Choosing Up Sides

By Marguerite Johnson

While Moscow and Washington stay neutral, Iraq and Iran gain allies

Overshadowing the war between Iraq and Iran since it began three weeks ago has been one great fear: that other nations would be inexorably drawn into this bloody conflict between two angry neighbors. That nightmare is slipping toward reality. Iran and Iraq last week continued to savage each other with bombing, missile and artillery strikes, and there were brutal battles for control of the Iranian port of Khorramshahr on the Shatt al Arab waterway (see map). Meanwhile, other states of the Middle East were ominously choosing up sides. Items:

JORDAN, with the presumed consent of its ally Saudi Arabia, openly endorsed the Iraqi cause with offers of military aid, including some forces from its well-trained, U.S.-equipped 60,000-man army. King Hussein, who met in Baghdad last week with Iraqi Strongman Saddam Hussein, also organized truck convoys to carry Soviet and East bloc military supplies from the Jordanian port of Aqaba; its harbor was crowded with freighters waiting to unload. Western diplomats speculated that the Saudis, Jordanians and Iraqis had formed a new conservative Arab alliance that was aimed at checking the Iranian brand of revolutionary Islam in the area.

SYRIA has been at political odds with the Baghdad government off and on for several years. President Hafez Assad has accused Saddam Hussein of starting a conflict that distracts Arab energies from the real war, i.e., against Israel. Worried about both his isolation and his vulnerability, Assad in recent months has accused Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia of backing subversives who want to overthrow his regime. On a visit to Moscow last week, he signed a 20-year Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev similar to the one that Moscow has with Iraq. The Kremlin has long sought such a treaty with Syria as a way of gaining a new foothold, and perhaps a reliable ally, in the Middle East.

LIBYA, which in September formed a union with Syria that no one in the Middle East takes very seriously, last week became the first and so far only Arab state to give open support to the Iranians. In a stern message to Saudi Arabia's King Khalid and the rulers of smaller gulf states, Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi declared, "Islamic duty dictates that we ally ourselves with the Muslims in Iran in this crusade [against] the West." From Israel came reports that Iranian air force cargo and refueling planes were flying jet fuel to Tehran from Libya to make up for shortages caused by the destruction of the Abadan refinery. Iraq broke off diplomatic relations with Syria last week, accusing Libya and North Korea of sending arms to Iran.

As for the war, it appeared that neither combatant had the capacity to knock out the other. But nobody was ready to give up either, even though Iraq last week reportedly asked both Turkey and India to mediate a truce, and Iran was considering taking its case against Iraq to an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council. The apparent reason for Tehran's hesitation: fear that other nations would bring up the embarrassing question of the U.S. hostages.

Despite the major advantages of surprise and superior numbers, the Iraqi forces had achieved no major victory in their invasion of Iran along a 500-mile front from the Iranian border town of Qasr-e-Shirin in the north to the port of Khorramshahr in the south. The Iraqi proposal for a "unilateral ceasefire" appeared to have been merely a smokescreen to cover the fact that its forces were making limited progress toward their objectives. Baghdad's battle plan apparently called for the seizure of key cities in Iran's oil-rich Khuzistan province, which has a large Arab minority. The cities would have been held for ransom against a settlement that would give Iraq control of the Shatt al Arab waterway, which it reluctantly agreed to share with the Shah of Iran in 1975. One of Baghdad's ultimate political goals is to overthrow the revolutionary government of Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini, who has urged Iraq's Shi'ite Muslims to oust Saddam Hussein.

The most bitter fighting last week centered on the ongoing battle for control of Khorramshahr, portions of which changed hands several times. Iraqi armor and infantry had previously failed in repeated attempts to dislodge Iranian urban guerrilla units, which had destroyed a large number of Baghdad's tanks with Molotov cocktails. However, Iraqi commando units then succeeded in capturing most of the port area and in repelling a series of savage counterattacks by Iranian regulars and militiamen. Reported an Iranian journalist who witnessed one of the battles: "The carnage was unbelievable. The plains around the city were strewn with corpses." By Saturday the Iraqis claimed that their infantry had crossed the Karun River and thus established a new beachhead beyond Khorramshahr.

