AIPAC Blocks Saudi Arms Sale

By Dennis J. Wamsted

Highly coordinated opposition from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC, the principal pro-Israel lobbying group in the US) and its congressional supporters forced the Reagan administration to withdraw "temporarily" on June 11 its planned sale to Saudi Arabia of 1,600 Maverick air-to-ground missiles, valued at $360 million. Earlier, at the end of May, also under heavy AIPAC and congressional pressure, the White House had withdrawn "temporarily" its plan to sell Saudi Arabia 12 F-15 jet fighters, valued at $500 million, to replace aircraft damaged or destroyed in training exercises. In the case of the proposed sale of the F-15s, many congressmen seeking to block the sale raised the most improbable grounds ever advanced to justify thwarting a key administration proposal and complying with an AIPAC demand: they cited an alleged "refusal" by Saudi air force planes to intercept the Iraqi jet which had mistakenly fired a French-built Exocet missile at the USS Stark, killing 37 crewmen. However, the ironic truth of the matter is that the Saudi pilots were operating according to strict standing orders issued by the US governing the use of American-built aircraft. Even if they had chosen to intercept the Iraqi plane as it returned to its base, the Saudi jets would have been unable to since, due to earlier pro-Israel pressure by Congress, the F-15s that were sold to Saudi Arabia were not equipped with long-range fuel tanks. The ease with which AIPAC and its congressional allies whipped up enough votes to halt these two sales, at exactly the time when the administration was almost desperately seeking Saudi support for US actions in the Gulf, promises to further complicate US-Saudi relations.

In the case of the missile proposal, on Friday, May 29, the White House officially notified Congress of its intent to sell Saudi Arabia 1,600 Maverick AGM-65D antitank missiles. By Wednesday, June 3, only three working days after the official proposals were announced, measures to prohibit the proposed sale had been introduced in both the House and Senate, even though no hearings had been held or even scheduled by either the House Foreign Affairs or Senate Foreign Relations Committees. Eight days later, on June 11, Senator Robert Packwood (R-OR), whose 1986 re-election campaign received at least $36,500 from pro-Israel political action committees (PACs), triumphantly announced that 66 other senators had joined him in co-sponsoring the disapproval resolution, thereby ensuring enough votes to override a Presidential veto and cancel the proposed arms sale.

At AIPAC's recent national convention, held in Washington, DC, AIPAC executive director Thomas Dine had said that blocking arms sales to Arab states was a top priority for the pro-Israel lobby in 1987. The speed with which the House and Senate measures of disapproval were introduced and supported shows both the seriousness of AIPAC opposition to US support for any Middle East state other than Israel and the near-stranglehold that lobby currently has on US Middle East policy.

Pro-Israel Legislators Led Effort

Representative Larry Smith (D-FL), a staunchly pro-Israel member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee's subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East, introduced the disapproval measure in the House. Smith, who is Jewish and who received at least $52,500 in campaign contributions from pro-Israel PACs in 1986—more than any other House member—castigated the Reagan administration for again proposing an arms sale to the Saudis. "What have we gotten in return," Rep. Smith asked. "Consistent refusals from the Saudis to help us in any way, shape, or form to structure a sound ...peace-achieving process in the Middle East." Smith's criticisms were echoed by Senator Packwood, a long-standing supporter of Israel who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. "The Saudis have consistently opposed every American peace initiative in the Middle East," the Oregon senator claimed. "They have consistently refused to negotiate for peace with Israel."

These statements, and a host of others by various senators and representatives about the Saudis' purported reluctance to support US efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli dispute, are as false as they are familiar. Substantially similar arguments were put forward in 1986 during debate on the administration's proposal to sell the Saudis a package of air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, along with ground-to-air, hand-held Stinger missiles. That sale, which was ultimately pared down from $354 million to $265 million, was approved by a razor-thin one-vote margin in the Senate. At the time, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) erroneously charged: "The Saudis failed to support President Reagan's own peace proposal of 1982 and even went so far as to discourage King Hussein of Jordan from entering into negotiations." Likewise, in announcing his disapproval of the most recent administration proposal, Senator David Durenberger (R-MN), a leading pro-Israel figure on Capitol Hill, also erroneously asserted that the Saudis were "not forthcoming" after President Reagan proclaimed his "bold" Middle East peace initiative in 1982.

