ruling emir, early Tuesday. “We believe we’ll have all the cooperation we need across the board . . . to do what we feel is necessary.”

From a disparate array of allies, ranging from Russia’s fragile new democracy to Saudi Arabia’s autocratic monarchy, the United States has won agreement on two points:

* First, that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is blatantly engaged in “lawless behavior” in violation of U.N. resolutions dating from the Persian Gulf War cease-fire in 1991.

* And second, that Hussein’s defiance is “unacceptable” and that he must give “unconditional and unfettered” access to all sites, including so-called presidential palaces.

But beyond that, there is wide divergence, especially on the issue of using U.S. military muscle to try to force Hussein to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction.

On one end of the spectrum are Britain and Kuwait, the only countries that have openly endorsed the use of force.

Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait sparked the assembly of the largest military coalition in the post-Cold War world. The tiny Gulf state remains the nation most vulnerable to Iraqi aggression.

Britain, meanwhile, is the only one of three dozen coalition allies that has stood by the United States, diplomatically and militarily, in all its initiatives against Iraq in the intervening seven years.

On the other end of the spectrum are Russia and Egypt. Just a few days after Albright met with Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny M. Primakov in Madrid, the Russians this week described the potential use of force as a “grave mistake.”

Russia has been the most outspoken nation urging diplomatic compromises, along with an eventual easing of sanctions if Baghdad complies with U.N. arms inspectors.

Similarly, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak worked the phones most of the night before Albright’s last stop to discuss his opposition to the U.S. use of military might if diplomacy fails.

At a news conference with Albright, after what she called an “excellent” session with Mubarak, Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa noted that “all the options are still on the table” and that Iraq will face “grave consequences” if it does not fully comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions.

But he sidestepped the specific issue of whether Egypt would support the United States if it used force. Mubarak had warned over the weekend that military actions would “only increase the tension in the region.” Moussa said Tuesday that “what we need is to avoid that and give the diplomatic efforts a chance to bring us back on track.”

In between these opposing views are countries with secondary problems that have tempered their enthusiasm for military action.

Saudi Arabia, for one, fears public fallout at home and within the wider Arab and Islamic communities if it supports any U.S. airstrike.

But U.S. officials claim they never expected a unified public endorsement. “It’s not the Gulf War. Iraq did not invade another country. In judging support, it’s not justified to make comparisons the same,” a senior Western diplomat said Tuesday.

The allies’ reactions are also shaped by their domestic circumstances, he added. In the Gulf alone, Bahrain is a long-standing U.S. ally that has hosted an American naval presence for half a century. And the royal family in Kuwait, which put its forces on heightened alert Tuesday, was restored to power by the original U.S.-led military action.

But Saudi Arabia is a different issue. “They are owners of the [Muslim] holy sites, so they need to do things in a different way,” the official said to explain the oblique endorsement Albright received in the Saudi capital, Riyadh.

In other parts of the Arab world, Albright was heartened by a variety of responses over the past week, a senior U.S. official said.

Jordan’s King Hussein, who sided with Iraq during the Gulf War, this time has loudly condemned Baghdad’s obstruction of weapons inspectors.

“The world cannot accept anyone defying international will and U.N. resolutions,” he said in a letter published by the Jordanian media written from England, where he is recovering from a bacterial infection, to his brother, Crown Prince Hassan.

In talks with Albright at his Ascot home Friday, the Jordanian monarch went “way beyond U.S. expectations,” said a senior official traveling with Albright.

On the other hand, the Syrian government, which contributed troops to the original U.S.-led coalition, has remained notably silent beyond limited press comment.

But in the absence of criticism, the Syrian silence has been interpreted--and welcomed--as an implicit green light to Washington to do what it concludes is necessary, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

All of the European and Mideast countries consulted by Albright also conveyed a strong message to the United States that could affect the timing of any U.S. action: Let diplomacy work harder and longer before making a decision.

As a result, the United States is now working not to appear trigger-happy. Albright expressed support Tuesday for the intense pace of last-ditch diplomatic efforts to win Baghdad’s compliance. Envoys from Russia, France, Turkey and the 22-nation Arab League are all either in Iraq or headed there.

Times staff writer John Daniszewski contributed to this report.