Clinton to Iraq: U.S. ‘Prepared to Act’

In a blunt warning of military action, President Clinton declared Tuesday that the United States remained “prepared to act” against Iraq if the regime of President Saddam Hussein defies United Nations weapons inspectors in any way.

Clinton’s warning followed Monday’s adoption by the U.N. Security Council of a resolution that stopped short of endorsing automatic military action to back up the inspections but put Iraq on notice to expect “the severest consequences”--a phrase that U.S. officials said was diplomatic code for military action.

“The government of Iraq should be under no illusion,” Clinton said of the U.N. measure that passed unanimously. “The meaning of ‘severest consequences’ is clear. It provides the authority to act” if Iraq does not comply with weapons inspections.

Separately, the White House planned to ask Congress for $1.36 billion to pay for the Persian Gulf military presence through the end of the fiscal year, including $500 million for the Army, $400 million for the Air Force and $170 million for the Navy.

Franklin D. Raines, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the spending request covered “everything from feeding the troops to fuel to transporting them over there and back.” The Clinton administration is also seeking $487 million for U.S. troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Clinton’s remarks on Iraq, offered as an aside at a White House program on drunk driving, followed congressional criticism of the U.N.-brokered accord as a victory for Hussein.

Several nations, including Brazil, France and China, have indicated that they do not view the accord as sanctioning an automatic U.S. military response if Baghdad resists future inspections. Sensitive to public perceptions, however, administration officials argued that the U.N. vote provided all the backing they needed. They also have argued that the United States requires no foreign authorization to use force.

The Security Council vote, Clinton said, means “Iraq must fulfill without obstruction or delay its commitment to open all of the nation to the international weapons inspectors--any place, any time, without any conditions, deadlines or excuses.

“No promise of peace and no policy of patience can be without its limits,” the president added, echoing the remarks Monday of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. “Iraq’s words must be matched by deeds. The world is watching.”

In other ways, the administration signaled its readiness to act. Defense Secretary William S. Cohen said that 36,000 American troops in the Persian Gulf will receive anthrax vaccinations starting this month. “After a careful review, I have concluded that vaccination against anthrax is a safe, prudent force protection measure,” Cohen said of the program, which will require six shots over 18 months, followed by annual boosters.

Meanwhile, other officials talked tough about the possibility of a future confrontation with Iraq, despite the U.N.-brokered pact partly aimed at heading off U.S. airstrikes.

Bill Richardson, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the United States interpreted Monday’s Security Council vote as a “green light” to attack Iraq if necessary.

Gen. Anthony Zinni, U.S. commander in the Persian Gulf, said U.S. troops in the region have high morale and readiness. “They understand the mission, and they are prepared to do what it takes,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. Hussein “will continue to test us and the international community,” Zinni said. “It is important to keep the noose tight.”

Reflecting the hard-line view, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said he would back legislation declaring that Hussein should be tried as a war criminal. He added that he would support increased sanctions, money for a “Radio Free Iraq” and covert action to bring down the Iraqi president.

He also denied that he intended to snub Annan by declining to meet with him. Annan canceled a trip to Washington this week, saying he needed to remain close to U.N. headquarters, but an aide said part of the reason was criticism by leading congressional Republicans of the deal Annan negotiated with Iraq. “I’ve met with him before, and I expect to meet with him in the future,” Lott said.

In a further bid to clarify the administration’s view of the U.N. resolution, State Department spokesman James P. Rubin said the language was unusually firm and represented the “clearest possible threat to use force that the Security Council has taken since this crisis began last year.”

Times staff writers Norman Kempster in Washington and Craig Turner at the United Nations contributed to this report.