Iraq Excludes Palaces From Inspection Sites

After agreeing last week to allow U.N. weapons inspectors unconditional access, Iraq reversed course Saturday and said it would not abide by any new U.N. resolution allowing monitors entry to key presidential compounds.

Baghdad’s latest gambit came as the Bush administration was preparing for a week of intense lobbying both at home and at the United Nations to win passage of at least one resolution needed to confront Iraqi President Saddam Hussein over his alleged failure to surrender weapons of mass destruction.

While Washington is still pursuing a diplomatic course, the administration is also fine-tuning military plans in the event Iraq fails to cooperate. President Bush is reviewing detailed military options delivered to the White House by the Pentagon this month, U.S. officials said Saturday.

“He has options before him, and he is reviewing those options,” White House spokesman Sean McCormack said.

The classified document was drawn up by Army Gen. Tommy Franks, chief of Central Command, the unit that would orchestrate an offensive in the Persian Gulf region. It outlines the requirements to wage war, including numbers of troops, warplanes, ships and munitions, officials said.

Franks, who stopped in Kuwait during a tour of the region to talk with local commanders, said Saturday that his forces were ready.

“We are prepared to undertake whatever activities and whatever actions we may be directed to take by our nation,” he said.

Franks cautioned, however, that no decision had been made.

The Iraqi announcement, which followed a meeting between Hussein and his top officials, could further complicate delicate diplomatic efforts to avoid the use of force.

“Iraq declared it will not deal with any new resolution that contradicts what has been agreed upon with the U.N. secretary-general,” the government said in a brief announcement read on Iraqi radio. “American officials are trying ... to issue new, bad resolutions from the Security Council,” the statement added.

Saturday’s move appeared to be an attempt to undermine a sweeping and tough new U.N. resolution that is expected to be circulated Monday at the Security Council by the United States and Britain, U.N. diplomats said Saturday. That resolution would charge U.N. teams with checking any and all sites suspected of having information on nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. It would also, in effect, scrap any past compromises.

The Iraqi statement referred particularly to a 1998 agreement between Iraq and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Iraq’s sprawling presidential compounds, which have many facilities besides Hussein’s personal palaces.

For seven years, Baghdad refused entry to the facilities on the grounds that such inspections would infringe on Iraq’s sovereignty. A compromise in 1998 gave inspectors access, but only if they were accompanied by an array of diplomats--a deal that prolonged the process and gave Iraq a new channel of appeal, according to former weapons inspectors.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Saturday that Baghdad’s latest ploy was not unexpected. “Anyone who has watched the past decade has seen the Iraqi government ... change their position depending on what they thought was tactically advantageous to them and kind of jerk the United Nations around,” he said in an interview on CNN. “So it is no surprise at all.”

The Iraqi move could boost U.S. efforts at winning congressional support for a resolution authorizing the use of force, if necessary, to confront Hussein.

“Saddam thinks he can go back to where we left off, to when he was still setting the rules of the game. But there’s no tolerance for that in this administration--and he doesn’t get it,” said Judith Yaphe, an Iraq expert and former intelligence analyst now at National Defense University in Washington. “He won a lot of support last week when he agreed to allow the weapons inspectors to return. Now he’s lost the advantage he gained.”

But the United States and Britain are still facing an uphill battle at the United Nations, where there are growing indications that the Bush administration may have to settle for two resolutions: one outlining the specific terms for Iraqi compliance in giving up its deadliest arms and the second on the consequences if Baghdad balks.

Russia, which has veto power at the Security Council, appears to be coming around to supporting a resolution after questioning last week whether one was necessary, U.N. diplomats said Saturday.

“We’re not there yet, but we’re headed in the right direction,” said a State Department official who requested anonymity after White House talks with Russian leaders Friday.

And a British diplomat said Saturday that none of the 15 nations on the Security Council are now opposed to a strict resolution on arms inspections.

But France, which also has a veto, does not want the use of force or the consequences of noncompliance in any initial resolution. Many Arab countries and other Security Council members, which do not have veto power but could form an important bloc, also favor separating the issue of military action from the inspections.

“We favor a two-step process because we want the strongest international support to whatever decision is taken by the Security Council, so that the international community is not divided and so Saddam Hussein does not believe he can rely on any country to help him delay. He must feel that at every step the world is united,” said a French diplomat who requested anonymity.

Although the United States and Britain still intend to introduce a single resolution, a British envoy said Saturday that “the threat part of the resolution--the ‘or else’ clause--will be the hardest part” to negotiate.

From the U.S. perspective, the real catch is the timing of the resolutions. The French and others do not want a second resolution taken to the floor until Iraq is judged to be in violation, which could be months down the road.

“It will be easier to get world support if we first urge the Iraqi regime to disarm and, if the regime does not comply, then to think of the consequences,” the French envoy said.

But Washington fears that the Iraqis will merely procrastinate without the threat of force hanging over their heads, a situation that could both prolong the process of disarmament and defer the prospects of military intervention.

“Baghdad’s decision to allow weapons inspectors back after President Bush’s speech proves once again that the Iraqis only act when they have a gun to their heads. Without a strong message about the risks it faces for noncompliance in one resolution, the U.N. risks being messed around yet again,” the British diplomat said.