These and other legislators clearly had not done their homework on recent Middle East history before they jumped in front of the television cameras. The fact is that Saudi Arabia has worked for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace and has supported US Mideast peace initiatives more consistently than has Israel. However, in their rush to ensure the availability of pro-Israel PAC funds for their re-election campaigns, some 66 senators apparently found it convenient to overlook this basic fact.

In 1981 Saudi Arabia's then-Crown Prince Fahd worked hard to forge an Arab consensus for peace based on principles he had derived from UN Security Council Resolution 242's land-for-peace formula. His only addition was to ensure self-determination for the Palestinians, who have pointed out that 242's reference to a just solution to the refugee problem does not adequately protect their interests. Syrian opposition prevented adoption that year by all Arab states of the Fahd peace plan. One year later, however, following Israel's invasion of Lebanon and the announcement of President Reagan's September 1982 peace plan, members of the Arab League met in Fez, Morocco, and unanimously approved the Saudi-proposed peace principles based on UN Resolution 242. Moreover, the final communique of the Fez Arab summit meeting noted that the Fez plan was "not incompatible" with the Reagan plan. By contrast, Israel's then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin had categorically rejected the Reagan initiatives less than 24 hours after it was proposed. And, to add insult to injury, Begin had at the same time announced the establishment of 10 more Jewish settlements on the West Bank, an area that under the Reagan plan would be returned to the Arabs. In 1982 Congress responded to Israel's insulting rejection of the Reagan peace plan by increasing Israel's military grant aid by $500 million, to replace the material expended in the invasion of Lebanon, which killed at least 20,000 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians.

For its efforts to achieve a just Arab-Israeli peace, however, Saudi Arabia has been virtually precluded from purchasing American arms, and the Kingdom has therefore turned to European manufacturers. In 1985, after threatened opposition from AIPAC and its congressional allies forced the Reagan administration to abandon its proposal to sell Saudi Arabia 40 F-15 jet fighters, the Kingdom reached an agreement with Britain to purchase 72 Tornado jet fighters for nearly $8 billion. At 20,000 US jobs per billion dollars, that one congressional action cost 160,000 American jobs, exclusive of training and other follow-up contracts that might have doubled or tripled that number.

AIPAC Briefing Paper Read Virtually Verbatim

This congressional obliviousness to both history and American interests in the Middle East stems directly from AIPAC's influence over Congress and, through it, over US Middle Eastern policy. This was demonstrated clearly on June 3, when senators spoke in support of Packwood's resolution of disapproval. Most of the senators drew extensively on a briefing paper circulated by AIPAC. Some seemed terrified to deviate one iota from the line laid down by the AIPAC paper. A comparison of on-the-record remarks by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Alan Dixon (D-IL) show how closely these two senators stuck to the AIPAC script, while pretending to speak extemporaneously:

Sen. Lautenberg: "...The Saudis have consistently opposed every American peace initiative in the Middle East....They have refused to come to the peace table with Israel, our most reliable ally in the region."
Sen. Dixon: "The Saudis have consistently opposed every American peace initiative in the Middle East....They have consistently refused to negotiate for peace with Israel, our most reliable ally in the region."

Sen. Lautenberg: "Not only have the Saudis failed to take steps of their own toward peace, they have been a negative influence on other moderate Arab nations."
Sen. Dixon: "Not only have the Saudis failed to take steps of their own toward peace, they have helped derail it."

Sen. Lautenberg: "Nor have the Saudis...supported our other foreign policy goals in the region....including our efforts to curb the outlaw Ghadafi regime, our attempts to expand our strategic presence in the Gulf, and attempts to stop the terrorist activities of the PLO and Syria."
Sen. Dixon: "The Saudis have also repeatedly opposed other US interests in the region, including our effort to curb the outlaw Ghadafi regime, US attempts to expand our strategic presence in the Persian Gulf, and attempts to isolate...the terrorist activities of the PLO and Syria."

Administration officials were predictably unhappy with the congressional opposition. Withdrawing the sale "sends exactly the wrong signal" to Saudi Arabia, President Reagan said in a statement. Similarly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Richard Murphy said the congressional action was "a slap across the face" of Saudi Arabia. Nonetheless, Pentagon and congressional sources say that barring a dramatic change in the current regional situation—such as potentially decisive Iranian gains in the Iran-Iraq war—the administration will not attempt any further arms sales to countries in the Gulf region, and Saudi Arabia in particular, this year.

Dennis J. Wamsted is a free-lance writer specializing in Middle East affairs and the US Congress.