Experts Say Hostilities Are Imminent

A day after talks between U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz broke down, foreign relations experts at Harvard agreed that war is all but inevitable.

But while almost every scholar contacted was pessimistic about the prospects for immediate peace, several said they thought the war might not be as bloody as some expect, and that further negotiations could still end the hostilities at an early stage.

"Obviously Baker and Aziz had something to talk about," said Albert Carnesdale, an international relations expert at the Kennedy School of Government. "I expect further diplomatic activity."

Still, Carnesdale said such negotiations would probably begin after the shooting starts.

"[Saddam] is trying to get the best deal possible," said Carnesdale. "In the end we'll go to war. If we offer nothing he'll go to war."

Stephan M. Haggard, associate professor of government, agreed that hostilities were imminent, and predicted that the United States will probably fire the first shot.

"The Iraqis won't initiate hostilities now," Haggard says. "The only possibility for peace would be if Hussein would unilaterally withdraw. But he's said that he won't do that and Bush has to take action."

Those familiar with negotiations, however, said they still held out some hope that a shooting war could be avoided. Specifically, some pointed to the expected trip by U.N. Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar to Baghdad on Saturday as a chance to work something out that would satisfy both the Americans and the Iraqis.

"The problem up to now is that Bush and Hussein need a way out," said Andrea C. Kupfer, a research assistant to Professor Roger Fisher, a member of the Harvard Project on Negotiation who was an advisor to the Carter Administration. "This is where Perez de Cuellar could serve as a mediator, promising that on the conditions of withdrawal, sanctions would be ceased, there would be no attack, and the next logical issue, the Palestinian conflict, could be adressed."

While most scholars contacted agreed that nothing could stop a war at this point, they had different ideas about what role Israel would play in a war scenario. In a press conference on Wednesday, Aziz promised to attack Israel if a war started. But Haggard said Saddam might think twice before launching a strike against the Israelis.

"Just because said he was going to attack Israel doesn't mean that he actually will," Haggard said. "The cost would be much damage inflicted on [Iraq], in addition to having to deal with Kuwait."

Carnesdale said he, too, was uncertain about what would happen to Israel.

"[Saddam will] have to ask whether it's worth having the Israeli armed forces against him," Carnesdale said. "It's a strategic question and he has a substantial cost in attacking Israel."

As for the possibility of the Iraqis developing and using nuclear weapons, Carnesdale said that was unlikely anytime in the near future.

"They have just enough highly-enriched uranium, French-supplied to make one crude nuclear device in a year," Carnesdale said. "He would need 10 years to start producing nuclear weapons."

Haggard, for one, postulated that Saddam might still not realize the massive power of the forces mobilized against him.

"Another interesting question is the whole issue of Iraqi intelligence," Haggard said. "Does [Saddam] really understand the forces gathered against him?

Just how America would approach a war is still uncertain. Last night, Congress was still debating what kind of powers to give the president after the United Nations deadline on January 15.

Professor of International Studies Emeritus John D. Montgomery said he was concerned that Bush might be rushing into a war without sufficient congressional authorization.

"I am not an admirer of Bush's readiness to use force instead of diplomacy," Montgomery said. "Furthermore, the number of times we have violated the war-power act undermines our credibility. I'm not hopeful about negotiations, but one shouldn't abandon hope."