The October War and U.S. Policy

Thirty years ago, on 6 October 1973 at 2:00 p.m. (Cairo time), Egyptian and Syrian forces launched coordinated attacks on Israeli forces in the Sinai and the Golan Heights. Known variously as the October War or the Yom Kippur War, this conflict lasted until late October when Washington and Moscow, working through the United Nations, forced a cease-fire on the warring parties. The October war had a fundamental impact on international relations not only by testing the durability of U.S.-Soviet détente but also by compelling the United States to put the Arab-Israeli conflict on the top of its foreign policy agenda. The threat of regional instability, energy crises, and superpower confrontation, made a U.S. hands-on role in the region inescapable. Since the fall of 1973, Washington has played a central role in the protracted, if checkered, effort to address the conflicting security and territorial objectives of Arabs and Israelis. Recently declassified U.S. archival material, unearthed by the National Security Archive, provides critically important information on American policies, perceptions, and decisions during the conflict.

Significant scholarship on the October War, by such analysts as Richard Ned Lebow and Janice Gross Stein, William P. Quandt, and Kenneth W. Stein, among others, has explored key issues and developments, such as Egyptian and Syrian objectives, superpower relations with the belligerents, U.S. and Israeli intelligence failures, the role of Moscow and Washington in escalating and dampening the fighting, and the impact of such key personalities as Kissinger and Sadat. (Note 1) New archival records, routinely declassified under Executive Order 12958, from the State Department's central files and the Nixon Presidential Materials Project at the National Archives (College Park), illuminate these and related issues. Organized chronologically (with a few exceptions) more or less corresponding to the stages of the fighting, this briefing book provides some of the highlights of the declassified archival record. Published here for the first time are documents reflecting:

the failure of U.S. intelligence to perceive the imminent threat of war; according to the State Department's intelligence chief, Ray Cline: "Our difficulty was partly that we were brainwashed by the Israelis, who brainwashed themselves." (document 63)

the advance warnings of a possible Egyptian-Syrian attack received by the Israelis and Kissinger's advice to Prime Minister Gold Meir to avoid preemptive action (documents 7, 9, 10, and 18)

the initial state of confusion in the U.S. intelligence community about the possibility of war (document 13)

Kissinger's early decisions to provide military aid to Israel (documents 18 and 21) and stay in touch with Arab leaders, to maximize U.S. diplomatic influence (documents 20, 44, and 63)

Kissinger's initial downplaying of Arab threats of an oil embargo and production cuts (document 36A)

Kissinger's "shock" at, and refusal to follow, Nixon's instruction to establish a U.S.-Soviet condominium to enforce a peace settlement (documents 47 and 48)

the complete record of Kissinger's 20-22 October talks with the Soviets and the Israelis on a United Nations Security Council cease-fire resolution (documents 46, 49-50, 53-56)

Kissinger's virtual green light for Israeli violations of the UN cease-fire (documents 51 and 54)

Brezhnev's use of the U.S.-Soviet hotline to protest Israeli cease-fire violations and the entrapment of Egypt's Third Army (documents 61A and B)

Brezhnev's 24 October letter that prompted the U.S. Defcon III nuclear alert (document 71)

Kissinger's rage at West European governments, whom he saw as acting like "jackals" and "hostile powers," for not supporting U.S. policy (documents 63 and 75)

tense meetings of NATO's North Atlantic Council where U.S. Ambassador Donald Rumsfeld heard complaints about the lack of advance notice of the U.S. alert (documents 79A and B)

Kissinger's conviction that war had put the United States in a "central position" in the Middle East while the Soviets had been "defeated" (document 63)

U.S.-Palestinian Liberation Organization contacts during the war (document 78)

the record of emotional conversations between Kissinger and Meir over cease-fire arrangements (documents 91A and B, 93A and B)

As significant as the new material is, highly important U.S. documentation on the October War remains classified, especially among the National Security Files in the Nixon Presidential Materials Project. The withheld material includes intelligence reports, back channel messages sent through CIA offices, and a variety of other documents. Perhaps most important, almost all of the transcripts of meetings of the Washington Special Action Group (WSAG)--a special NSC sub-committee responsible for handling crisis situations--remain classified even though thirty years have passed. In addition, declassification work at the Nixon Presidential Materials Project is short-staffed and mandatory review requests take considerable time to process. Thus, it may be some years before new archival information on the October War becomes available. (Note 2)

The transcripts of Henry Kissinger's telephone conversations ("telcons") are an especially important classified primary source on the October War. For years under Kissinger's personal control, all of the telcons are now under review at the National Archives and the Department of State. A new book by Kissinger, Crisis, consists of transcripts of his telephone calls during October 1973. (Note 3) This is a significant collection which elucidates key developments during the war. Unfortunately, the documents themselves are not available, only Kissinger's edited rendition of them. Crisis is by no means a stand-alone account of U.S. policy during the October War in part because it overlooks events, such as Kissinger's meetings with the Israelis on 22 October that had critically important consequences for the course of the fighting.

As useful as Kissinger's compilation is, the documents have been edited by him as well as excised by the National Security Council. A fuller picture of the October War may not be available until the universe of Kissinger telcons is open for research. Moreover, Kissinger's own record may be incomplete. Other U.S. senior officials who participated in these events kept their own records of telephone conversations which may be as illuminating as Kissinger's. Walter Isaacson's 1992 biography of Kissinger cites some of this material. For example, on 6 October, Kissinger urged Nixon assistant, General Alexander Haig to keep Nixon in Florida in order to avoid "any hysterical moves" and to "keep any Walter Mitty tendencies under control." This language does not appear in Crisis. On 12 October, when the airlift decisions were being made, Kissinger told Schlesinger that the situation in Israel was "near disaster" and that it was due to "massive sabotage" by the Pentagon. "Massive sabotage" does not appear in Crisis either. (Note 4)

The story of the October War and its background is a complex one that is necessarily simplified in the commentary on the documents selected for this briefing book. Unlike today's Mideast crisis, which focuses on Palestinian grievances against Israeli occupation, the issue that sparked war in 1973 was the outcome of the last Arab-Israeli conflict, the "Six Day War" of June 1967. During the months before the 1967 war, neighboring states, who denied Israel diplomatic recognition, threatened Israel's very existence. Worried that an Arab attack was imminent, the Israelis launched a preemptive strike against Egyptian and Syrian forces on 5 June 1967. Within a few days, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) had seized the Sinai Peninsula to the Suez Canal from Egypt, Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights--or the Jawlan--from Syria. The conflict and its outcome came before the United Nations Security Council, which after protracted discussion passed Resolution 242 calling for a full settlement. The resolution, however, was ambiguous enough to fit U.S. President Lyndon Johnson's basic objective: the United States would support Israeli territorial acquisitions until the Arab states were willing to declare peace with Tel Aviv. (Note 5)

The extraordinary Israeli victory laid the basis for greater instability, on the one hand, creating what one analyst calls an "impertinent sense of invulnerability" in Tel Aviv, and, on the other hand, kindling irredentist sentiments in Egypt and Syria. (Note 6) While creating buffer zones eased short-term security concerns for Israel, a new threat loomed as Arab military defeats encouraged Palestinians to take the route of armed struggle. During the next six years, the Egyptians would engage in low-level conflict in the Sinai ("War of Attrition") while members of Black September would kill Israeli Olympians in Munich and U.S. diplomats in the Sudan, among other incidents. In September 1970, aircraft highjackings triggered a rebellion against King Hussein by Palestinian militants. With Syrian tanks entering Jordan, the possibility of wider conflict loomed but tensions lessened after Syrian forces withdrew under attack and the PLO was expelled from Jordan. Linking Damascus with Moscow, the Nixon administration defined the crisis in Cold War terms and treated Israel, which had been ready to strike Syrian forces, as a Cold War ally that had to be armed. The Nixon administration provided Israel with over a billion dollars in military credits to support sales of F-4 Phantom jets and other equipment.

Peace efforts on the Middle East made little progress prior to 1973. During the early 1970s, UN envoy Gunnar Jarring and U.S. Secretary of State William Rogers floated plans to settle disputed issues, but their initiatives failed. The Israelis, who were internally divided over the basis for a settlement, were unresponsive to Egyptian overtures and the Nixon White House, preoccupied with Vietnam and seeing no immediate threat to the peace, had low motivation to pull its weight. Egyptian president Anwar Sadat was interested in developing closer ties with Washington and displayed Egyptian independence by expelling thousands of Soviet advisers in mid-1972, but Washington responded slowly to this initiative. While Cairo-Moscow ties were fraying, the Soviets sought a role in the region. Egypt remained dependent on Soviet military aid and Moscow continued to supply Syria.

