Behind the Headlines: Lawmakers Say Iraqi Invasion is Gain for Israel and Saudis Alike

Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait may bolster support for Israel on Capitol Hill, but lawmakers say the Bush administration could also become more favorably disposed toward Saudi Arabia, at Israel’s expense.

Members of Congress, in interviews last week, said the Iraqi aggression strengthens the rationale for selling sophisticated U.S. arms to Saudi Arabia–so long as the kingdom continues to allow the United States to help defend it.

For Israel’s image here, Iraq’s invasion is “enormously helpful,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). “This really drives home the essential reasonableness of Israel’s posture,” he said.

“Israel is in fact besieged by evil people” who “wish them great harm,” Frank said.

But he warned that while the Iraqi invasion puts Israel’s refusal to accept U.S. proposals for direct negotiations with Palestinians “in a better context, it doesn’t make Israel immune from criticism and shouldn’t.”

Rep. Mel Levine (D-Calif.) said Israel will benefit because many colleagues have told him they now see “Arab-upon-Arab aggression” as a major Middle East problem that has “nothing to do with Israel.”

He predicted the crisis would put to rest some of the “Israeli-oriented excuses” that blame the Jewish state as the principal reason for there being no peace in the region.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said the Iraqi move would also improve the U.S. image of Syria, which had been regarded by many as Israel’s chief foe. The fact that Iraq and Syria are enemies “might enhance opportunities with Israel and Syria,” he said.

PRAISE FOR SYRIA

Specter took the occasion to praise Syria for earlier this year saying it would attend an international peace conference on the Middle East under U.S.-Soviet auspices.

Sen. Alfonse D’Amato (R-N.Y.), however, said he objects to creating a “good guys” image of Syria. Though he noted Syria’s help earlier this year in arranging the release of some Western hostages in Lebanon, D’Amato warned against being “lulled” into thinking Syria has become a more moderate country.

“Any enemy of my enemy is not my friend,” the senator said, disputing the old adage about alliances in the Middle East.

Levine took a stab at Jordan, which has refused to join the chorus of Arab criticism of the Iraqi invasion. He said the United States should no longer consider it a “moderate Arab country.”

Jordan’s policies have been “sadly wanting over the last several months” and its recent behavior is “not within the definition of moderate,” Levine said.

Of particular concern to pro-Israel lawmakers would likely be any administration move to frame its Middle East policy as “Israel versus oil.”

Any U.S. move toward placing greater emphasis on oil at Israel’s expense, Levine said, would be “every bit as intolerable as any movement toward Saudi Arabia will be.”

“Israel’s unquestionable friendship contrasts so sharply with what we see throughout that region,” he said.

But D’Amato and Specter suggested that a more likely scenario than any U.S. policy change is that Saudi Arabia and Israel may move closer together, because, as D’Amato said, they both realize they “are open to attack” from Iraq.

“The Saudis recognize it as a long term advantage to have an Israel that is strong to deal with the radicals, who have no love for them,” D’Amato argued.

“I think that with Iraq’s action there would be a response by the rest of the Arab world to come closer to the United States and perhaps inferentially to Israel,” Specter said, “but it’s hard to predict what the Arab nations will do next.”

SAUDIS PROMISED ADVANCED ARMS

On the arms front, Frank said the invasion will have “mixed” implications for future U.S. sales to Arab countries. It “probably strengthens the Saudis,” he said.

But it creates a new burden on Kuwait’s fellow smaller Arab states trying to defend the wisdom of U.S. sales, that “you better be careful, because weapons you sell to regime X may end up next week in the hands of regime X minus,” Frank said.

Levine said he has been told that, as a concession to Saudi Arabia for allowing U.S. forces to be stationed there, the administration has agreed to send Congress a request next year to sell top-of-the-line fighter planes to Saudi Arabia, presumably F-15s or F-16s.

Such planes, which have the capability of reaching Israel, are among the few items in the tens of billions of dollars in prior U.S. proposed sales to the kingdom that pro-Israel lawmakers have attempted to block.

Levine refused to spell out under what condition he would support future sales to Saudi Arabia, short of having U.S. troops in the kingdom. He said the kingdom needs to agree on the need to “rely on combined forces,” but declined to call for a mutual defense treaty.

D’Amato predicted that Congress will support sales to the Saudis of a range of weapons systems, “given their land mass,” which makes swift capture by Iraq unlikely as took place in Kuwait.

He called on the United States to work toward a “mutual security” pact with Gulf states or an agreement that “the whole world will come to the defense of those countries.”

DOLE BACKS AWAY FROM AID CUT

While not seeing any long-term diminution in administration pressure on Israel regarding the peace process, the lawmakers said there will be stronger support for not cutting the $3 billion in annual U.S. aid to Israel, which is coming under various budget-cutting pressures.

One such signal was sent by Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole (R-Kan.), who last week backed off half way from his proposal to cut foreign aid to the top U.S. recipients by 5 percent across the board.

Dole, speaking to reporters in the U.S. Capitol Building, said it “wouldn’t be a time to reduce military aid to either Egypt or Israel.”

“But foreign aid, like every other spending program on the economic side, has to be looked at,” he added.

Levine welcomed Dole’s statement: “It’s better late than never, and hopefully he’ll turn around on the rest of it.”