U.S. Has Mandate to Strike Defiant Iraq, Clinton Says

Brushing aside doubts about the effectiveness of a prospective military strike against Iraq, President Clinton on Friday strongly defended that option, declaring that the world community has a “clear mandate” to act if diplomacy fails.

If Iraqi President Saddam Hussein “decides he wants to continue to have the freedom to rebuild his weapons program, then I believe that the clear mandate for the world community . . . is to do what we can to weaken his ability to develop those weapons of mass destruction,” Clinton said at a White House news conference.

Any U.S. military assault against Iraq would put Americans at risk--a reality that was underscored thousands of miles away Friday when two U.S. Marine F-18 fighter planes collided over the Persian Gulf, killing one of the pilots.

The collision occurred shortly after both planes took off from the aircraft carrier George Washington and as they headed toward a routine mission over Iraq, Defense Department officials said.

The identity of the dead pilot was not immediately released, nor was it clear what caused the accident. The second pilot was picked up and was later listed in good condition.

In comments during a joint appearance with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Clinton also confidently predicted that a military assault on Iraq could accomplish the administration’s two main goals: reducing Hussein’s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and to threaten neighboring countries, including Israel.

Posing the question himself of whether achieving those goals is feasible, Clinton declared: “The answer to that, I am convinced, is yes.”

He dismissed alarmist warnings made earlier this week by Russia’s President Boris N. Yeltsin that an assault against Iraq could trigger World War III.

“I don’t understand what chain of circumstances would lead to that development,” Clinton said. “I don’t believe that will happen.”

Blair, who represents the only allied nation pledged to join with the U.S. in a military operation against the Iraqis, said he and Clinton must spend the days ahead educating the U.S. and British publics “as to why it is so essential that the U.N. inspectors are able to do their work.”

One approach in Britain, he said, has been to release a list of all of the weapons the inspectors have uncovered in their seven years of work.

“And when you go through that list and see all of the various attempts there have been to try [to] prevent the inspectors carrying out their functions, then I think people can understand.”

Critics of a possible military strike, including some of Washington’s closest allies, fear it would cause little meaningful damage to Hussein’s weapons-making capabilities and would close the door to a return of United Nations weapons inspectors, a scenario that would leave the Iraqi leader freer than ever to pursue his aim of building a chemical and biological weapons arsenal.

“Military action might solve some problems but would create many others,” French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine said Friday. “As regards to inspections, we would be in a worse situation afterward than before.”

Senior diplomats from several nations, including France and Russia, have been in Baghdad for days searching for some diplomatic solution that would enable the return of U.N. arms inspectors to Iraq and their unfettered access to installations suspected of being used to produce or store weapons of mass destruction.

*

It was Hussein’s decision to expel those inspectors that triggered the current standoff.

While Clinton underscored again Friday his desire for a diplomatic solution, there were no signs of movement from the Iraqi capital to indicate that Hussein is prepared to bend.

“If Saddam does not comply with the unanimous will of the international community, we must be prepared to act--and we are,” Clinton said.

Also Friday, in Munich, Germany, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen said he expected to order more U.S. combat aircraft to the Persian Gulf region, most likely within a matter of days.

While Cohen declined to provide details of the prospective move, it is believed that the latest request involves F-117 Stealth bombers and heavy B-52 bombers.

“We’re going to have to go through some of the clearances, but we will probably approve that in the next several days,” said Cohen, who was on the first leg of an eight-day overseas trip to persuade Washington’s Persian Gulf allies that the benefits of a strike against Iraq would outweigh the risks.

Cohen’s comments came less than 24 hours after the U.S. dispatched 2,000 Marines to reinforce the growing American military force in the region.

On his eight-day swing, Cohen said, he will lay out specific U.S. military plans before the heads of six Gulf countries “so they will be satisfied that this is a serious effort.”

The Gulf states are thought to consider Hussein a threat and to believe that “if a response is going to be made, it should be substantial,” Cohen said.

In the past, he said, Gulf leaders have viewed the U.S. military responses as “rather mild.”

He said his message will be that any U.S. strikes would be neither mild nor meager. “This is substantial,” Cohen said.

After a two-day stop in Munich for a European defense conference, Cohen is scheduled to arrive Monday in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, and after that to visit Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. His itinerary calls for him then to fly to Moscow for talks with defense officials before returning to the United States on Friday evening.

*

Marshall reported from Washington and Richter from Munich.

* AIRSTRIKES ADVISABLE?

Some allies disagree with the U.S. about whether an assault on Iraq would be useful. A10