With diplomacy stalemated, during 1972 and 1973, Sadat believed that the military option was necessary to secure U.S. political intervention and to facilitate negotiations. To bring U.S. influence on Egypt's side, he was willing to make a separate arrangement with Israel over the Sinai, although he would keep his flexibility secret from leaders of other Arab states. To make the military option workable, that is to disperse Israeli forces during war, Sadat realized that he needed partners. A non-military ally was King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, who promised to use the oil weapon against the United States. For military action, Sadat turned to Syrian President Hafez el-Assad although the basis for cooperation was narrow because of differences in objectives. Determined to recover the Golan Heights, Assad had little interest in a relationship with Washington and rejected the possibility of negotiations. He saw Israel's very existence as abhorrent. Moreover, while Sadat secretly envisioned a limited war with Israel, Assad incorrectly assumed the possibility of a greater conflict that would force Israel to surrender the West Bank. Differences over strategy would undermine the Assad-Sadat partnership soon after the fighting began. (Note 7)

Once begun, the October War would yield military triumphs and reverses for all sides. Egyptian and Syrian surprise attacks would stun the Israelis as Arab forces poured over the Suez Canal and into the Golan Heights. While the Israelis expected quickly to reverse the situation, they suffered significant losses during the first few days. The Egyptians successfully kept forces on the Canal's east bank, but success turned into near disaster as Israeli troops, led by General Ariel Sharon, among others, launched counter-offensives, seized positions on the Canal's west bank and trapped Egypt's Third Army. U.S. diplomatic intervention saved Egyptian forces from destruction. Syria fared worse, with Israeli forces winning back control of the Golan Heights and moving troops within striking range of Damascus. Yet, as IDF generals would ruefully acknowledge, Egyptian and Syrian forces fought valiantly. The human toll was substantial. By the end of the war, 2,200 Israelis soldiers had been killed, which in percentage terms was equivalent to 200,000 Americans. This was four times as many as in the Six Day War. Another 5,600 were wounded. 8,500 Arabs were killed--many of them Syrian--but far fewer than the 61,000 lost during the Six Day War. (Note 8)

Soon after the fighting started, the war developed into an international crisis, not least because Washington and Moscow had significant interests in the region. For both superpowers, credibility was a central consideration. And as Nixon put it, several weeks into the war, "No one is more keenly aware of the stakes: Oil and our strategic position." (Note 9) Both states had already armed their respective Arab and Israeli clients and both launched massive airlifts to sustain the battlefield strength of their allies. Although the Egyptians and Syrians suffered battlefield reverses, their resolve and a determined Israeli counter-attack kept the fighting going. Angered by the U.S. airlift, the Arab petroleum exporting states embargoed oil deliveries to the United States, thus producing a significant energy crisis. While both Moscow and Washington recognized the danger of confrontation and intermittently supported cease-fires, their political commitments made that support equivocal with destabilizing consequences. Superpower tensions over Israeli violations of the 22 October cease-fire escalated to the point where the Nixon administration staged a Defcon III nuclear alert, yet with all of the strains, détente prevented a serious clash.

The need to avoid U.S.-Soviet confrontation made it all the more essential for Kissinger to press Israel to let non-military supplies reach the beleaguered Third Army. The U.S. intervention on behalf of Sadat and his troops foreshadowed Washington's new diplomatic role, the development for which Sadat had waged war. In late October, Israeli and Egyptian senior officers began meeting to work out the details of the cease-fire which culminated, after Kissinger became involved, in the "Sinai I" disengagement agreement of January 1974. Consistent with Sadat's nationalist orientation, Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian territory was his principal objective and it was largely attained before his assassination in 1981. Nevertheless, other issues from the 1967 war--Israeli control of the Golan Heights and the West Bank--remain contested and a source of dangerous tension to this day.

The ongoing Watergate crisis and the financial scandal that brought down Vice President Spiro Agnew intersected with the October War. Agnew's resignation and the need to appoint a new vice president distracted Nixon. So did the constitutional battle with Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, Attorney General Elliot Richardson, and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, whose firings--"the Saturday Night Massacre"--coincided with Kissinger's trip to Moscow. While Nixon's political prestige was collapsing, Kissinger's was growing even more. With Nixon embattled, Henry Kissinger emerged as the key U.S. decisionmaker during the October War. (Note 10)

Documents

Note: The following documents are in PDF format.
You will need to download and install the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.

Document 1: Memorandum from National Security Council [NSC] Staff, "Indications of Arab Intentions to Initiate Hostilities," n.d. [early May 1973]

Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials Project (hereinafter NPMP), Henry Kissinger Office Files (hereinafter HAKOF), box 135, Rabin/Kissinger (Dinitz) 1973 Jan-July (2 of 3)

In the early spring of 1973, Sadat told Newsweek journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave that the "time has come for a shock" but no one at the time believe he had a plan for war. That in October 1972 he had already made a basic decision for war, if not its exact timing, was a well-kept secret. (Note 11) Certainly, the spring of 1973 augured the possibility of great instability in the Middle East: a looming energy crisis, Saudi intimations that the kingdom might use the oil weapon in the absence of a Middle East settlement, and Israeli raids on PLO offices in Beirut. Moreover, Egypt and other Arab states were making quiet military moves that portended possible action. The NSC analysts who may have prepared this report believed that various moves that U.S. intelligence had picked up--movement of surface-to-air missiles and bombers, higher alert for air forces, reports on war planning, and the like--indicated that those states were "preparing for war." Nevertheless, they could not be sure whether these developments indicated intentions to attack or a ploy to put "psychological pressures" on Tel Aviv and Washington. A safe conclusion was that "whatever the Egyptian and Arab leaders intend at this state, the pattern of their action thus far does not provide the Arabs with a rational basis for an attack at an early date." Sadat would not take military action "within the next six weeks," probably not before the "next UN debate." At the close of May, however, a few weeks after the preparation of this report, Roger Merick, an analyst at State Department's Intelligence and Research prepared a report forecasting a "better than 50 percent chance of major" Egyptian-Israel hostilities within six months. (Note 12) The INR estimate, which has not yet been found and declassified, generated greater interest in the State Department in steps to facilitate Arab-Israeli negotiations.

Document 2A: Memorandum of Conversation [Memcon] between Muhammad Hafez Ismail and Henry A. Kissinger, 20 May 1973, 10:15 a.m.

Document 2B: Memorandum from Kissinger to the President, "Meeting with Hafiz Ismail on May 20," 2 June 1973

During the late winter and spring of 1973, Henry Kissinger held several secret meetings on Middle East issues in New York and France with Muhammad Hafez Ismail, Sadat's national security adviser. When they first met in February, Hafez and Kissinger had a wide ranging, although inconclusive, discussion of Egyptian-Israeli relations and the relationship of an Egypt-Israel settlement to the Palestinian problem, among other issues.
This meeting did not start off well because press leaks had disclosed U.S. plans to provide Israel with F-4 Phantom Jets, a development that naturally discomfited the Egyptians. Kissinger tried to persuade Hafez that the administration's step-by-step approach balancing security and sovereignty concerns was more likely to win Israeli cooperation than the Egyptian approach emphasizing a comprehensive settlement of the 1967 borders. But Hafez was skeptical, worrying, for example, that once a step had been taken, e.g. a preliminary agreement over the Sinai, that Washington would lose interest. Kissinger and Ismail had further communications but they did not meet again before war broke out. Whatever the actual diplomatic possibilities were, Sadat had already decided that military action was essential to break the diplomatic stalemate and get Washington's attention. According to one of Ismail's staffers, Ahmad Maher El-Sayed, who was present at the meetings, "What we heard from Kissinger was `don't expect to win on the negotiating table what you lost on the battlefield.'" In other words, Washington could do little to help as long as Egypt was the defeated power. Thus, Egypt had to "do something." If Kissinger said anything to that effect privately, the present document does not include it. Instead, it shows Ismail treating "war" as the alternative to accepting the "status quo," with Kissinger plainly seeing war as a bad choice: "military action will make [the] situation worse." In any event, nothing that Kissinger said would encourage Sadat to reverse the decision for war. Interestingly, however, Ismail himself may have opposed the final decision to launch hostilities [see Document 8]. (Note 13)

Document 3: Henry Kissinger, Memorandum for the President's Files, "President's Meeting with General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev on Saturday, June 23, 1973 at 10:30 p.m. at the Western White House, San Clemente, California

During 1973, the U.S.-Soviet Union détente process continued to unfold with Nixon and Brezhnev holding a summit meeting at Camp David and the "Western White House" in June. With the second phase of the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks going slowly, the summit made no progress in that area, although it did unveil the controversial Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War. During the meetings in California, Brezhnev kept Nixon and Kissinger up late on the night of 23 June so that he could put across his concerns about the Middle East and China. While the Soviets knew nothing of Sadat's decisions until October, Brezhnev presciently emphasized the danger of the Middle East situation. Sharing his apprehension that war might break out unless the superpowers encouraged negotiations he said: "we must put this warlike situation to an end." Brezhnev further argued for the importance of agreement on "principles," such as guarantees for Israeli withdrawal from Arab territories but Nixon, while agreeing that the Middle East was a "matter of highest urgency," was not interested in making any decisions that evening. Brezhnev's principles, however, were inconsistent with the step-by-step approach that Kissinger had been pushing. Apparently Kissinger (and probably Nixon as well) was resentful that Brezhnev had raised this subject with no notice, as Kissinger privately noted: "Typical of Soviets to spring on us at last moment without any preparation."

Document 4: Theodore Eliot, Jr., Executive Secretary State Department, Memorandum for the Record, "Next Steps on the Middle East," 29 June 1973, enclosing, Secretary of State Rogers to Nixon, "Next Steps on the Middle East," 28 June 1973

Source: National Archives, Record Group 59, Department of State Records (hereinafter RG 59), Subject-Numeric Files 1970-1973 (hereinafter cited as SN 70-73, with file citation), Pol 27-14 Arab-Isr

During the summer of 1973 Secretary of State William Rogers supported a major diplomatic initiative on the Middle East. After Nixon's re-election in November 1972, Henry Kissinger expected to become secretary of state but Rogers refused to leave his post for at least six months because he did not want to hand Kissinger a "victory." The previous four years had marked one of the lowest points in State Department history because Nixon and Kissinger had marginalized Rogers and the State Department in such key policy areas such as China, Vietnam, and U.S.-Soviet relations. Nevertheless, Nixon had given Rogers considerable scope in Middle East policy and Rogers had a continuous interest in finding ways to ameliorate the Arab-Israeli conflict (although Kissinger had thwarted many of his initiatives). After the Brezhnev-Nixon summit, Rogers made his last stab on Middle East policy by suggesting secret Egyptian-Israeli peace talks. Concerned about the risk of Middle East war, superpower confrontation, and oil embargoes if the problems continued to fester, Rogers believed that it was essential to get the Egyptians and Israelis to stop talking past each other on their respective interpretations of UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed in the wake of the Six Day War. Rogers' effort was stillborn; as the Eliot memo shows, Nixon "did not want the Secretary to proceed," ostensibly because the White House was waiting to hear from Brezhnev. Plainly, however, Kissinger was beginning to usurp Roger's role on the Middle East issue and, no doubt, neither Nixon nor Kissinger wanted him to get the credit for any progress in that area. Rogers finally resigned in August 1973. It is interesting to speculate whether a determined effort along the lines that he proposed could have derailed the war. (Note 14)

Document 5: Memcon between Kissinger and Israeli Ambassador Simcha Dinitz, 10 September 1973, 6:03 p.m.

