TITLE: The Bombing of Baghdad, Again

AUTHOR:

PUB: Stratfor, Inc

DATE: February 17, 2001

Summary U.S. and British aircraft struck targets in southern Iraq Friday. The attack follows a period of increased activity by Iraqi air defenses, likely probing the will of the new administration in Washington. There will be short-term damage to U.S. interests, particularly as Secretary of State Colin Powell goes to the Persian Gulf next week. But over the long term, the strikes appear to be part of a strategy to restore influence over the Persian Gulf, where Iraq has moved to turn onetime enemies into allies. Analysis A comparatively large strike package, composed of two dozen U.S. and British jets, flew into southern Iraq on Friday and attacked a set of five targets just north of the 33rd parallel, which marks the northern boundary of the southern no-fly zone. The Bush administration and the Pentagon described the attack as routine enforcement of the zone, patrolled by U.S. and British aircraft since the end of the Gulf War. Iraqi official media claimed that civilians were killed in the attack. There are elements of truth in the official explanation by Washington; intelligence indicates that the Iraqi military has indeed shifted significant resources into the southern no-fly zone. At the same time, however, Washington has stepped up attacks on Iraqi targets. Friday’s was the third strike this week; air strikes have increased modestly since President Bush took office on Jan. 20. There have been five days of attacks since the inauguration, as the reported Iraqi expenditure of anti-aircraft fire has risen. But these attacks take place against a much broader backdrop in the Persian Gulf – one that increasingly favors Iraq. Baghdad has significantly built international political consensus to end nearly a decade of economic sanctions. Aviation links to the outside world – particularly the Arab world -- have increased. Baghdad has also moved to increase economic and political ties to Arab states that have been enemies. Iraq made significant strides – signing free trade agreements with Syria, Egypt and Jordan -- just days after Bush was inaugurated. The air strikes are more than the pin pricks that allied pilots have unleashed for years. Launching these attacks – just before Powell’s trip to the region – was meant by the United States to signal that it would again confront the Iraqi regime. Washington is clearly trying to wrest momentum from the Iraqis, who have taken the lead in the gulf. Arab states must now begin to choose whether their best interest lies in alliance with the United States or in common cause with Iraq. As the situation unfolds, oil will be the key. If Washington can convince Arab governments that the flow of Iraqi oil can be constrained through force and sanctions – keeping the price of oil stable – then American influence in the region may once again grow. The Patterns Before the Attack There is an element of truth to the official explanation by the Bush administration and the Pentagon: In recent weeks, Iraqi air defenses have become increasingly strong in southern Iraq, according to intelligence, and the Iraqis have increasingly turned this new capability skyward. It appears that the Iraqi military was attempting to probe the resolution of the new government in Washington. Much of the official rhetoric out of Iraq around the time of Bush’s inauguration was clearly meant to test the new president. Uday, the Iraqi president’s son, has referred to Kuwait as part of “greater Iraq” – the very statement that launched the Gulf War. In the last month, the Iraqi military has been moving surface-to-air missiles, according to sources. Some of this equipment has come from the northern no-fly zone. And some appears to have come from in and around Baghdad, as well. It seems possible, too, that Iraq has increasingly used new radars that were then hard-wired to command-and-control facilities. The recent boom in flights to Iraq would allow radar components to be smuggled into Iraq. These components would likely be of Russian origin. This buildup has led to increased shoot-and-scoot tactics by the Iraqis, in which batteries fire their missiles and then move to avoid return fire, according to sources. The refinement of this tactic would be made easiest by the acquisition of better radars and tying them into the command posts, such as that reportedly struck Friday. The Iraqi military has also turned up the volume of anti-aircraft fire since President Bush was inaugurated. Until Jan. 20, the day he was sworn in, Iraqi forces fired about 10 times a month at U.S. and British aircraft, according to figures by the U.S. Central Command. But during Bush’s first week in office, fire by Iraqi ground forces tripled to 30 times. During the first two weeks of February also, Iraqi forces have engaged aircraft – either with anti-aircraft fire or surface-to-air missiles – 20 times. All told, there has been a sudden 10 percent increase in ground fire since records were first kept in December 1998. In response, the United States and Great Britain – which had issued recent contradictory statements about the enforcement of the no-fly zones – stepped up the tempo of strikes in the days before Friday’s attack – likely to probe the Iraqi reaction. Feb. 11 witnessed significant aircraft packages flying into both the north and the south, according to an account by the Iraqi News Agency the next day. Iraq claimed that 17 sorties, supported by an AWAC aircraft and an E-2C Hawkeye flew into southern Iraq and struck targets there. On the same day, the Iraqis claim that 16 sorties flew into the north, from Turkey. If any part of the Iraqi report is even remotely reflective of reality, western pilots were probably probing the Iraqi air defenses for a reaction. The Region: Iraq Takes the Lead As Secretary of State Colin Powell prepares to undertake his first solo mission – to the Middle East – the Bush administration finds itself behind in the game of influence in the Persian Gulf and the Arab world at large. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has succeeded in seizing momentum and re-defining his country's ties to the outside world. As a result of Saddam’s overtures, a variety of nations have violated the no-fly zones by flying commercial traffic into Baghdad and are increasing calls for lifting UN sanctions. In addition to the UN sanctions, ridding himself of the no-fly zones would allow Saddam to rebuild his military and weapons of mass destruction programs under a reduced threat of retaliation. In late January, just days after Bush was inaugurated, the Iraqi government achieved a major victory. Dispatching officials to Amman, Damascus and Cairo, the government signed free trade agreements with both Jordan, Syria and Egypt – all members of the coalition during the Gulf War. The agreement was sold in the Arab world on two levels: promoting Arab solidarity and increasing economic ties. But in reality, different motives drove these rivals together. Egypt agreed for economic and domestic security reasons. Syria signed on because of concerns over future economic stability and external security. Iraq joined in to undercut sanctions, build a new Arab coalition that would help undercut sanctions – tying Iraq to capital and oil – and put an end to years of isolation. Across a wide variety of fronts, Iraq has succeeded in redefining its relationships with its onetime enemies. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have reportedly turned a blind eye to illegal oil shipments out of Iraq, in exchange either for cash for local commanders or fees for Tehran – this after years of rivalry. Iraq has also reportedly been in negotiations with Iran for the return of aircraft that the Iraqi Air Force flew to Iran for safekeeping during the Gulf War. There has also been increased diplomatic contact between Iraq and Egypt, leading to a recent request from Baghdad that the Mubarak government mediate talks over future relations with Saudi Arabia. President Mubarak went to Saudi Arabia recently to relay the message, though he did not endorse it. America and the Region At first glance, the air strikes will likely pose an immediate problem to Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is bound for the region next week and is to stop in Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. The air strikes are an uncomfortable reminder of the ongoing war of attrition between U.S. pilots and Iraqi air defenses. And gulf Arab governments always get nervous at unpopular air strikes launched from their territories. And in a larger regional sense, the intifada in the Palestinian territories is seen, in the Arab world, as the result of American meddling. With these air strikes, the United States has re-asserted itself in the region. The targets struck – 20 miles south of Baghdad – were more significant, politically and militarily, than anything hit in recent years. The F-15s launched from Saudi Arabia likely had to have Saudi permission to participate in the strike – something that the Saudi government refused to grant during Operation Desert Fox in December, 1998. In this attack, the Kuwaiti and Saudi governments appeared to go along with the American decision. Next week, Powell is likely to face some criticism in the region; that of Saudi Arabia will be most important. But more importantly, what does he – and the Bush administration – offer the Arab nations that Iraq has so skillfully been cultivating? Arab governments, particularly in the Persian Gulf, appear to need help on two fronts: ensuring their own security, primarily internally, but also in propping up their economies, tied to the current high price of oil. The royal family in Saudi Arabia faces the internal pressures of its Shi’ite majority. The gulf states are always re-considering their relationship with Iran. Saudi Arabia has even signed a recent security agreement with Tehran. On the economic front, gulf governments are clearly concerned about how to prop up the price of oil in the midst of a global economic slowdown. Iraq is increasingly leaking more oil illegally; if sanctions officially fall and Iraq is able to enter the global oil market full force, OPEC will lose its ability to control prices. And no country would be hurt more than Saudi Arabia, which now holds the balance of petroleum power. It is unclear what the United States can offer unless it can impose meaningful sanctions with stepped up U.S. military efforts and the help of key players in the region, most notably Iran. Iran is the key because of its coastline. With stepped up naval patrols and political cooperation, the amount of oil that leaks from Iraq can be significantly cut back. But there is a catch: Iran will want something in exchange for cooperation. Tehran will seek an end to its own isolation, 20 years of economic sanctions. END top