Military analysts point to new M.E. power structure

Press, 28 March 1979, Page 8

Military analysts point to new M.E. power structure

By.

DREW MIDDLETON,

military affairs correspondent of the “New York Times” A new power structure in the Middle East could evolve from the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, in which Israel and a rearmed Egypt, both supported by expanded United States military involvement and arms deliveries, would more than balance Syria, Iraq, and Libya — the principal Soviet clients — and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. United States and European analysts believe that this structure will emerge in time, if relations between Cairo and Jerusalem continue to be good, and if the United States visibly increases arm transfers and projects its naval and air power in the area. “If the Sixth Fleet is going to use Haifa,” an experienced British analyst said, “I see no reason why it should not use Alexandria as well.”

The signing, of the treaty has already had one significant military result: By eliminating the Egyptian threat to Israel’s western frontier, the treaty has enhanced Israel’s ability to deal with any other combination of Arab Powers. A long-term military con= sequence of the treaty, admittedly dependent on complex internal situations in the Arab countries, could be the growth of stability throughout the area stretching from Egypt’s frontier with Libya to the Persian Gulf and south into the Sudan. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation analysts emphasise that the United States now has a greater stake in a stable Middle East than before. Although the Soviet Union greeted the treaty with only the expected and obligatory denunciations, military analysts in Washington and Europe fear that the waters in the Middle East are still

troubled enough to encourage Soviet fishing. Iran, as an expert on the area pointed out, has proved that even the strongest States are vulnerable to internal stress. His opinion was that Moscow must now look at the vulnerability of the Governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the smaller Gulf States, and the Sudan in an entirely new light. Another military problem that could arise from the new alignment of the United States with Egypt is the latter’s strong military and political ties with the Sudan, which in the last decade has been threatened by Libya and is deeply concerned over Ethiopia’s close ties with the Soviet Union. The primary task in establishing the new power structure in the Middle East, according to' the analysts, is the rearmament of Egypt. Egypt has been virtually cut off from spare parts and sophisticated improvements for its mostly Soviet-made arms inventory, which includes about 1600 medium tanks, more than 600 combat aircraft including MiG2ls, and MiG23s. SU2Os, and 12 submarines and five destroyers. Some spare parts arrived in 1976, but the ground, sea, and air forces’ inventory, according to experts, shows a large number of tanks, aircraft and surface ships immobilised for lack of spare parts. Egypt, however, will probably not . receive new weapons from the United States in the number or of the sophistication that it has requested. Military sources point out that Egypt has asked for 300 Fl6s the high-performance fighter and ground-attack aircraft. But the Fl 6 is suffering from the teething troubles that beset all new aircraft, including engine problems. In addition, production has not reached maximum and most of the first planes will go to the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, and Den-

mark. The rearmament of these N.A.T.O. members is considered to have a higher priority than Egypt’s rearmament. The prospect is that Egypt will receive 50 Fsls, a serviceable versatile shortrange fighter, and some F 4 phantoms, a plane with a distinguished record in Vietnam that can be employed as a fighter or fighterbomber. Egypt is also unlikely to receive the 600 tanks it has sought. The United States is more likely to make and install spare parts for the 750 Soviet TU62 tanks that are the cutting edge of Egypt’s armoured force. Egypt may do better in its request for armoured personnel carriers, although it will probably not receive the 2000 requested, and in sur-face-to-air missiles for defence. Its armed forces also desperately need jeeps, trucks, and other vehicles, and there is a good chance a considerable number will be supplied. Neither military instructors nor intelligence officers foresee any serious difficulty in training Egyptian personnel to use sophisticated weapons. They say the Egyptian Army and Air Force learned to use the first generation of Soviet surface-to-surface and sur-face-to-air missiles, and used them to good effect in the 1973 war with Israel. As long as Egypt retained trained cadres, the opinion was that the army, air force, and navy could assimilate more advanced American weapons in as little as a year after their delivery. No such problem is likely to be raised about the highly-trained Israeli armed forces. But Israel, while confident of its ability to defeat Syria, Iraq, and possibly Jordan in the field, wants sizeable reinforcements for its air force, which already includes Flss, the United States Air Force’s most advanced fighters. But Israel also wants

delivery in 1980 of 75 Fl6s, more tanks and armoured personnel carriers, and air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles. Israeli military sources concede that they are concerned over the re-establish-ment of military co-oper-ation between Syria and Iraq, which includes an Iraqi promise to deploy at least four divisions in any war against Israel. The Israelis also point out that as the Egyptian treaty has moved into its final stages, both Syria and Iraq have received increased supplies of modern Soviet arms, including tanks and aircraft.