Kissinger and the Nixon White House were under growing pressure to move on Middle East diplomacy but while they would make appropriate public signals, they saw no need to move quickly. On 5 September 1973, during a press conference, Nixon declared that the administration had important plans for Middle East negotiations: "we have put at the highest priority ... making some progress toward the settlement of that dispute." (Note 15) During a conversation a few days later with the late Ambassador Simcha Dinitz (Note 16), with whom he established a close relationship, Kissinger explained that "the trend here to do something is getting overwhelming. It can be delayed but it can't be arrested." While Kissinger believed that it was important to get negotiations going and was looking for ideas on initial steps--perhaps a proposal on Jerusalem or a settlement with Jordan--he had no problem with delay: he felt "no immediate pressure." But to reduce whatever pressure there was and to maximize U.S. leverage, Kissinger told Dinitz that he wanted to find ways to "split" the Arabs, to keep the Saudis out of the dispute, and to otherwise "exhaust the Arabs." Kissinger may have used such language to ease Israeli concerns about negotiations, but that rhetoric could also have encouraged inflexibility. (Note 17)

Document 6: Harold Saunders, NSC Staff, to Kissinger, "Memorandum on Your Talk with Zahedi," 19 September 1973, enclosing memorandum of Kissinger-Zahedi conversation, 15 September 1973, and untitled paper handed to Zahedi on 13 August 1974

Kissinger's backchannel communications with the Egyptians on a Middle East settlement continued into the weeks before the war. This time, the intermediary was Iranian Ambassador Ardeshir Zahedi (the son of the U.S.-backed general who had ousted Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh twenty years earlier), who had met with Ashraf Ghorbal, Ismail's deputy in Switzerland. There Zahedi how shown him a memorandum, prepared at the White House, which outlined the U.S. approach to negotiating a settlement, "a step at a time" so that "propositions" could be presented to Israel that "cannot be easily rejected." Perhaps suspecting that Kissinger was trying to entrap Egypt in a negotiating process with no clear end in sight, Ghorbal was not excited by the White House paper: "it contained some good words but not action." What he wanted was "a tangible and concrete suggestion."

Document 7: Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Brent Scowcroft to Kissinger, 5 October 1973, enclosing message from Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir (passed through Israeli chargé Shalev)

Neither Israeli nor U.S. intelligence recognized the imminence of war in early October 1973. AMAN, the Israeli military intelligence organization, and the leadership generally assumed that national military power would deter war and downplayed the possibility of conflict until 1975 when Egypt and Syria had better air capabilities. Moreover, Israeli military and political leaders had a condescending view of Arab fighting abilities. Rumors of war had begun to crop up beginning in the spring of 1973 and during September 1973 AMAN began collecting specific warnings of Egyptian-Syrian intentions to wage war in the near future. Moreover, in late September Jordan's King Hussein warned Prime Minister Meir that Syrian forces were taking an "attack position." These developments concerned the Israelis but AMAN ruled out major war. On 4 October, however, the Israelis picked up a number of signals suggesting the imminence of war: the Soviets were starting to evacuate the families of advisers in Egypt and Syria; a high-level clandestine source warned Mossad of the possibility of a coordinated attack; and aerial reconnaissance detected an increase in gun deployments along the Suez Canal. The next day, 5 October, with AMAN now seeing a "low probability" of war, Meir shared Israeli concerns with Washington. (Note 18) With Kissinger in New York at the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, his deputy Brent Scowcroft received this urgent message from Meir late in the day. Egyptian and Syrian war preparations were becoming more and more noticeable making Meir and her colleagues wonder whether 1) those countries anticipated an Israeli attack, or 2) intended to "initiate an offensive military operation." She asked Kissinger to convey to the Arabs and the Soviets that Tel Aviv had no belligerent intentions, but that if Egypt or Syria began an offensive, "Israel will react militarily, with firmness and great strength."

Document 8: U.S. Interests Section Egypt, Cable 3243 to State Department, "Soviet View on Causes and Timing of Egyptian Decision to Resume Hostilities," 26 October 1973

Source: NPMP, NSCF, box 1175, 1973 War (Middle East) 26 October 1973-File No. 21

During the weeks before the war, the Soviets believed that the situation was growing more dangerous, but like the Americans and the Israelis they did not see the "resumption of fighting [as] at all likely." Yet, they had begun to evacuate dependents because they had learned of the decision for war, but not its exact timing, a few days ahead of the event. As the war unfolded, U.S. diplomats in Cairo picked up interesting gossip about Soviet foreknowledge and Egyptian debate over war from a suspected Russian Intelligence Services (RIS, or KGB) official, Leo Yerdrashnikov (whose official cover was deputy director of the local Tass office). His account is fascinating although some details are unconfirmable, at least with sources known to this writer. Interestingly, in the discussion of Sadat and his advisers, Yerdrashnikov claims that Hafez Ismail was among those who argued against war because a "policy of rapprochement … was working in Egypt's favor." The Soviet also claimed that Sadat had told Saudi Arabia's King Faisal of his decision in August and that the King had "encouraged" Sadat. Yerdrashnikov also sheds light on when the Soviets learned of Sadat's decision. On 3 October, Sadat told Soviet Ambassador Vladimir Vinogradov that war was imminent. Moscow did not, however, learn when the war would start until the morning of 6 October. (Note 19)

Document 9: U.S. Embassy Israel, Cable 7766 to Department of State, 6 October 9988, "GOI Concern About Possible Syrian and Egyptian Attack Today"

Source: NPMP, National Security Council Files (hereinafter NSCF), box 1173, 1973 War (Middle East) 6 Oct. 1973 File No. 1 [1 of 2]

Apparently, Kissinger did not receive Meir's message [Document 7] until the next morning, when he passed a copy to Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin to corroborate Israeli concern. (Note 20) In any event, Kenneth Keating, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, provided more specific news in a message that arrived sometime before 6 a.m.: the Israelis believed that Egypt and Syria would launch a coordinated attack within six hours. The Israeli's "Top Source," an Egyptian (who may have been a double agent) had provided warning that war would begin that day. Shocked and surprised by the possibility of war, Golda Meir put it this way: "we may be in trouble." Some of Meir's advisers urged a preemptive strike, but the prime minister assured Keating that Israel would not launch a pre-emptive attack; she wanted to "avoid bloodshed" and, no doubt, the opprobrium associated with striking first. Instead, the Israelis ordered the mobilization of 100,000 troops, a disorganized process that took several days. At 2:00 p.m., the Egyptians and Syrians, aided by a successful deception plan, launched their attack. As Egyptian Major General Talaat Ahmed Mosallam later put it, the surprise was so complete "because of both the Arab plan and the failure of the Israelis to understand or even believe what they saw with their own eyes." (Note 21)

Document 10: Message from Secretary Kissinger, New York, to White House Situation Room, for delivery to President Nixon at 9:00 a.m., 6 October 1973

Source: NPMP, NSCF, box 664, Middle East War Memos & Misc October 1-October 17, 1973

At 6:00 a.m., Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Sisco woke his boss with Keating's message. As this document shows, Kissinger immediately took the reins of power and began making phone calls and sending messages urging restraint by all concerned parties. That morning, Kissinger got in touch with Nixon (who was in Florida) only after he had made a series of calls, first to Dobrynin, asking that the Soviets hold back Cairo and Damascus. He also called Israeli chargé Shalev, advising him to inform his government "that there must be no preemptive strike." Later, having received Israeli assurances about preemption, he told Dobrynin and Egyptian Foreign Minister Zayyat that there would be no such strikes. Interestingly, Kissinger has never acknowledged that he recommended against preemption, although his recent collection provides more confirming information on this point. (Note 22)

Document 11: U.S. Mission to United Nations cable 4208 to U.S. Embassy Israel, 6 October 1973

Source: NPMP, NSCF, box 1173, 1973 War (Middle East) 6 Oct. 1973 File No. 1 [1 of 2]

Hoping that he could avert war, Kissinger wired Ambassador Keating, informing him of his other efforts to secure Arab and Israeli restraint and of his "appreciation" for Meir's assurance that there would be no preemptive moves.

Document 12: U.S. Department of State cable 199583 to U.S. Embassies Jordan and Saudi Arabia, "Message from Secretary to King Faisal and King Hussein," 6 October 1973

Source: NPMP, National Security Council Files (hereinafter NSCF), box 1173, 1973 War (Middle East) 6 Oct. 1973 File No. 1 [1 of 2]

During the course of the October War, Kissinger tried to demonstrate impartiality by communicating with the leaders of Arab governments he considered "moderate," such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, among others. In this message, prepared for Kings Faisal and Hussein, Kissinger related his efforts to avert war and vainly asked their help in securing "restraint" on Assad's and Sadat's part. Within a few days, Kissinger would soon begin back channel communications with Ismail and Sadat.

