Madeleine’s ’Deadly Delusions’

For U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright it has been one confusing week.

She left Paris for the Middle East announcing that the French now see the American view regarding Saddam. There was no official declaration of solidarity from the French; they nodded, but said nothing substantial. Within minutes of her departure, however, the French Defense Minister Alain Richard reacted strongly against military action. He went on to deplore the fact that "certain allies" wanted to "involve themselves prematurely in military action" against Iraq. It was, well, a typically French gesture. Next stop: Jordan. A warm smile, a lavish buffet, and a shake of the hands later, Albright was reporting to the world's press that Jordan, too, had seen the light. King Hussein stood on the dais, shaking his head gently, his beard struggling to hide...amusement, perhaps? Apparently Madeleine had read too much into the King's request to Saddam to comply with UN demands, for upon landing in Israel, she was slapped with an official statement from Amman declaring an American-led attack against Iraq as "unacceptable." "The Jordanian government is all for a diplomatic solution at this stage," said the communiquÅ. A few hours later Jordan's Foreign Minister Fayez Al-Tarawnah reiterated that his country would never allow its airspace to be used by other states to launch attacks against Iraq. "Jordan's airspace and territories are off limits to all parties. Jordan is not party to any possible strike against Iraq and does not support military operations," Tarawnah told reporters at the end of a meeting with the foreign affairs committee of the 80-member Lower House of parliament.

Israel, however, was a breeze for Madeleine. Netanyahu assured her that as far as Iraq was concerned, he, Bibi, was solidly behind Washington and would thusly be delighted to join in. Pleased, Albright touched down in Kuwait, and left claiming the Sheikh's vote of approval. Landing in Riyadh, she rejected charges that the US had no support for air strikes. "That's not true. That's really not so," she told reporters in the Kingdom.

Saudi Arabia stopped Albright in her tracks. King Fahd's heir apparent, Crown Prince Abdullah, is fast gaining a reputation as a no-nonsense man and Albright had admitted he would be a formidable obstacle. At a palatial retreat on the outskirts of Riyadh, over truffles and caviar, a firm but genial "no" unraveled Clinton's best-laid plans.

Eleven hours after forecasting strong Arab support, Albright had to face reality. Of course, Clinton could have averted this latest debacle. Middle Eastern officials are traditionally averse to discussing matters of war with women. It is a little-known fact that most Arab leaders are secretly critical of Albright. For various reasons, chiefly her insistence on mass-bombing Iraq, the Secretary of State is not very popular. And there is that little quirk she shares with Cohen--not knowing what her plan exactly is: First she says yes, we must give diplomacy every chance, and then she insouciantly declares her skepticism, that the "window for diplomacy may have already closed." Such wavering does not go down very well with people who seemingly have no limit to their patience. It is a different culture, with its unique way of dealing with exasperating issues, and this urgent dashing around, creating solutions calculated to provide peace, make them uncomfortable. Last November, Albright returned home--after a similarly hasty tour--with a matching array of refusals and her soul in her shoes. This time she went armed with the Presidential Decision Directive (PDD), which enables Washington to use nuclear weapons against perceived enemy threat of biological weapons. Some say it was the PDD that actually turned off many, that the whole business had appeared a bit too premeditated.

For Clinton, a strong Arab show of support was the much-needed shot in the arm of his Presidency. These developments could scarcely be less embarrassing than the current focus on his libido. However, the transparencies of his plans bear the ultimate responsibility for his failure. Make no mistake about it. He has no intentions of overthrowing Saddam. That would be against Washington's best interests; Saddam's longevity guarantees an American presence in the gulf and, of course, the subsequent billions in "protection money" from the oil-rich states. This extra income has come in very handy recently, covering everything from budget deficits to national disasters. And as Cohen admitted, an attack on Iraq would not remove the Iraqi leader from power, but only "limit the ability" of his alleged chemical and biological weapons machine. The Secretary of Defense outlined targets within Iraq, including several presidential palaces he believes have the deadly weapons. "These will be attacked, if needed, with a nuclear weapon," said Cohen. A nuclear weapon attacking a stash of chemical and biological weapons? The Arabs will not buy half-baked war strategies.

But the real issue is not whether such an attack could be carried out with minimum loss of civilian life and amenities. By their reluctance to support a US-led attack, the Arab league has sent two strong messages to Clinton: First, that Iraq is no longer the grave threat that it is made out to be and, second, that despite its support in the past, Washington could not be completely trusted when it comes to something as delicate as a military attack on a fellow Arab state. Doubtless, there are other interpretations of the Arab restraint: Some analysts suggest that Washington is toying with their liability. After Abdullah turned down Albright a senior Saudi official summed up the popular sentiment: "Friends should not take advantage of one's vulnerability and hospitality. We are living with a threat...we have been for years; it is nothing new. But it must be stressed that Iraq presently is not a very grave threat. Not a threat so big that we must do something about it before it does something to us. That would not be self-defense; it would be criminal. Diplomacy is still our weapon of choice."

Astonishingly, despite the procession of refusals, Albright continues to maintain that she has "key Arab support." High-powered political analysts in Riyadh and Cairo were quick to pounce on this. Editorials condemned Madeleine and "her delusions," charging her with endangering peace. "What does she hope to gain by spreading half-truths?" questioned one piece. "In no uncertain terms she has been told, 'No! Not time for force yet.' By claiming that she has key Arab support for a military effort, she is not only misleading, she is also attempting to change history. This stand against Washington is-rightly or wrongly-historical, and this magnitude of spin is in poor taste," it thundered.

Indeed. What Albright "has" now is no different from what she had before her trip. There was unanimous--at least as unanimous as it gets-- Arab support for military strikes previously...IF all diplomatic channels were to fail. That was and still is a rather big IF. Bahrain's foreign minister, Sheik Mohammed bin-Mubarak al-Khalifa, said yesterday that Iraq "should adhere to, comply with and implement all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions and give access to the inspectors of the U.N. special commission. Failure of diplomacy to open the sites will result in grave consequences, for which Iraq must bear full responsibility," the foreign minister rounded off his sermon--which was eerily similar to the one he had delivered three months ago. Only this time, there was a hint of "wink, wink, nudge, nudge," in the general direction of Baghdad.

Over the last three months, thanks to Washington's spectacularly poor leadership, the Russians have driven home several tiny diplomatic victories, giving them gloating rights. Encouraged by what he perceives as a growing Russian influence, President Boris Yelstin dashed off a letter to Clinton, warning that his militant methods in the Gulf could lead to a 'World War'. Regardless of his country's checkered past and motives, Yelstin is entitled to credit for averting chaos--or at least delaying one--in the Middle East.

Since October I have been cautioning that any hasty, preemptive American push for action against Iraq would only lead to polarization of the biggest forces--pitching the self-righteous nations against the outlaws. In some ways, that has already happened. India and Pakistan have made it clear that they will not tolerate an attack on Iraq. Well over 6 million Indian and Pakistani citizens live in the Middle East and Washington's apparent indifference towards their safety has roundly ticked off nations who generally need little reason to feel offended. Factor in the cooling relations with the Arab block and, suddenly, Yelstin's warning sounds a little less like science fiction.

Ironically, the seeds of affection between Washington's premier headaches have been sown by its lack of diplomacy. Now, much to Clinton's chagrin, the UN has decided to double Iraq' oil sales, from $2.1 billion to $4.2 billion. The President has no one but himself to blame for his shrinking sphere of influence.