The Iraqi drive was aimed at three principal targets: the oil-refining center of Abadan, Khuzistan's capital of Ahwaz, and the important communications junction of Dezful, 150 miles north of Khorramshahr. Outraged Iranian officials announced in midweek that Iraq had fired four Soviet-supplied surface-to-surface missiles on Dezful and neighboring Andimeshk, causing heavy casualties. Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Ali Raja'i, calling the Iraqi action "insane," said that most of the 170 people killed and 300 wounded were civilians. Each of the missiles has a range of about 55 miles--approximately the distance from the Iraqi border to Dezful--and weighs 4,400 Ibs.

Both sides continued to pummel each other with air raids, although neither Iran nor Iraq, curiously, attacked each other's vulnerable oil wells. Iraqi warplanes bombed several factories on the edge of Tehran International Airport, a refinery at Tabriz and the oil-loading terminal at Kharg Island. Iran concentrated its bombing raids on the northern Iraqi cities of Kirkuk, Mosul and Baghdad. Tehran claimed it had shot down 57 Iraqi planes, destroyed scores of tanks and armored personnel carriers, as well as six missile boats, a merchant ship and 67 military bases and key industrial sites. Tehran also claimed that an entire Iraqi regiment of 600 men had surrendered after Iranian forces trapped them in a pincer movement on the northern front.

Iran was fighting a mobile, defensive war, in which regular army units were backed by volunteer groups armed with rifles, Molotov cocktails and grenades. These ad hoc "people's forces" were effective in slowing the Iraqi advance. A key element in the Iranian defense was the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, the civil militia, who made up in tenacity and fanaticism what they lacked in military discipline.

The danger to neutral vessels in the area was underscored by an ugly incident at Khorramshahr. Five ships that had been tied up in port left their berths when the fighting intensified for a safer anchorage in the middle of the Shatt al Arab. The ships were fired upon by the Iranians, and some crewmen who jumped into the river to escape the burning ships were shot at in the water. Both sides claimed the other was responsible.

Despite the offer of support from Libya, Iran was clearly worried about its diplomatic isolation. In a televised address to his people, President Abolhassan Banisadr complained, with mournful hyperbole, "This is the first time in history that a country is being attacked and is supported by no one in the world. It is total isolation and it should make us think. We have to realize that our words and our slogans satisfy no one but us."

The Iranians, though, were apparently resisting discreet Soviet blandishments. According to high Iranian officials, Moscow's lobbying began early in the war. The Soviet Ambassador to Iran, Vladimir Vinogradov, called on Banisadr and assured him that Moscow was opposed to Iraq's invasion. To convince the skeptical Iranian President, he gave Banisadr a transcript of talks held in Moscow the day before between Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy Prime Minister, and Boris Ponomarev, a secretary of the Soviet Communist Party. In the discussion, Ponomarev told Aziz that Moscow did not endorse the Iraqi invasion and demanded an immediate end to the war.

On Oct. 5, Vinogradov met with Iranian Prime Minister Raja'i and declared that Moscow was ready to provide military assistance to Tehran. Raja'i, a devout Muslim fundamentalist, flatly rejected the offer and criticized Moscow for its opportunism. "Nothing you may give us is worth our freedom, independence and Islamic revolution," he reportedly told the ambassador, adding that Iran had strong objections to the Soviets' arming of Iraq and invasion of Afghanistan. Adding insult to injury, Raja'i allowed the official Iranian news agency, PARS, to release a report on the talks. TASS responded by calling the stories about Soviet aid offers "a lie spread by the imperialist press."