Document 13: Memorandum from William B. Quandt to Brent Scowcroft, "Arab-Israeli Tensions," 6 October 1973

Source: NPMP, NSCF, box 1173, 1973 War (Middle East) 6 Oct. 1973 File No. 1 [1 of 2]

Saturday morning, before the U.S. learned that war had broken out, the Washington Special Action Group (WSAG) met in the White House Situation room in Kissinger's absence. (Unfortunately, all but one of the WSAG meeting minutes remain classified). According to one account, during the meeting, Director of Central Intelligence Colby opined that neither side was initiating war but that the conflict was the result of an "action-reaction cycle." (Note 23) This document, prepared by NSC staffer William Quandt, reflects the uncertainty of that morning. In light of Meir's warning, Quandt tried to interpret the various signs of impending conflict: evacuation of Soviet advisers, Egyptian forces on a high state of alert, and the positioning of Syrian forces at the Golan Heights. One possibility was that the evacuation of Soviet advisers meant that Moscow "had gotten wind" that war was imminent. Another possibility was a "major crisis in Arab-Soviet relations." Indeed, "downplay[ing] the likelihood of an Arab attack on Israel," U.S. intelligence saw an Arab-Soviet crisis as a more plausible explanation. This was consistent with the received wisdom in the intelligence establishment that the Arabs would not initiate war as long as the military balance favored Israel. In other words, Tel Aviv's preponderant military power deterred war. This was the prevailing view of Israeli intelligence and U.S. intelligence bought into it. A few weeks later, Assistant Secretary of State Intelligence and Research Ray Cline observed, "Our difficulty was partly that we were brainwashed by the Israelis, who brainwashed themselves." (Note 24) Brainwashed or not, Quandt suggested a number of actions "if hostilities are imminent."

Document 14: Message from Soviet Government to Nixon and Kissinger, 6 October 1973, called in at 2:10 p.m.

This message conveys Brezhnev's and the Politburo's concern about the Middle East "conflagration." Although far from straightforward about when they first learned of Sadat's war plans, the Soviets were no less shocked than the Americans by the Egyptian and Syrian decisions for war. For Brezhnev and his colleagues, war was a "gross miscalculation," a "major political error," because they believed that the Arabs were sure to lose. Recognizing the danger of the situation for superpower relations, during the first days of the war the Soviets pressed their Egyptian and Syrian clients for a cease-fire. At the same time, however, Brezhnev wanted to maintain Soviet influence in the region, thus, Soviet policy had to avoid a military and political disaster for Egypt and Syria. The tension between détente and credibility concerns would shape Soviet policy throughout the conflict. (Note 25)

Document 15: Memorandum from William Quandt and Donald Stukel, NSC Staff, "WSAG Meeting -- Middle East, Saturday, October 6, 1973, 3:00 p.m."

Source: NPMP, National Security Council Institutional Files, box H-94, WSAG Meeting, Middle East 10/6/73 7:30 pm., folder 1

As Israelis were observing Yom Kippur, the Egyptians and Syrians launched their attacks. Just after 2:00 p.m. (Cairo time) 100,000 Egyptian troops and 1,000 tanks engulfed Israeli forces on the east bank of the Suez Canal while 35,000 Syrian troops and 800 tanks broke through Israeli positions on the Golan Heights. (Note 26) Providing Kissinger with some background information for another WSAG meeting, held early that evening, NSC staffers believed that senior officials had to start considering a number of issues, such as steps to minimize threats to U.S. interests, e.g., an Arab oil embargo, possible Soviet moves, and the "consequences of a major Arab defeat." With respect to the Soviet position, Kissinger's advisers believed that the key question was how Washington could "best take advantage of this crisis to reduce Soviet influence in the Middle East." But if Moscow's influence was to be reduced, it could not be the result of a "major Arab defeat" because that could endanger U.S. interests in the region, destroy the possibility of a settlement, and weaken "moderate" Arab regimes. The advantages of finding ways to "minimize" Arab "loss of face" required serious consideration.

Document 16: Memorandum to Kissinger, initialed "LSE" [Lawrence S. Eagleburger], 6 October 1973

At the outset, the Israelis did not want UN Security Council action on a cease-fire because it could prevent them from reversing initial Arab gains. During a conversation with Foreign Minister Abba Eban at 9:07 a.m, Kissinger indirectly assured him that Washington would not immediately go to the Security Council; this satisfied Eban because it would let the Israelis decide whether to "[do] it quickly." While Kissinger would soon consider Security Council action to stop the fighting, the Israeli position on a cease-fire influenced his thinking. Sometime during the day, Eban spoke with Kissinger's executive assistant, Lawrence Eagleburger, (Kissinger must have been temporally occupied) and registered his appreciation that Kissinger would defer UN action so that Israel had "time to recoup its position." In other words, the Israelis sought a cease-fire based on the status quo ante. To give the Israelis time to do that, Eban asked for a delay on any Security Council action until Monday. By the time Eban spoke with Kissinger later in the day, the latter had seen Eagleburger's memo and Eban had nothing to worry about. Having decided that Washington had to "lean" toward Tel Aviv in order to restrain the Arabs and the Soviets but also to get more leverage over the Israelis during the negotiating phase, Kissinger tacitly assured the foreign minister that Washington would not be "precipitate" in seeking Security Council Action. In any event, the Soviets were interested in a cease-fire and so was Assad--if the fighting stopped he would have control of the Golan Heights. Sadat, however, was not ready to halt until he had a stronger position on the Sinai. (Note 27)

Document 17: Memcon between Kissinger and Ambassador Huang Zhen, PRC Liaison Office, 6 October 1973, 9:10- 9:30 p.m.

Source: RG 59, Records of the Policy Planning Staff, Director's Files (Winston Lord), 1969-1977. Box 328. China Exchanges July 10-October 31, 1973

Back in Washington, at the close of the day Kissinger had one of his confidential talks with Huang Zhen, Beijing's representative in Washington. Rather frankly, Kissinger disclosed elements of his grand strategy; he assured the Chinese that "our strategic objective is to prevent the Soviets from getting a dominant position in the Middle East." Believing that the Israelis would achieve a quick victory over the Arabs in a few days, Kissinger wanted to demonstrate to the Arab states that "whoever gets help from the Soviet Union cannot achieve his objective." Moreover, to the extent that the Arabs believed that they could win some territory before agreeing to halt the fighting, Kissinger wanted to slap down that belief by supporting a cease-fire based on a "return to the status quo ante." The Chinese were sympathetic to the Arab cause so Kissinger had to be able to assure progress on Arab grievances. Once negotiations begin, "we will have to separate ourselves from the Israeli point of view to some extent." That would be possible, however, if Washington could offer security guarantees for "new borders after the settlement."

Source: RG 59, Records of Henry Kissinger, 1973-1977. Box 25. Cat C 1974 Arab-Israeli War

The first page of this document is mostly illegible--except for a few scraps on U.S. supply of Sidewinder (air-to-air) missiles and bomb racks--but it provides interesting detail on the early moments of the war, such as Israeli cabinet debates on the question of whether to preempt or not. Apparently advice that Kissinger had given in the past--"whatever happens, don't be the one that strikes first"--played no small part in Meir's thinking. With war underway, Kissinger assumed that Israeli forces would soon reverse Egyptian advances; therefore, he wanted to delay action at the UN Security Council to enable the IDF to "move as fast as possible." The Israelis were seeking military aid---Sidewinder missiles, planes, ordnance, ammunition, and aircraft parts--but aircraft was the priority of the moment. Kissinger, however, was not so sure that aircraft could be provided "while the fighting is going on," although he thought it possible to make Sidewinders and bomb racks available. As for the Soviets, Kissinger did not show much concern: "in all their communications with us, they were very mild."

Document 19: Department of State, Operations Center, Middle East Task Force, Situation Report # 8, "Situation in the Middle East, as of 2300 Hours (EDT, Oct. 7, 1973"

During the first day of the fighting, Arab forces made significant gains--the Syrians had penetrated the Golan Heights while the Egyptians had moved into the Sinai past the east bank of the Suez Canal. Given the great strategic value of the Golan Heights, so close to Israeli population centers, the Israelis started to throw in forces there first. (Note 28) To keep officials abreast of developments, the State Department's Middle East Task Force, lodged at the Department's basement Operations Center, regularly issued "sitreps" on military and political developments. This one, produced at the end of the second day of the fighting, showed a grim situation: "major losses on both sides," a "miserably tough day" for the Israelis.

Document 20: Kissinger to Egyptian Foreign Minister Al-Zayyat, 8 October 1973, enclosing "Message for Mr. Hafiz Ismail from Dr. Kissinger," 8 October 1973

Within a day after the war broke out, Sadat's security adviser, Haifez Ismail, sent Kissinger a secret message, through the Cairo CIA station, outlining his government's war aims. The message remains classified and Kissinger found its basic terms---restoration of 1967 borders--unacceptable, but he saw it as extraordinarily significant: it treated Washington as the key player in the peace process but also showed Sadat's moderation; he did not seek to "widen the confrontation." (Note 29) Kissinger quickly responded, asking Sadat and Ismail to clarify points about territorial withdrawal. He also asked about the substance of a backchannel message from Sadat to the Shah of Iran that the Iranians showed to U.S. Ambassador to Iran Richard Helms. Given Kissinger's expectation that the Israelis would soon be overtaking the Egyptians, he may have anticipated that Ismail and Sadat would be interested in his offer to "bring the fighting to a halt" and "personally participate in assisting the parties to reach a just resolution" of the Arab-Israeli dispute.

Document 21A: Memcon between Dinitz and Kissinger, 9 October 1973, 8:20-8:40 a.m.

Document 21B: Memcon between Dinitz and Kissinger, 9 October 1973, 6:10-6:35 p.m.

