[I've heard about the incident where Baker gave Tariq Aziz a letter in Geneva, but all I ever heard was that Aziz refused to accept it. I never heard this was part of what was in it. It seems to supply a third and deciding reason why the US didn't march on Baghdad in 1991 -- after "the Arab allies were against it" and "it could have turned Iraq into a larger version of the Lebanese civil war."]
The Financial Times Tuesday, July 9, 2002
Saddam's Vicious Circle by Roula Khalaf
<snip>
But Mr Hussein has also responded to deterrence. Since the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Baghdad appears to have understood that it must not use deadly weapons against its neighbours.
Before the launch of the allied offensive in the Gulf war, James Baker, then US secretary of state, travelled to Geneva to hand Mr Hussein's deputy a letter addressed to the Iraqi leader.
In it he warned that if Iraq used WMD, Mr Hussein would pay "a terrible price" and the US would demand "the strongest possible response". Iraq understood that the US would not seek to overthrow the regime if the weapons were not used.
"For Iraq, weapons of mass destruction are a last resort. Saddam is not a madman, he didn't use WMD in the Gulf war," says a European diplomat who knows Iraq. "But I'm afraid that if the US tries to liquidate him or change his regime, he might have nothing to lose and then resort to their use."
Complete article at:
http://search.ft.com/search/article.html?id=020709000177&query=k amel+and+osirak&vsc_appId=totalSearch&state=Form