Following the expulsion of American arms inspectors and the subsequent withdrawal of the entire U.N. team from Iraq, President Clinton sent a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. After a background report by Charles Krause, Elizabeth Farnsworth discusses the Iraq situation with National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And now to President Clinton's National Security Adviser Samuel Berger. He joins us from the Old Executive Office Building. Thank you for being with us, Mr. Berger.

SAMUEL BERGER, National Security Adviser: Good evening, Elizabeth.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Please tell us as specifically as possible what Iraqi chemical or biological weapons threaten the U.S. and others? Are these weapons that currently exist, or is it the potential to make them that is threatening?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, it's a little bit of both. The U.N. inspectors--the so-called UNSCOM has been extraordinarily successful over the last six years in locating and identifying and destroying much of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, much of his nuclear weapons program. But he still maintains--chemicals and a chemical weapons program, as well as a biological weapons program, and certainly he has the capacity, and he has demonstrated the will to use those weapons. So it's extremely important as long as those weapons exist, or we have not accounted form the weapons that we know were there during the Gulf War, it's extremely important that those inspectors are on the ground, continuing to search for weapons of mass destruction.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Mr. Berger, let's take, for example, the nerve gas called--I guess it's called VX--and it's said to be more powerful than Saran, which is the gas that was used by terrorists in Tokyo in a subway. Does that exist somewhere it could be used, or is it that the potential exists?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, in some cases we know of chemicals that exist and in other cases we know that chemicals did exist during the Gulf War, and we have not been able to account for their destruction. So it's a combination of both. We have to prevent him from using what he has, and we have to prevent him from reconstituting his capacity because we know from past experience that he will use these chemical weapons. There are very few leaders in the international stage that have a track record of using chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein used them in the war against Iran and used them against his own people, and so this is something we have to take seriously. It's not only a capacity. It's also an intent. He's demonstrated the intent. He still has some of this capacity.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Do long range missile still exist to deliver the weapons?

SAMUEL BERGER: We believe that there are some SCUD missiles which are not long range missiles that he retains from the Gulf War. That is one of the things that the inspectors have been searching for.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Earlier today you spoke of the need to keep Saddam Hussein contained in a box. Has he broken out of the box now that the inspectors are gone?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, I think if we simply turned our back on it, the answer to that might be, yes. Let's put this back in perspective. Since the Gulf War--six years now--he has been under the most intensive sanctions, economic sanctions, in the history--of all history. They've cost his country $100 billion. We've made exceptions for humanitarian goods and for him selling oil for humanitarian goods, but this has done tremendous damage. Now, every year or so Saddam Hussein has tested that sanctions regime. In some cases he's tried again to move towards Kuwait, and we've responded. In some cases he's moved against the Kurds in the North, and we've responded. I think that he will test and the international community needs to remain firm.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And speaking of international community in the coalition, what are the chances that the coalition that came together to fight the Gulf War can be brought back together again? For example, the Jordanian foreign minister was quoted in the Boston Globe today as saying it doesn't exist, that there is no coalition anymore.

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, of course, the Jordanians were not part of the original coalition. The--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: But they have been since, so they have been--they turned around somewhat since, right?

SAMUEL BERGER: They have--the relationship with the Iraqis is a very complicated one. I think that what we need to see over the last four or five days is that the international community has spoken with unanimity with respect to what Saddam Hussein has done. In the United Nations Security Council twice this week all 15 members have said very clearly that they reject what Saddam Hussein has done; that he must reverse course; and that if he does not, it will have serious consequences. So I think it's premature to talk about what will happen if. At this point the international community stands together saying clearly Saddam Hussein cannot walk away from his responsibility to let the international community inspect and see that he is dismantling and destroying his weapons of mass destruction.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Are the French or anybody else and other U.S. allies talking directly to Saddam Hussein now?

SAMUEL BERGER: We have--one of the purposes of the intensive diplomacy that Sec. Albright both spoke about and is engaged in, as well as the President and others, is to convey very clearly to Saddam Hussein that the international community stands together on this, and a number of countries, a number of our friends, a number of other countries in the world have more direct communications with Saddam Hussein than we do, and we know that they are conveying a very strong message to him through those channels.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And how long can the diplomatic approach go on, given the fact that I gather some of the weapons, biological or chemical, could be reconstituted fairly quickly? Are we talking days or weeks?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, I think first of all it would take some time for Saddam Hussein to reconstitute that which the inspectors have succeeded in destroying over the past six years, but obviously we have to proceed here deliberately, firmly. We have to make sure and exhaust every avenue to resolve this peacefully but resolve it on the basis of making it absolutely clear that he must come into compliance with the regime that controls his weapons of mass destruction.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You can't say then within a week or within days?

SAMUEL BERGER: No. I don't think we should put any artificial deadlines on this. We're talking about a process here. We've taken some actions on the diplomatic front today. We've taken some actions to reinforce our military posture in the region. We will proceed very steadily, very firmly, and the President's made clear with great determination.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Berger, if the coalition isn't reconstituted in its entirety, could the US--would the U.S. act alone or say with just the British and perhaps one other country?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, there have been other instances in which, for example, an enforcement of the no fly zone over the past several years, where we have done that largely ourselves or with the British or with the British and the French. So I think there are many possibilities here. And we rule out none of them. For now we will reinforce our capacity of flexibility in the Gulf on the military side as we work with our allies to send a very clear, very united, and very firm message to Saddam Hussein that the international community will not accept this.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Do you have any indication from the Saudis whether they would allow planes to take off from Saudi Arabia that were engaged in acts of war against Iraq?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, I think I'm not going to characterize the views of the governments. I think the neighbors of Saddam Hussein, so to speak, are acutely conscious of his destructive potential. I mean, let's recall--it was his invasion with Kuwait which first put him on the world stage in a perverse way. And so I think that there's no question in the area that he's a threat.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Mr. Berger, the idea of leaving force open as an option, why would force--why would force be able to get him to comply, military--a military option force him to comply when it didn't succeed before during the war or in the uses of force since?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, I think let me say first of all that no decisions have been made with respect to that. We want to leave our options open, and we want to have the flexibility to move in different directions, but the objective here is to make sure that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are not threatening to the world. The best way to achieve that is by him permitting the inspectors back in, but if that is not successful, we'll have to consider other steps.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Berger, thank you very much for being with us.

SAMUEL BERGER: Thank you very much, Elizabeth.