Early in the morning of 9 October, Kissinger received a call from Dinitz that Israeli forces were in a more "difficult" position. A counter-offensive launched the previous day had failed with major losses. At 8:20, the two met for a more detailed conversation, with a chagrined Dinitz acknowledging that the Israelis had lost over 400 tanks to the Egyptians and 100 to the Syrians. Egyptian armor and surface-to-air missiles were taking their toll in the air and ground battle and the Israeli cabinet had decided that it had to "get all equipment and planes by air that we can." Kissinger, who had assumed that Tel Aviv could recapture territory without major infusions of aid, was perplexed by the bad news--"Explain to me, how could 400 tanks be lost to the Egyptians?"--and the diplomatic implications of substantial U.S. wartime military aid was troublesome. As indicated on the record of the 8:20 a.m. meeting, Dinitz and Kissinger met privately, without a notetaker, to discuss Golda Meir's request for a secret meeting with Nixon to plea for military aid, a proposal that Kissinger quickly dismissed because it would strengthen Moscow's influence in the Arab world. To underline the urgency of the situation, Dinitz may have introduced an element of nuclear blackmail into the private discussion. While Golda Meir had rejected military advice for nuclear weapons use, she had ordered the arming and alerting of Jericho missiles--their principal nuclear delivery system--at least to influence Washington. (Note 30) Kissinger has never gone on record on this issue and no U.S. documentation on the U.S. Israeli nuclear posture during the war has been declassified. Whatever Dinitz said, Kissinger was responsive to the pleas for more assistance. Later, when the WSAG considered the Israeli position, it recommended the supply of arms as long as Washington kept a low profile. Meeting Dinitz later in the day, Kissinger told him that Nixon had approved the entire list of "consumable" items sought by the Israelis (except for laser bombs) would be shipped. Moreover, aircraft and tanks would be replaced if the need became "acute." To ensure that the U.S. role had low visibility, Israeli cargo plans would have the El Al markings painted out. Moreover, discussion of arrangements to charter U.S. commercial aircraft for shipping war material began on the U.S. side. During that meeting, Dinitz had better news to report: progress on the Golan Heights and the massive destruction of Syrian tanks.

Document 22: William Quandt to Kissinger, "Middle Eastern Issues," 9 October 1973

Pointing to risky developments--Israel's losses and request for supplies, the probability that fighting would "drag on" for more days, threats to U.S. citizens in Lebanon, calls from Kuwait for use of the oil weapon, and reports of Soviet casualties from Israeli bombing in Syria--Quandt advised Kissinger that he would have to consider decisions on a number of problems. Meeting Israel's arms requests "too visibly" could endanger U.S. citizens but holding back would undermine Tel Aviv's confidence in U.S. policy. For Quandt, the "key problem" was a cease-fire. The earlier position favoring a cease-fire based on the status quo ante had become less and less tenable because of the "prospects for increasingly serious threats to US interests if the fighting is prolonged." Pushing for a "ceasefire in place," however, was likely to "irritate" the Israelis, who were trying to recover lost territory. Tel Aviv might charge a high price, such as "strong" diplomatic and military support after the war, but Quandt thought it might be "worth the cost." Whatever impact this suggestion may have had on Kissinger's thinking, he brought up the possibility of a cease-fire in place during a phone conversation with Dinitz later in the day. (Note 31)

Document 23: Department of State, Operations Center, Middle East Task Force, Situation Report #18, "Situation in the Middle East, as of 1800 EDT, Oct. 10, 1973"

While Arab and Israeli ground forces were "sparring and regrouping," Syrian and Israeli air forces were engaged in battle and the Israeli Air Force bombed the international airport at Damascus. Meanwhile, Greek, Israeli, and U.S. intelligence picked up signs that the Soviets were airlifting supplies to their Arab clients. "The Israelis speculate the main cargo is missiles." As for the U.S. effort to supply Israel, the U.S. press had already observed an Israeli Boeing 707 picking up missiles and bombs in Norfolk, VA. Moreover, comments by Sheik Yamani, Saudi Arabia's Minister of Petroleum, suggested that the U.S. military supply of Israel would have a cost--cutbacks in oil production. The Soviets had made their airlift decision early in the war, believing that extensive support could enhance Moscow's prestige in the Arab world. This decision had significant implications for the course of the war; not only did the airlift encourage the Egyptians and Syrians to continue fighting it came to be seen in Washington as a "challenge" to American power. (Note 32)

Document 24: U.S. Interests Section in Egypt, cable 3942 to State Department, "Current Egyptian Military Position," 10 October 1973
Source: NPMP, NSCF, box 638, Arab Republic of Egypt IX (Jan-Oct 73)

A secret source within the Egyptian government provided the U.S. Interests Section with current information on battlefield and political developments. Some of this intelligence reached the Associated Press, which reported conflicting information on Egyptian war aims: either to take "all of Sinai" or to hold ground deep enough into the peninsula to force a cease-fire in place. While the plan that Sadat has shown Assad aimed at forty kilometer incursions into the Sinai, the actual Egyptian war plan posited a far more limited attack, enough to get Washington's attention and force Tel Aviv to negotiate. The information provided by the source suggested a more restricted incursion than Sadat had originally anticipated (20 kilometers instead of 60), but the intimation of limited purposes was correct. Given that had concealed from Assad his limited goals, a press leak of this sort was undoubtedly highly disturbing to the Egyptian leadership. Apparently, the AP report upset the informant so much that the Interests Section observed that "If this continues, source cannot continue to produce."

Document 25: Yuli Vorontsov, Minister-Counselor, Soviet Embassy, to Scowcroft, 10 October 1973, enclosing untitled paper, delivered 11:15 a.m.

Skeptical that the Arabs would make lasting military gains and worried about the war's impact on U.S.-Soviet détente, Moscow was interested in a cease-fire throughout the conflict. But Sadat wanted to keep fighting in order to get political concessions from Israel while the latter rejected a cease-fire that left Arab territorial gains in place. By 10 October, Soviet interest in a cease-fire was more serious; the fighting was stalemated and the Politburo estimated that the Arabs would not make further military gains. That morning, Dobrynin called Kissinger informing him that Moscow was interested in a Security Council resolution for a cease-fire in place as long as a third party introduced it and Moscow would not have to vote for it. As the memo suggests, it had been difficult for the Soviets to persuade the Egyptians to accept a resolution (by contrast, Assad wanted a cease-fire to stop Israeli advances). To give their clients some cover, the Soviets would have to maintain some distance from any resolution. Kissinger stalled on the Soviet proposal ostensibly because of Vice President Agnew's resignation (owing to a financial scandal). Kissinger, however, wanted to give Tel Aviv time for military advances. In between conversations with Dobrynin, he advised Dinitz to the effect that "Everything depended on the Israelis pushing back to the prewar lines as quickly as possible … We could not stall a cease-fire proposal forever." By the time the Israelis were supporting a cease-fire resolution, they had begun making military gains, but those gains turned Sadat against the proposal. That, the Soviets regarded as a "gross political and strategic blunder." While Kissinger's dilatory tactics irritated Moscow, the Soviets continued their airlift. As Soviet Middle East expert Victor Israelian later suggested, "the motivations of the two superpowers were the same," with both were trying to "assist their clients in their deteriorating military situation. (Note 33)

Document 26: Memcon between Deputy Secretary of State Kenneth Rush and Petroleum Company Executives, "The Middle East Conflict and U.S. Oil Interests," 10 October 1973

While Kissinger was trying to put off the Soviet cease-fire proposal, Deputy Secretary of State Kenneth Rush heard out top executives from Exxon and Gulf Oil on the possible use of the oil weapon during the war. The executives had asked for the meeting because they had learned that Kuwaiti Oil and Finance Minister Abdel Rahman Atiqi, who had already called for an emergency meeting of Arab oil ministers to discuss the role of petroleum in the war, was warning Washington to avoid action that could lead to precipitate moves against "U.S. oil interests." Believing that the Arabs had the companies "at their mercies," the oil executives worried that if Washington started to replace Israeli aircraft losses, radicals like Qadhafi would get the upper hand and the companies would be nationalized. Also in prospect were price increases of 100 percent and the curtailment of oil production. Rush was also concerned about the impact of prolonged fighting but he could not promise the executives what they wanted: a U.S. statement against arms shipments to the Middle East. As State Department official Roger Davies noted, the Soviet airlift, then just beginning, would increase pressure to "resupply Israel."

Document 27: Department of State, Operations Center, Middle East Task Force, Situation Report #22, "Situation Report in the Middle East, as of 0600 EDT, 10/12/73"

On 11 October the IDF continued their offensive against Syrian forces, the next day breaching the "main Syrian defensive line" and recapturing the Golan Heights. The situation on the Suez front remained "static," with an artillery battle under way. The Soviet airlift unfolded causing apprehension among the Israelis about the restoration of Syrian SAM capabilities. Meanwhile, Nixon, Kissinger, and Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger were beginning to make major decisions on the U.S. supply operation. While Kissinger and Schlesinger had sought to contract private U.S. aircraft to move supplies, this proved impractical because U.S. companies wanted to stay away from the conflict. Moreover, on 12 and 13 October, Kissinger was getting reports that the Israelis were running low on ammunition. Although he was not sure if Dinitz was telling him the truth about ammunition supplies----"How the hell would I know," he told Schlesinger--he did not want to risk any Israeli failure in "going as a fierce force." When it became evident that civilian charter aircraft could not be mobilized, on 13 October Nixon ordered a major U.S. military airlift to supply Israel. To his staff, Kissinger justified this move as part of his diplomatic strategy: having failed to win Egyptian support for a cease-fire resolution at the United Nations, it was necessary to prolong the fighting to create a "situation in which [the Arabs] would have to ask for a cease-fire rather than we." [See Document 63]. (Note 34)

Document 28: Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Joseph Sisco to Kissinger, "Proposed Presidential Message to King Faisal," 12 October 1973, with State Department cable routing message attached

Given the Nixon administration's continued concern over the position taken by "moderate" Arab regimes, policymakers were pleased to receive what they saw as a restrained communication from King Faisal. In the continued effort to woo Faisal, the State Department prepared a reply for Nixon's signature. Stressing Washington's balanced, "pro-peace" stance, the message delicately encouraged Faisal to keep out of the conflict and avoid taking actions that could hurt Israel or Washington: it was important to conduct "ourselves in such a way that it will not be impossible for the US to play a helpful role once the fighting is over."

