An Interview with Saddam Hussein

By Murray J. Gart, Dean Brelis

"The chances for peace appear slim"

The scene around Baghdad's presidential office served as vivid testimony to a leader under siege: tanks blocked all entrances, and red-bereted paratroopers in camouflage battle dress alertly stood guard. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein last week invited Time Inc. Senior Editor Murray J. Gart and TIME Correspondent Dean Brelis there for a rare formal interview, the first given to U.S. journalists in a year. Looking very fit despite the effects of a dawn-to-dusk fast in observance of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, the Iraqi leader was a commanding presence in his field marshal's uniform as he discussed for two hours the tumult in the Middle East and his country's future. Excerpts:

On Relations with the U.S.: I have nothing personal against the U.S. We want to have good relations. But how? Until now, the position of the U.S. toward Iraq and the Arabs has been hostile. Before the war, I discussed seriously the question of resuming relations with the U.S. with some of my comrades in the leadership. We are not weak, and because of the war, we did not want our position to be taken as a sign of weakness, that we were begging. At the appropriate time we will tell the Americans, "Come." It is unnatural not to have relations with one of the two superpowers.

On the Iran-Iraq War: Until June 29, we were inside Iranian territory. [Iraq invaded Iran on Sept. 22, 1980, claiming full sovereignty over the Shatt al Arab waterway.] As we declared, our army pulled back to the international border. The Iranians have not responded to our peaceful attempts. We had hoped that Iran would put into effect a cease-fire and enter into negotiations. The Iranian regime faces two choices: either its troops remain where they are, engaging in artillery exchanges, or they try to penetrate our territory. If they attack, they will fail. They will not be capable of imposing a regime on Iraq that would be a lackey for Tehran. They will have to abandon their dreams and hallucinations, and agree to coexist peacefully with Iraq.

On the Costs of the War: During the war the work force was reduced by 40% to 45% because the men were sent to the front. If you are talking about the financial situation, we have taken loans from some of our Arab brothers [about $20 billion was provided by gulf states for the Iraqi war effort]. Bankruptcy is not a possibility. If we are required to stop any of our development projects to meet battlefield requirements, we shall do so.

On Iran's Military Success: What has changed is the arrival of foreign expertise in an organized manner inside their lines. But we will be capable of overcoming them now that we are in our own territory, no matter how much expertise and equipment they get. I can mention the foreign support--you know, the Israeli expertise, and the North Koreans [who are serving as arms suppliers]. We also have a conviction that certain Soviet arms managed to reach them, but until now I cannot confirm it absolutely.

On Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini: The chances for peace appear slim because Khomeini is a politician, not a man of principle. As time goes by, he is beginning to reveal his superficiality. The more he talks, the more he makes himself a laughingstock. I wish the whole world would read his statements to form an impression of this shallow devil. The actions he has carried out do not indicate that he is a rational person.

On Moslem Sectarian Strife: A great deal of misinformation has been spread in the Western press concerning religious differences in Iraq. It is true that religious and sectarian differences could create problems in some countries, but not in Iraq. I am not saying we do not have any problems at all. Any leader would prefer his people to think from one point of view, to be of one religion, one sect, in one city. The Iraqi people think from various angles but agree on one central point. We have Sunnis and Shi'ites here, that is a fact. But all of them are Iraqis, and all of them love their revolution. They are fighting their enemy with the same spirit.

On the U.S.S.R.: The Soviet Union says frankly that it is interested in preserving Iraq and does not want to see our country in a bad condition. At the same time, the Soviets say that what took place in Iran, after the fall of the Shah, has the meaning of a great change in international strategy. Iran lies on the frontier of the Soviet Union. We are not accusing or cursing the Soviet Union. Iran is. We are not following the Soviet Line. Iran is. The Soviets have targets and aims in the region, among them Iran.

On the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon: I believe the bitterness caused by the invasion cannot yet be evaluated, but it will have consequences contrary to those that the planners of this dirty operation had imagined. We reaffirm the saying: we are always with any Arab, wherever he may be, against any foreigner if he is an aggressor against Arabs.

On U.S. Policy in the Middle East: I believe America has three fundamental interests in the region--commercial trade, improved economic relations and keeping countries from being attracted by the alternative influence [the Soviet Union]. These three considerations can be fulfilled. Take technology and expertise. Do they exist in the Soviet Union or in America? I will answer you. The technology we require exists in the U.S., or in Europe and Japan. If there were a relationship between the Arabs and the West based on mutual respect, you would see the size of trade grow between us.

On Israel: Israel considers itself in a state of war with Iraq. We have not carried out a military action against Israel since the 1973 war. Yet when we became involved in the war with Iran, Israel came and stabbed us in the back. How can we interpret the Israeli strike against Iraq's nuclear reactor last summer except as an act of war? You should not let the Israelis be so arrogant. If President Reagan were here, I would tell him very precisely not to use the Israeli club. You must not exaggerate the strength of Israel. You must advise Israel to look at its long-term future and not use all its strength to seize Arab lands. Israel is like Khomeini, although in a different way, with a different mentality.

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