Since the Aug. 2 invasion of Kuwait, President George Bush and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s moves are closely followed by millions, including Kurt Wenner, NIU political scientist since 1971.

“Saddam Hussein and President Bush are faced with a limited number of moves, each of which is largely determined by previous moves and countermoves and which will, in turn, determine or provoke future moves,” Wenner said.

Wenner, a specialist in Middle East and Arab politics in the Persian Gulf, said “Hussein could attack U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia on the grounds they are imperialist and only there to prop up reactionary regimes.”

Another option available to Hussein is involving Isreal in the conflict, directly or indirectly. He feels this would be the most dangerous to the stability of the area.

Hussein’s third option is to wait, he said.

A compromise is the final and prefered option, Wenner said. “Saddam Hussein has changed the justification for his annexation of Kuwait, and thereby changed the compromise options he has offered,” he said.

“His subsequent offer to withdraw from Kuwait, if Israel would withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and Syria would withdraw from Lebanon, suggests that the invasion and subsequent offer to withdraw were just bargaining chips to affect other policies in the region.”

One of the United State’s options would be to attack Kuwait because Iraq is holding U.S. civilians and diplomatic personnel as hostages, Wenner said. “A war begun by the U.S. against Kuwait is a poor political option, aside from what it might cost in men, material and physical destruction,” he said.

Wenner believes another unfavorable option would be to attack Iraq. “An attack would likey lead to the death of all the hostages, casualties, and equipment costs,” Wenner said.

The most peaceful choice would be to keep blockading and boycotting Iraqi goods, Wenner said. This could require force if Iraq decides to break the blocade, he said.

The United States could develop a stalemate by keeping Hussein busy, Wenner said. “This is a poor choice for the U.S. since it is likely to lead to disenchantment with the U.S. presence in the region.

“It is likely, in other words, that the U.S. will find itself more isolated, and its presence will therefore become ever more precarious to the public and media and policy-makers at home.”