Document 29A: State Department Cable 203672 to U.S. Embassy, Saudi Arabia, "Message to the King from the Secretary, 14 October 1973

Source: NPMP, NSCF, box 1174. 1973 Middle East War 15 - 15 October 1973 File No. 9

Document 29B: U.S. Embassy Saudi Arabia, Cable 45491 to State Department, "US Arms to Israeli: Saudis Sorrowful: King May Send Another Message," 16 October 1973

Source: NPMP, NSCF, box 1174. 1973 Middle East War 15 - 16 October 1973 - File No. 11

A U.S. military airlift to Israel could not occur in secret and Kissinger's State Department initiated a coordinated diplomatic campaign to minimize the adverse political impact on the Arab countries. Before the State Department started briefing other governments in the region about the airlift, Kissinger wanted to explain his decision through a private message to Faisal. Recognizing that the only way he could make the airlift palatable to the Saudis was on anti-Communist grounds (the kingdom had never established diplomatic relations with Moscow), Kissinger played up the anti-Soviet angle, suggesting that what had made the U.S. decision "inevitable" was insufficient Soviet cooperation in the latest cease-fire talks and the Soviet "massive airlift." Moreover, the administration had to make this decision "if we are to remain in a position to use our influence to work for a just and lasting peace." In other words, by helping Israel Washington would be in a position to press Tel Aviv for concessions during peace talks. That Kissinger hardly mollified Faisal is indicated in the marginal notation: "Faisal angry at this." Although Faisal's response to Nixon remains classified, apparently he wrote that the U.S. decision had "pained" him. Yet, the Saudis were careful to conceal any antagonism; as the cable from Ambassador James Akins suggests, the embassy in Riyadh discerned "no visible anger … but rather genuine expression of sorrow." (Note 35)

Document 30: Department of State, Operations Center, Middle East Task Force, Situation Report #32, "Situation Report in the Middle East as of 1200 EDT, Oct. 15, 1973"

Source: NPMP, NSCF, box 1174, 1973 Middle East War - 15 October 1973 File No. 10 (2 of 2)

After what amounted to a week-long, "operational pause," on 4 October the Egyptians began a major tank offensive on the Sinai, the "largest armored battle since World War II." Asad had been pressing Sadat for action to relieve pressure on the Syrian front, but the Israelis quickly reversed the offensive. (Note 36) The Egyptians suffered significant losses--76 tanks according to Egyptian sources, 280 according to the Israelis--a defeat that opened the way to IDF advances across the Suez Canal. The Israeli air force was heavily engaged in combat operations, attacking airfields, fuel depots, tanks, and missile batteries in Egypt and Syria. On the oil front, oil company and embassy officials believed that King Faisal would take "'some' retaliatory" action if the United States announced that it was airlifting military supplies to Israel.

Document 31: Seymour Weiss, Director, Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, Department of State, to Kissinger, "Armed Shipments to Israel," 15 October 1973

The Pentagon organized the airlift to Israel out of the Joint Staff's Logistics Readiness Center (LRC). Given the high stakes involved, State Department officials believed it essential to monitor the airlift's progress, not least so that they could resolve any political problems that emerged. At the outset this proved difficult; an Air Force Colonel Wieland, who was working for the State Department at the LRC, found himself "prematurely invited out" by the Defense Department. While Wieland's supervisor, Seymour Weiss, would have to turn the bureaucratic wheels to reinsert the State Department into the LRC, he was nevertheless able to provide an initial report on the airlift's status. Seventeen flights a day were already scheduled with 25,000 tons of supplies approved for shipment. Among the items that had already been delivered were F-4s (Phantom jets), Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, anti-tank weapons, and artillery projectiles, among other items. Weiss mentioned a diplomatic problem: Egypt had lodged a protest with the West German government against the movement of military supplies from U.S. bases to Israel. Despite that protest, the United States continued to supply the Israelis from U.S. bases in Germany for the time being. Weiss's reference to the "over-taxed" airbase at Lajes (the Azores) signaled another diplomatic problem: none of the other bases mentioned--Torrejon in Spain or Mildenhall in the United Kingdom--would be available for refueling empty aircraft returning from Israel. While it took severe diplomatic pressure--a "harsh note" from Nixon (Note 37)--to secure Portuguese cooperation, Kissinger would be highly pleased with the Portuguese during the airlift while his anger with other Europeans steady grew.

Document 32A: U.S. Mission to NATO Cable 4936 to Department of State, "NATO Implications of the Middle East Conflict: NAC Meeting of October 16, 1973," 16 October 1973

Document 32B: U.S. Mission to NATO Cable 4937 to Department of State, "NATO Implications of the Middle East Conflict: NAC Meeting of October 16, 1973," 16 October 1973

Source: NPMP, NSCF, box 1174, 1973 Middle East War, 16 Oct. 1973-File No. 11 [1 of 2

During the first week or so of the crisis, Kissinger learned that NATO Secretary General Josesph Luns had said something to the effect that Washington "had been taken in by the Soviets on détente and we are now paying the price for détente" (see Document 75). Taking advantage of a restricted North Atlantic Council (NAC) meeting on the war, Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. permanent representative (with Ambassadorial rank) to the North Atlantic Council, reviewed U.S. policy with his Canadian and European counterparts and expressed displeasure at such criticisms. Describing U.S. policy early in the war, the decisions for an airlift to resupply Israel, and the ongoing diplomatic efforts to end the fighting, Rumsfeld saw the "present crisis [as] a test of the evolving spirit of détente." He tartly observed that "we do not take kindly to suggestions that the U.S. was foolishly drawn into détente relationships with the USSR." In light of the danger that the Soviets might tip the military balance, Rumsfeld asked alliance partners to cooperate in finding ways to "make clear to the Soviets that détente is a two-way street." Later in the discussion, he suggested a number of measures that the Allies could take to "damage" Soviet interests "if the choose to damage ours," including slowdown Western participation in the Conference on European Security and Cooperation or "economic measures," presumably denial of credits or exports. As Rumsfeld noted, the Council emphasized "Alliance solidarity" but his summary overlooked some tough questions raised during the discussion. For example, the Belgian representative, André De Staercke, implicitly criticized Washington for not consulting with NATO before the meeting: "consultation was an essential part of solidarity." While Rumsfeld contended that the present meeting was a form of consultation, de Staercke was more interested that Washington consult with its allies on basic decisions during the crisis.

Document 33: Department of State, Operations Center, Middle East Task Force, Situation Report #36, "Situation Report in the Middle East as of 1800 Hours EDT Oct. 16, 1973"

Source: NPMP, NSCF, box 1174, 1973 War (Middle East) 16 Oct. 1973 File No. 11 [2of 2]

This sitrep pointed out the first signs of what would turn out to be a major reversal of fortunes for Egypt: a small Israeli armored force led by General Ariel Sharon had arrived on the west bank of the Suez Canal to begin striking Egyptian artillery and air defense units. Another item pointed to the possibility of a petroleum crisis. Angered by the U.S. airlift and then by the U.S. announcement of large-scale financial aid to Israel, the Arab oil producers were making plans to wield the oil weapon. This document shows the Saudis pressing the European Community (EC) to "use their influence to change America's policy in the Middle East." Oil would be used as a weapon against the U.S. airlift but the production "decrease … will hurt the EC countries first." (Note 38)

Document 34A: William B. Quandt to Kissinger, "Memoranda of Conversations with Arab Foreign Ministers," 17 October 1973, with memcon attached

Document 34B: Memcon between Nixon and Arab Foreign Ministers, Wednesday, October 17, 1973, 11:10 a.m., in the President's Oval Office

Earlier in the conflict diplomats of key Arab states with close political and/or economic ties with the United States had sought a meeting with Kissinger and Nixon to register their concerns about the U.S. position on a cease-fire based on the status quo ante and the possibility of U.S. resupply for Israel. By the time the meeting occurred, the cease-fire issue had shifted and the U.S. airlift was in progress. Kissinger wanted to persuade the diplomats that the U.S. position was balanced, neither pro-Israeli nor pro-Arab, and that any action on the part of the Arab oil producers to use the oil weapon would "only hamper our efforts to play an effective peacemaking role." During the discussions, Foreign Ministers Saqqaf (Saudi Arabia), Benhima (Morocco), Bouteflika (Algeria), and Al-Sabah (Kuwait) argued that the fighting could not end until territory occupied in 1967 had been returned and the Palestinian problem solved. Nixon and Kissinger, however, refused to "make commitments we can't deliver on" and emphasized that the broader issues of a settlement had to be separated from a cease-fire, because if the fighting was prolonged it could lead to a "great power confrontation." The U.S. hoped to "improve the situation" but the fighting had to stop first. In the meantime, the airlift would continue to "keep the balance" in the region. Kissinger's line of reasoning did not wholly convince his audience; as Benhima observed, "It is difficult for [the ministers] to convey assurances on the US position to their chiefs of state at a time when the US is aiding Israel."

