Bush, says a senior administration official, “signed off, in principle” on some kind of airstrike or strikes several days earlier. But lining up support for the ultimatum proved nettlesome. The West’s allies in the region-Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabiahad to be courted by Secretary of State James Baker as he toured the Mideast last week. Most skeptical of all was the Saudi royal family, which was deeply divided about whether to support further U.S. military action and feared reprisal from Saddam’s Scud missiles. Still, the Arab states agreed not to oppose the ultimatum.
The allies still had to settle where and how they might attack. Within the Pentagon, officials debated what one source called “graduated pain or the big splat”: a single strike followed by a pause, a warning and further bombing-or a massive series of strikes. Big splat won out. What about targets? Everyone agreed on facilities that developed nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. But national-security adviser Brent Scowcroft wanted to go further and hit Iraq’s rebuilt conventional military assets-including its air-defense network and its Republican Guard units. Bush’s top aides warned him of the political risks of attacking Baghdad. Voters would likely support an effort that resulted in Saddam’s ouster or demise-but wouldn’t tolerate heavy U.S. casualties or a high death toll of Iraqi civilians.
Facing the threat of renewed allied attack, Baghdad at first refused to back down. But by the end of the week, as the ultimatum loomed, Iraq seemed to be groping for a way out. After negotiations with Rolf Ekeus, head of the U.N. commission overseeing inspection, Iraq’s U.N. ambassador predicted a “very positive” response from Baghdad to a compromise giving inspectors access to the archives. Either way, no one was betting on Saddam’s continuing cooperation.
