U.S. and Soviet casualties in Gulf spur drive to end Iran-Iraq war

Press, 30 May 1987, Page 20

U.S. and Soviet casualties in Gulf spur drive to end Iran-Iraq war

The ‘Economist’ considers the consequences of Iraq’s ‘mistaken’ attack

Although the iraqi attack on the American frigate Stark is being treated by both Governments as a tragic accident, it could yet have fateful consequences. This is the first time that the IraqIran war, which has already lasted longer than the war of 1939-45, has led to an attack on a non-belligerent nation’s warship. " Some people had feared that such an attack was almost inevitable sooner or later. Since 1984, when attacks by both belligerents on merchant shipping in the Gulf became numerous, more than 300 tankers and freighters had been hit, with the loss of around 100 lives; and the American, British, French and Soviet warships that were sent to protect merchant shipping in this international waterway were themselves liable to become targets.

It was, however, bitterly ironic that the 37 men killed on the Stark on May 17 were victims of missiles fired by an Iraqi aircraft; and painfully revealing that, while Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein expressed deep regret at what he called an “unintentional incident,” Iran’s leaders rejoiced over it. Iraq is as anxious to keep the Western and Soviet warships in the Gulf as Iran is eager to see them go. Iraq wants a negotiated peace; Iran is pledged to fight on until Mr Saddam Hussein’s regime is brought down. There is also a sharp contrast between the two belligerents’ attitudes to Gulf shipping. Iraq sends its oil out by pipelines through Turkey and Saudi Arabia, while Iran’s oil exports must use the Gulf sea route; but Iraq, whose own sea trade has been paralysed ever since the war began, depends heavily on imports sent through Kuwait, as well as on subsidies from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Iraqi air strikes have slashed the Iranian’s oil exports, and they have countered by attacking Saudi and Kuwaiti seaborne trade.

The oddity is that it is not Iraq, whose ships cannot use the Gulf, that threatens to close it, but Iran, which to some extent can use it. This has moved the Western maritime powers to give warnings that any such attempt would be forcibly countered.

Last year the direct enmeshing of the major Powers increased step by step. For the first time, Iranian warships stopped American, British and Soviet freighters heading for Arab ports and searched them to see if they contained arms destined for Iraq. Since then the Russians have maintained a continuous naval presence in the Gulf, and the Americans have enlarged theirs. In November came the first revelations about the Americans’ secret arms deals with Iran, which severely strained their relations with the Arab Gulf States without easing their extremely bad relations with Iran. The missiles the Iranians obtained in those deals now appear to have reduced the Iraqi air force’s ability to prevent Iran’s getting its oil out by way of

trans-shipment at the Sirri and Larak anchorages, far down the Gulf.

Two months ago, when the Iranians had stepped up their attacks on Kuwait’s sea trade, Russia offered Kuwait the use of three Soviet tankers, with an implied promise of Soviet naval protection for them (one of these tankers, the Marshal Chuykov, was damaged by a mine on May 16 off the Kuwaiti coast). Reacting to the Soviet move, the Americans proposed that half of Kuwait’s tanker fleet should be re-registered under their flag, thus qualifying it for American protection. Arrangements for these transfers are not yet complete; and after the attack on the Stark doubts about them may be intensified in Congress, where it had already been suggested that,

under the terms of the War Powers Act, the commitment of American servicemen to this additional operation in a danger zone would require congressional consent.

Iraq has offered to co-operate in an inquiry which may eventually yield definite answers to the two big questions about the Stark: why did the Iraqi Mirage pilot fire his missiles at an American frigate, and why did the ship not use its anti-missile defences? Accidents happen in all wars. But there may be speculation about the possibility that the pilot had seen some of his comrades killed by the missiles that Iran got from the Americans and was that much less concerned to make sure that it was not an American ship he was firing at. The words used by the captain of the Stark on May 20 strengthened the impression that the crew just could not believe they would be attacked by an Iraqi. President Reagan suggested on May 19 that the frigate’s commander probably regarded the Mirage as “a totally friendly plane”; and, when asked if he accepted Iraq’s apologies, he replied, “of course.” In Washington, some people have claimed to see a resemblance between the American Administration’s playing down of this event and its treatment of the Israeli attack on a warship, the Liberty, during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, which took 34 American lives.

Nominally neutral in the Gulf war, the United States is in practice regarded as an enemy by the Iranians — the secret arms deals have not affected this. And Mr Saddam Hussein’s cordial meeting on May 11 with Mr Richard Murphy, an Assistant Secretary of State, reflected the closer relations between Bagdad and Washington that have developed during the war years. In this respect the Americans and the Russians have found themselves forced into the same bracket. Iran knows that neither of the super-Powers is prepared to tolerate the idea of its winning the Gulf War. On May 6 the first Iranian attack on a Soviet ship in Gulf waters was made by fast patrol boats which used rockets and machine-guns against the Ivan Koroteyev, a freighter heading for a Saudi port

Diplomatic remonstrations from Moscow left the Iranians frankly unrepentant Their Prime Minister has claimed Iran’s defiance of the navies of both super-Powers, which are now being routinely described by Iranian spokesmen as "Saddam Hussein’s accomplices.” There may have been a time when both Russians and Americans were not unhappy to see two potential troublemakers preoccupied with their war, but if that were ever true it no longer is. Both super-Powers want the war ended — but without an Iranian victory. For months, they have been engaged, most visibly at the United Nations, in consultations about means of hastening a return to peace in the Gulf. While shipowners have sent missions to the United Nations to plead in vain for the creation of an international naval peacekeeping force in Gulf waters, it appears that the Americans and Russians are both thinking mainly in terms of applying economic sanctions. There has been talk of embargoes both on the purchase of oil and on the sale of arms, as well as of general embargoes on all trade with the belligerents.

So far, the interest in such ideas shown by the super-Powers does not seem to have been shared by the British, the French or the Chinese, all of whorri have raised a variety of objections. Now, however, the attacks on the Stark and the Ivan Koroteyev have probably produced a more acute awareness of the risk that the war may become even more alarming if it is allowed to continue.

Copyright — The Economist.