A few days later, the irrepressible Vinogradov got a similar lecture from the speaker of the Majlis, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. As the two men entered the parliament building in downtown Tehran, Iraqi Soviet-built MiG-23 fighters roared overhead. "What is it we hear?" asked Vinogradov. "Your own MiGs," retorted Rafsanjani. Rafsanjani then told Vinogradov that Soviet friendship overtures would get nowhere so long as Moscow supported Baghdad and the puppet regime in Afghanistan. TIME has learned that the Iranians believe Moscow knew of the Iraqi attack beforehand, and did not inform Tehran because it saw an opportunity to widen its influence. Said a senior Iranian official: "The Kremlin thought it could easily fill up what it perceived to be a vacuum left by the eviction of the U.S. from Iran."

As usual, Soviet diplomatic intentions were proving hard for Western experts to read accurately. Despite the initial rebuffs from Tehran, the Soviets might well continue their wooing, assuming that sooner or later the isolated Iranians would find it necessary to seek their help. Meanwhile, despite their somewhat prickly relations with the mercurial Saddam Hussein, the Soviets were still on record as being Iraq's principal military supplier. They had also hedged their bets by firming up relations with a potentially useful client in Syria. The Soviets have been Syria's principal arms source since the late '50s, but Assad until now had carefully refused to formalize relations in a treaty. As it stands, the treaty substantially enhances Soviet options in the Middle East and calls for the two countries "to cooperate and coordinate their positions" in the event of a threat to either party.

Israel found itself in the novel position of being a noncombatant in a Middle East conflict. But Israeli officials expressed concern over the Syrian-Soviet treaty, lest it open the door for the stationing of Soviet troops in Syria. The new flirtation between Jordan and Iraq, not to mention the presence of Soviet supply ships in Aqaba harbor, was also worrisome to the Israelis. Warned Prime Minister Menachem Begin: "King Hussein has forgotten the lesson of the 1967 Six-Day War [when Jordan lost East Jerusalem and the West Bank by coming to Egypt's aid] and is jumping on the Iraqi bandwagon. I have the impression that this is not a very wise move on his part." The King justified his support for Iraq on the ground of Arab solidarity, but Western diplomats believe that he was taking a bold gamble. The Israelis always get nervous and trigger-happy, they pointed out, whenever Jordan aligns itself militarily with another Arab state. For that matter, Hussein was also off to Moscow this week to discuss the purchase of military equipment.

Possibly because of Israel's security concerns, the U.S. warned Jordan that U.S.-supplied arms must not be used outside the country without Washington's explicit approval. The Carter Administration, however, reportedly did give Hussein permission to use U.S. arms to defend the oil sheikdoms of the gulf if necessary. Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher announced that the U.S., despite its frequent declarations of neutrality, would "respond to requests for assistance from nonbelligerent friends in the area who feel threatened by the conflict." The U.S. military contingent supporting four electronic surveillance planes (AWACS) loaned to Saudi Arabia had grown to more than 800 men last week. Additional troops and equipment were expected soon. A U.S. military assistance team flew to Riyadh for talks with Saudi officials. Said a State Department specialist: "We are stepping up our dialogue with the Saudis on what they need for their air defense."

While the Saudis were grateful for the AWACs, the gulf states have complained about the U.S. naval buildup outside the Strait of Hormuz in the Arabian Sea. The gulf states share an anguished ambivalence toward American military protection. They want the security of having U.S. forces poised beyond the horizon to salvage them in a crisis, but they do not want them too close for fear of provoking a counterbuildup of Soviet forces.

If there was a sense in the area of American impotence, it was perhaps symbolized best by the fact that the two principals in the war have accused each other of acting as agents of "American imperialism." Iran's Banisadr claimed his government had purchased documents proving that Iraqi officials had plotted their surprise attack in consultation with pro-Shah Iranian exiles and Israeli and U.S. intelligence agents. A top State Department official wearily dismissed the accusation as nonsense. The chances were that interested parties would believe whatever they wanted to believe as they kept choosing up sides in this nasty little war. --By Marguerite Johnson Reported by William Stewart/Khorramshahr and Wilton Wynn/Beirut

With reporting by William Stewart, Wilton Wynn

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.