Document 35: Thomas R. Pickering, Executive Secretary State Department, to George Springsteen, Acting Assistant Secretary for European Affairs, 17 October 1973, enclosing memorandum by Lawrence Eagleburger, 17 October 1973

As suggested earlier, U.S.-European tensions increased during the October War. Henry Kissinger's "Year of Europe" initiative had already produced trans-Atlantic disagreements over the newly-enlarged EC's decisionmaking processes, and Western Europe's close dependence on Middle Eastern oil supplies provided the basis for disagreements during the crisis. One of Kissinger's chief European critics, French Foreign Minister Michel Jobert, had been suspicious of the "Year of Europe" and dubious of Kissinger's détente strategy, which he believed was producing a superpower condominium at Europe's expense. On 17 October, during a speech at the National Assembly, Jobert assailed Israel for checking the peace process and the superpowers for fanning the flames of war with military supplies: "We see Mr. Brezhnev, the apostle of détente, and Dr. Kissinger, now a Nobel Peace Prize winner, shaking hands while sending thousands of tons of arms by air." (Note 39) The statement infuriated Kissinger who ordered a demarché to the French ambassador. Not only did the State Department find the references to Kissinger "offensive and unnecessary," it rejected any equivalence between the U.S. and Soviet positions, and found Jobert's statement "inconsistent with good relations between the two countries." Things would get worse.

Document 36A: Minutes, "Washington Special Action Group Meeting," 17 October 1973, 3:05 p.m. - 4:04 p.m.

Source: NPMP, NSC Institutional Files, box H-117, WSAG Minutes (originals) 10-2-73 to 7-23-74 (2 of 3)

Document 36B: Memcon, "SAG Principles: Middle East War," 17 October 1973, 4:00 p.m.

Source: NPMP, NSC Institutional Files, box H--92, WSAG Meeting Middle East 10/17/73, folder 6

Except for this transcript, all the minutes for WSAG meetings during the October War remain classified. At this meeting, the participants discussed key issues: planning for an energy crisis, the Arab-Israeli military situation and problems related to the airlift. During the review of plans for energy conservation in the event of an oil crisis, Kissinger showed some optimism that, during the present war, his diplomatic strategy would avoid Arab oil embargo, as he patronizingly observed: "Did you see the Saudi Foreign Minister come out like a good little boy and say they had very fruitful talks with us?" An hour into the meeting, Nixon called in the WSAG principles for a "pep talk." Mentioning what he saw at stake--"oil and our strategic position"--Nixon focused on the airlift and sealift of supplies to Israel, which he believed were essential for preserving U.S. "credibility everywhere" as well as for bringing Tel Aviv to a settlement. In a self-congratulatory statement, Kissinger declared this was the "best-run crisis" of the Nixon administration, noting that despite the "massive airlift" TASS had issued only mild complaints while Arab foreign ministers were making "compliments in the Rose Garden." The congratulatory mood was premature because the Arab oil producers had not announced the oil boycott and production cuts that were a direct response to the airlift.

Document 37: U.S. Interests Section in Egypt Cable 3167 to State Department, "Egyptian Military Situation," 18 October 1973

U.S. diplomats in Egypt reported on a battle "of major proportions" on the banks of the Suez Canal, a confrontation that may be showing that the "offensive has begun to move into Israeli hands if only temporarily." Signs that "things did not go well for the Egyptians" were the lack of military announcements and delays on the request of a NBC News correspondent who wanted to go to the Suez front. Those who prepared this report did not know that the IDF was launching a plan to encircle Egypt's Third Army, a development that would quickly spark a major crisis. (Note 40) An NSC staffer who read this cable perceptively wrote "turn of tide?" on the document.

Document 38: U.S. Embassy Kuwait cable 3801 Cable to State Department, "Atiqi Comment on OAPEC Meeting," 18 October 1973

Arab oil producers had met in Kuwait to discuss wartime oil supply policy where they decided, as this cable reported, to begin a "complete embargo on oil to the United States." The oil producers had decided, contrary to Kissinger, that action on energy policy would be conducive to negotiations, not an obstacle to them. They sought to warn the "United States and other consumers" that the producers were "as serious as front line fighters that Israel must give up occupied lands." Nevertheless, apparently the Saudis insisted that the OAPEC announcement not specifically mention the United States but countries that were "unfriendly" to the Arab cause.

Document 39: U.S. Embassy United Kingdom Cable 12113 to State Department, "European Attitudes in Middle East Conflict," 18 October 1973

For the Nixon administration, one of the most disturbing elements in the October War was the attitude of West European governments. As former U.S. Ambassador to West Germany Martin Hillenbrand explained, Washington "complained vociferously about what it regarded as European lack of support." While key allies such as the United Kingdom discouraged the use of their bases for U.S. aircraft supplying Israel, the Nixon administration conducted virtually no "prior consultation" with NATO Europe about its decisions during the war. (Note 41) This cable, signed by the media magnate Walter Annenberg, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom, sheds some light on the divergences. While Annenberg was clearly displeased that the Europeans were "staying on the sidelines" and that European attitudes had the "effect of isolating" the United States from NATO, Conservative Member of Parliament and confidant of Prime Minister Edward Heath James Prior believed that cooperation was difficult because interests were divergent. He explained that the "Middle East war posed very difficult and serious problems for Britain" because of the importance of Arab oil and the UK's "economic and commercial interests in Arab states." Taking this stand plainly posed some risks for the Heath government because a "large majority of British public were sympathetic to Israel."

Document 40: Department of State, Operations Center, Middle East Task Force, Situation Report # 43, "Situation Report in the Middle East as of 0600 Hours EDT, Oct. 19, 1973"

While the tank battle on the Sinai raged inconclusively, Israeli forces enlarged "their bridgehead" on the Canal's west bank with the presence of over 200 tanks. This, the Israelis believed, gave them the option of heading toward Cairo, thus increasing their ability to destroy the Egyptian army. "The Israelis feel they now have turned the corner in the war and that the initiative on both fronts is now in Israel's hands." That the "smell of victory" might make Tel Aviv unwilling to accept a cease-fire pointed to a dangerous problem: the impact on U.S.-Soviet relations if the Israelis devastated the army of one of Moscow's major clients.

Document 41: Brezhnev to Nixon, 19 October 1973, handed to Kissinger 11:45 a.m.

Source: NPMP, HAKO, box 69, Dobrynin/Kissinger Vol. 20 (October 12-November 27, 1973)

With the reversals on the Sinai, Sadat wanted a cease-fire and the Soviets treated this as an urgent matter. On the evening of 18 October, Dobrynin read to Kissinger the text of a proposed cease-fire resolution for the UN Security Council; the next morning, Brezhnev wrote Nixon about the crisis. (Note 42) The Soviets saw a "more and more dangerous situation" and a responsibility by "our two powers" to "keep the events from going beyond the limits." Anxious to avoid a humiliating defeat for Moscow's Arab clients, worried about damage to relations with Washington, and determined to play a role in any post-war settlement, Brezhnev urged Nixon to send Kissinger to Moscow for talks on expediting the "prompt and effective political decisions" needed to stop the fighting. (Note 43)

Document 42: Memcon between Kissinger, Schlesinger, Colby, and Moorer, 19 October 1873, 7:17 - 7:28 p.m.

Source: NPMP, NSCF, box 1027, Memoranda of Conversations - Apr-Nov 1973, HAK and President (2 of 5)

Hours before flying to Moscow, Kissinger gave a briefing on Brezhnev's request and his planned trip to top defense and intelligence officials. As Kissinger explained, going to Moscow would delay a cease-fire resolution for a "few days," save face for the Soviets, and avoid a worse situation: Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko "coming here with tough instructions." Kissinger emphasized what he saw as the centrality of the U.S. role: "Everyone knows in the Middle east that if they want peace they have to come through us." Yet while he saw the Soviets failing politically in the region, ""we can't humiliate [them] too much." A-4s refer to Skyhawk attack aircraft.

Source: NPMP, HAKO, box 69, Dobrynin/Kissinger Vol. 20 (October 12-November 27, 1973)

No less than Brezhnev, Nixon saw much at risk if the fighting continued; he quickly instructed Kissinger to travel to Moscow to negotiate a cease-fire resolution. Given his assumption that a trip to Moscow was a way to buy time for further Israeli military advances, he was dismayed by Nixon's decision to grant him "full authority" to negotiate: "the commitments that [Kissinger] may make in the course of your discussions have my complete support." For Kissinger, too much freedom of action was not helpful; if he needed to delay, for example, to help the Israelis improve their position, he would not be able to use consultations with the President as an excuse. (Note 44)

Document 44: Excerpts from Backchannel U.S.-Egyptian messages, 20-26 October 1973

Ismail also weighed in on behalf of a cease-fire in this message to Kissinger late in the evening of 20 October. Aware of Kissinger's plans to meet with Brezhnev in Moscow, he hoped that the discussions would reach agreement on a resolution to end the fighting at "present lines." In keeping with a speech that Sadat had given on 16 October, Ismail called for agreement on a peace conference that would reach a "fundamental settlement."

Document 45A: State Department Cable 208776 to all Diplomatic and Consular Posts, "Middle East Situation," 21 October 1973, and

Document 45B: Embassy in Saudi Arabia Cable 4663 to State Department, "Saudi Ban on Oil Shipments to U.S.," 23 October 1973

While Kissinger was beginning talks with Brezhnev, on 20 October, the IDF continued to advance across the Suez Canal with the fighting heaviest on the southern front. The Syrian front "was relatively quiet" and the Syrians were pressing King Hussein to supply more Jordanian forces. While Kissinger had seen the Saudi Foreign Minister as a "good little boy," the State Department had learned that Saudi Arabia had joined the Arab oil boycott and made the decision to cut production significantly. According to a cable from the U.S. Embassy in Jidda a few days later, the U.S. announcement of a $2.2 billion aid package for Israel had infuriated King Faisal, who took "umbrage" at the discrepancy between the "reassuring tone" of U.S. government communications and the announcement of the "incredible" volume of U.S. aid for Israel. Apparently, the King also called for a "jihad." More practically, the Saudis realized that if they did not join the other Arab oil producers, they would be in a politically vulnerable position. Nevertheless, the embassy reported that the Saudis "tend to confirm our assessment that [they wish to] minimize damage that present crisis could cause to US-Saudi relations." Decisions by the Arab oil producers to cut production would have a significant impact on oil prices in the weeks ahead. (Note 45)

Document 46: Memcon between Brezhnev and Kissinger, 20 October 1973, 9:15 - 11:30 p.m.

