U.S. Shifts to New Phase in Planning Against Iraq

The standoff over Baghdad’s refusal to allow unconditional U.N. weapons inspections moved into a new phase Wednesday, as the United States shifted from diplomacy to planning for possible airstrikes against Iraq.

The Senate continued work on a resolution, expected to pass today, endorsing tough military action, and Defense Secretary William S. Cohen prepared to leave tonight for an eight-day mission to Europe and the Mideast to brief allies on U.S. military planning and on help Washington may offer to ease the jitters of allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel.

But even as those preparations went ahead, Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin issued an unusually blunt criticism, warning that U.S. actions against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein “could lead to a world war.”

That criticism took the White House by surprise. Russia has often stated that Hussein must comply with the United Nations’ weapons inspections, although Moscow also has opposed the use of force against Baghdad. U.S. officials say Russia has never specifically asked them to hold back.

Still, Yeltsin’s remarks reflect the growing global anxiety about the seeming inevitability of a U.S. attack if Iraq does not comply with the post-Persian Gulf War resolutions of the United Nations that forbid Baghdad to make or stockpile weapons of mass destruction.

After a whirlwind tour by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who held diplomatic talks with 10 European and Mideast allies, Washington now feels that it has enough public or implicit support to act.

President Clinton again Wednesday warned Baghdad of the dangers ahead. “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them,” he said.

He also lauded Albright’s mission. “I am encouraged by the strong consensus she found that Iraq must fulfill all of the U.N. Security Council resolutions,” he said.

Cohen, who is to leave late tonight, travels first to Germany, then makes stops in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain. On Wednesday, he makes his first visit as defense secretary to Moscow, and returns to Washington Feb. 13.

His agenda includes addressing concerns of allies about offensive actions Iraq may take if it is under attack. Cohen is expected to discuss how the U.S. could offer early warning of Iraqi missile attacks, antidotes to toxic agents Baghdad possesses and the use of Patriot antimissile defense systems.

On Capitol Hill, the Senate continued working on a bipartisan resolution that would endorse U.S. military action while also addressing reservations about making the support open-ended.

Overall, Congress overwhelmingly favors strong action to force Iraq to comply with U.N. weapons inspections, leaders of both parties say. “I think we need to do everything we can to weaken him and . . . remove him from office, if we can,” said Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.).

But the concern expressed by senators on both sides of the aisle is in the question “What is the end game?” Lott said.

In answer to his own question, Lott joined his counterpart in the House, Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), in suggesting an Iraq policy goal--the removal of Hussein from power--that goes much further than the Clinton administration’s publicly stated position.

Lott said U.S. officials should “do everything we can to get this resolved and find a way to have him removed from office one way or the other.”

Gingrich counseled against “incremental timidity, which only punishes Saddam and leaves him in place to build the weapons.” He added: “My hope is that the military planning will be designed to coerce him [to end the weapons program] or replace him.”

Interviewed on CNN, Cohen hewed to the administration’s less ambitious goals: “It is not our goal to remove Saddam Hussein. Our goal is to cut down and substantially reduce his capability of manufacturing or delivering these types of chemical or biological weapons.”

There appeared to be no consensus yet in Congress, either among Democrats or Republicans, over ousting Hussein.

One draft of the bipartisan resolution urges Clinton to consult Congress on his actions and work within U.S. laws--language directed at the recurrent struggle between the executive and legislative branches over such overseas missions. Presidents have traditionally held that they have broad powers to take military action without first obtaining congressional approval.

Even so, in the months before the 1991 Gulf War, then-President Bush sought to avoid that constitutional issue and obtain a show of U.S. solidarity by asking Congress to adopt a joint resolution authorizing military action against Iraq to force its compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The Clinton White House contends that the 1991 authorization remains in place. Congress has not challenged that interpretation.

But, “If the president decides to use force, I believe he would be wise to seek a specific authorization from Congress,” said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

That issue aside, the resolution being drafted in the Senate is advisory--merely expressing the sentiment of Congress. “There’s a lot of concern about the wording,” said a staff member involved in the negotiations. “They want to express support for military action if it’s necessary, but they don’t want to hand the president a blank check.”

On the House side, leaders intend to wait for Senate action before moving ahead with their own resolution.

The accelerated U.S. diplomatic and military preparations drew a response from Baghdad. Iraq on Wednesday floated the idea of opening eight now-restricted presidential sites to inspection by a new group of U.N. representatives for one month, after which they would be off limits again. The lack of access by U.N. weapons inspectors to dozens of presidential compounds triggered the current crisis.

U.N. and U.S. officials Wednesday rejected any proposal that put conditions on inspections, which are designed to rid Iraq of its deadliest arms. Ewen Buchanan, a spokesman for the U.N. inspectors, said the latest proposal denied the right to repeated, indefinite access to disputed sites and put out of bounds hundreds of other buildings that the U.N. wants to inspect for chemical and biological weapons.

But a senior White House official said the gesture indicates “some flux” in the Iraqi position and may mean Hussein is inching toward compliance. White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry told reporters: “The fact that the government of Iraq is now seeming to recognize that there is going to have to be some additional access to sites and they can’t continue to block so-called presidential sites, that is certainly some indication that they are beginning to get the message.”

Iraq’s tentative gesture is the first of what U.S. officials expect to be many proposals from Baghdad and others over the next two weeks designed to avoid a military strike.

As the U.S. moves forward, a diplomatic scramble is underway by allies to convince Hussein to comply with U.N. disarmament efforts.

French envoy Bertrand Dufourcq on Wednesday delivered a letter to Hussein from President Jacques Chirac. The Iraqi News Agency later said that Hussein “stressed Iraq’s readiness to continue a dialogue” with France, Russia and other countries.

Arab League Secretary-General Ahmad Esmat Abdel Meguid and Turkish Foreign Minister Ismail Cem also arrived in Baghdad on Wednesday for talks.

Times staff writer Marc Lacey contributed to this report.

* YELTSIN WARNING: Russian leader’s anger at U.S. may be fed by rumor. A6