(2 of 5)
The next day, that hypocritical display of hospitality was exposed as a sham. U.S. embassy staff and dependents who had traveled to Baghdad from Kuwait City late in the week, apparently with the assurance that they would be permitted to continue to safety in Jordan, were detained. They had made the trip after Washington decided to evacuate everyone but the ambassador, Nathaniel Howell, and a skeleton staff. That decision followed the refusal of the U.S. -- and most other countries with diplomatic business in Kuwait -- to obey Iraq's order that all embassies be closed, in keeping with Saddam's contention that Kuwait is now part of Iraq. On Saturday Howell and his small staff remained at the embassy in Kuwait City, their electricity cut off, surrounded by Iraqi troops.
Bush and his inner circle of advisers have considered several scenarios for the way the crisis may play out and are refining their responses to each contingency. The most crucial factor is time. If, for example, the embargo takes many months to exert serious pressure on Saddam, says a White House official, "Iraq could simply hunker down and wait us out." A protracted stalemate could cause U.S. allies to tire of the mission or permit friction between American troops and the Saudi population to fester. In the U.S., public impatience with the cost of the buildup could lead to demands for a withdrawal.
But what if the blockade is effective and Saddam proves as good as his threat to make sure his Western "guests" suffer the same fate as Iraqis? The Administration's answer is that it would try to fine-tune the effort to maximize the discomfort of Iraqis, and thus the political pressure on Saddam, without causing actual starvation. To stave off a famine, it might, for example, agree to permit emergency shipments of baby formula and grain.
How might Americans -- and the rest of the world -- react to the sight on television of hostages, including women and children, wasting away under an embargo imposed by their own government? Bush and his inner circle are banking on their belief that most Americans, having seen what happened in Iran and Lebanon, now agree it is a mistake to let U.S. policy be the ransom for hostages' lives. Bush, explains an Administration official, "is not going to sacrifice the interests of 250 million Americans in an attempt to buy the freedom of 2,500 Americans."
Some influential Americans, including Henry Kissinger, have been urging Bush to launch a strike against Saddam before he has time to deploy the hostages as "human shields" at Iraqi military installations. But that option has been ruled out because the Administration believes it is essential for Iraq to be seen as the initiator of a military conflict. If America were to strike first and the Iraqi leader killed hostages in retaliation, says an Administration official, "we might well be blamed at home and abroad for recklessly provoking him." There is little doubt, however, that any actual harm to the hostages would trigger immediate and massive retaliation.