WHY CLINTON MAY BE SHAKING KOFI ANNAN'S HAND

Commentary by Richard S. Dunham

If U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has indeed negotiated an end to the treacherous brinkmanship in the Persian Gulf, he is owed a big debt of thanks by both Bill Clinton and Saddam Hussein.

If the apparent agreement brokered on Feb. 22 by Annan proves acceptable to the Clinton Administration, the Iraqi strongman can be thankful that his country won't be subjected to massive aerial bombardment by the U.S. armed services. But Clinton can be thankful, too. Annan's diplomacy apparently has saved the American President from launching a military campaign that he hadn't successfully sold to the American public.

Clinton for weeks proved incapable of making a compelling case for his limited policy objectives in Iraq. Indeed, in the days before Annan's peace mission to Baghdad, White House attempts at persuasion had been counterproductive. Appearances by Clinton's foreign policy team on college campuses were met with jeers and obscenities. European diplomats were exceedingly undiplomatic in their displays of disdain for the U.S. President. America's Arab allies publicly gave America the cold shoulder.

Normally, such bad news would be cause for shame and humiliation in the White House. But not this time.

Why? Saddam Hussein is so reviled in the U.S. that most Americans would be happy to see his country bombed -- even if their President had not successfully made a case for it. By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans say Iraq should be attacked militarily if it interferes with U.N. weapons inspectors, according to a Washington Post/ABC News Poll conducted Feb. 17-18. And by 56% to 40%, Americans say the U.S. should try to force Saddam Hussein from power -- something Bill Clinton has said he's not even trying to accomplish. If the Clinton campaign's 1992 slogan was "It's the economy, stupid," the American people's motto when it comes to Iraq seems to be, "It's stupid Saddam."

That gives any U.S. Administration wide latitude to pursue bellicose objectives. But unlike George Bush, who managed to unify a divided nation and a wary world against Saddam in 1991, Clinton has had trouble making his case. Among his mistakes: He hasn't clearly defined bold short-term objectives or compelling long-term goals. And he has never explained why targeted U.S. military action, without an invasion or overthrow of Saddam, would be more than a temporary "feel-good" measure for domestic political consumption.

In the short run, the Clinton Administration has tried to define its objective in a way that created little risk of operational failure. So the President's goals were remarkably timid: to permit U.N. weapons inspectors to resume their work and reduce Iraq's potential to create biological and chemical weapons. Not to cripple Iraq. Not to eliminate its threat. Not to permanently disable Iraq's war machine or its Revolutionary Guard. Not to topple Saddam Hussein and his ruthless ruling class.

With such modest goals, it's no wonder that many Americans worried that the potential cost of a military adventure -- in U.S. lives and risk to U.S. allies Israel and Kuwait -- would be too great.

What's more, the Administration has not publicly explained its long-term goals in the region. Does it want Saddam Hussein out of power -- or, like George Bush, does it prefer a weakened Saddam to remain as a Persian Gulf counterweight to Iran? Twenty years after the Islamic revolution in Iran, does the U.S. want to make a diplomatic opening to Iran -- or does it see Iran and Iraq as implacable enemies?

These are questions the Clinton foreign policy team sidestepped as it talked of military action against Iraq. But they are questions that must be dealt with publicly in coming months -- whether Kofi Annan has scored a diplomatic coup or not.

In the meantime, Bill Clinton is fortunate to have Saddam Hussein around. As long as the Iraqi dictator is on the scene, the President is likely to have a degree of public support for whatever action he chooses to take. When it comes to a showdown with Iraq, there's only one man who can sell the American public on the need for tough action: Saddam Hussein.

Business Week White House Correspondent Dunham offers his views frequently on Mondays for BW Online.