Kissinger's and Brezhnev's first discussion showed no disagreements over the basic issue, the imperative of bringing about an end to the fighting. Nor did the Soviets dissent from Kissinger's basic proposition that there were "two problems"--ending the fighting and a political settlement--that had to be dealt with separately. Kissinger, however, was determined that Nixon's unwelcome grant of negotiating authority not force him into quick decisions that could undercut his goal of buying time for Israeli military advances. Therefore, he observed to Brezhnev: "If we come to some understandings, I will still want to check them with the President." He readily agreed with Brezhnev's statement about the importance of ending all "slanderous allegations" that Moscow and Washington sought to "dictate their will to others" in the Middle East. Kissinger also expressed general agreement with the Soviet suggestion for a cease-fire resolution although he observed that the Israelis would reject any references to Resolution 242. (Note 47)

Document 47: Situation Room Message from Peter Rodman to Kissinger, TOHAK 20, 20 October 1973, transmitting memorandum from Scowcroft to Kissinger

Source: NPMP, HAKO, box 39, HAK Trip - Moscow, Tel Aviv, London - October 20-23, 1973 TOHAK 1-60

After meeting with Brezhnev, Kissinger was shocked to receive a message from Scowcroft based on Nixon's dictation. Believing a "permanent Middle East settlement" to be a critically important goal, Nixon wanted a U.S.-Soviet agreement reached on "general terms" which would make it easier for both superpowers "to get out clients in line." Probably suspecting that Kissinger was too partial to Israeli interests, Nixon wanted his adviser to take a tough approach to both sides. As neither the Israelis nor the Arabs would approach "this subject … in a rational manner," Nixon believed that Moscow and Washington had to impose a settlement: to "bring the necessary pressures on our respective friends." Facing continued attack in the Watergate scandal and no doubt seeing great political advantage in a diplomatic success, Nixon wanted Brezhnev to know that if they could reach a settlement "it would be without question one of the brightest stars in which we hope will be a galaxy of peace stemming from the Nixon-Brezhnev relationship." (Note 48)

Document 48: Message from Kissinger to Scowcroft, HAKTO 06 [20 October 1973]

Source: NPMP, HAKO, box 39, HAK Trip - Moscow, Tel Aviv, London - October 20-23, 1973 HAKTO, SECTO, TOSEC, Misc.

Kissinger ignored Nixon's instructions. Already unhappy about Nixon's letter to Brezhnev on his negotiating authority and recognizing that Nixon was in no position to impose his will, Kissinger conveyed to Scowcroft his "shock." He argued that if he carried out the instructions it would "totally wreck what little bargaining leverage I still have." Nixon's vision of the superpowers imposing their will on wayward clients was wholly inconsistent with Kissinger's determination to extricate the Soviet Union from the Middle East peace process. (Note 49)

Document 49: Memcon between Brezhnev and Kissinger, 21 October 1973, 12:00 noon - 4:00 p.m.

The next Brezhnev-Kissinger meeting was scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on 22 October, but Brezhnev postponed it so the Politburo could discuss recent communications between the Egyptians and the Soviet ambassador in Cairo. Believing that his forces were in desperate condition, Sadat was "begging" for a cease-fire. By contrast, Assad no longer sought a cease-fire because he wanted to try to recapture the Golan Heights. Assad's concerns did not, however, influence the Soviet leadership which agreed that it was essential to reach a rapid agreement on a cease-fire in place, although they were careful not to divulge any secrets about the Egyptian position in the talks with Kissinger. The U.S.-Soviet meeting that followed drafted a cease-fire resolution with great dispatch. Despite Nixon's preferences for superpower co-operation to impose a settlement, Kissinger carefully steered the Soviets away from any language that could give them a central role in negotiating a post-war diplomatic settlement. Using language requested by Meir and the Egyptians, Kissinger argued that a cease-fire resolution had to include language about negotiations "between the parties under appropriate auspices." For the Soviets, as Brezhnev explained later in the discussion, "auspices" meant that Moscow and Washington would be "active participants in the negotiations." Observing that "the Israelis will violently object to Soviet participation," Kissinger argued for a more qualified understanding. He stated that auspices would mean that the superpowers would not participate "in every detail, but in the opening phase and at critical points throughout." Determined to buy time for the Israelis, Kissinger reminded the Soviets several times that he had to check with Washington, prepare a memorandum, and consult with the President so that he understood and approved the agreement. Moreover, while Kissinger had agreed with Brezhnev that the resolution should be passed by midnight that evening, he sent UN ambassador John Scali a cable advising him to "proceed at a deliberate pace in the Security Council." "We do not have the same interest [as the Soviets] in such speed." (Note 50)

Document 50: Memcon between Kissinger and Western Ambassadors, 21 October 1973, 6:30 - 6:45 p.m.

Once the cease-fire resolution had been negotiated, it was essential to inform allies and others in order to secure UN agreement. As indicated in Document 44, Kissinger informed Ismail about the developments, couching the results in language--"fundamental settlement"--that would appeal to the Egyptians. Haig also called Dinitz telling him that the resolution was "etched in stone and could not be changed." (Note 51) Kissinger also met with key ambassadors of governments that were members of the Security Council--France, the United Kingdom, and Australia (Lawrence McIntyre, the Council's President, was an Australian). The meeting was brief, just enough time for a background briefing and discussion of diplomatic strategy. Kissinger emphasized that "anyone who is interested in a quick end to the fighting would presumably desist from trying to make amendments."

Document 51: U.S. Embassy Soviet Union Cable 13148 to Department of State, 21 October 1973

Source: NPMP, HAKO, box 39, HAK Trip - Moscow, Tel Aviv, London - October 20-23, 1973 HAKTO, SECTO, TOSEC, Misc.

Before he left Moscow, Kissinger oversaw the preparation of a number of urgent backchannel messages to foreign officials. Owing to a breakdown of the communication system, Kissinger had to use Moscow embassy channels, but under the special "Cherokee" control used to limit the dissemination of communications from the Secretary of State. This delayed by several hours the messages to the Israeli government about the cease-fire. One of them, a top secret cable to Ambassador Dinitz, elucidates the crisis over Israeli encirclement of Egypt's Third Army that unfolded during 23-24 October. In light of the communications delay, but concerned that the Israelis accept the cease-fire plan, Kissinger wanted Dinitz to know that "we would understand if Israelis felt they required some additional time for military dispositions." Moreover, even though there would be a formal twelve-hour interval between a Security Council decision and the actual beginning of the cease-fire, Kissinger could "accept Israel's taking [a] slightly longer" time. How the Israelis interpreted "slightly longer" was out of Kissinger's hands but this was not the only time that he would give Tel Aviv leeway in interpreting the cease-fire. Later, when the dangers of this advice became clear, and the Israelis had launched a major offensive against Egypt's Third Army, Kissinger wrote that "[he] had a sinking feeling that [he] might have emboldened them." Whether Kissinger or Scowcroft shared this message with Nixon remains to be seen. (Note 52)

Document 52: Department of State Operations Center, Middle East Task Force Situation Report # 52, "Situation Report in the Middle East as of 1830 EDT, 10/21/73"

While Kissinger and the Soviets were working out the details of the cease-fire resolution, analysts at the State Department pondered discrepant reports about the fighting on 21 October, with the Israelis claiming major gains on the Suez Canal's west bank and the Egyptians reporting a beleaguered Israeli force. If the Israeli reporting was accurate and the IDF would be in a position to cut off the Egyptian army from Cairo and the Suez, the Defense Intelligence Agency believed that Egyptian units on the east bank would "have only three to five days supplies remaining." Meanwhile, with the Saudis joining other Arab oil producers in the boycott, the loss of oil supplies to the United States could reach two million barrels per day.

Document 53: Memcon between Gromyko and Kissinger, 22 October 1973, 8:45 - 9:45 p.m.

The next morning, as news of the Security Council action on what would be Resolution 338 was coming in (Note 53), Gromyko and Kissinger met for a relatively jovial breakfast discussion once they had taken two understandings: language on "auspices" and on the need for "maximum" effort to ensure the exchange of prisoners-of-war within 72 hours of the cease-fire. Kissinger's next destination--Tel Aviv--posed a delicate problem for the Soviets; as Gromyko observed, "Psychologically … it would be preferable if you not tell your destination from Moscow [laughing]." For his part, Kissinger saw no problem in getting the Israelis to accept the resolution; his visit to Israel was conditioned on Meir's support for the resolution.

Document 54: Memcon between Meir and Kissinger, 22 October 1973, 1:35 - 2:15 p.m.

Although Ambassador Keating had no notice about Kissinger's plans, the secretary of state arrived in Tel Aviv for consultations with Meir and her advisers. The jovial mood in Moscow was forgotten; as Israeli diplomat Ephraim Evron later remarked, "We were suffering. Henry noticed this right away." "It did not take him long to sense that the country did not want to go through this experience again." (Note 54) Nevertheless, there was a feeling of resentment about the U.S.-Soviet "dictate" and Kissinger found himself justifying Resolution 338's references to 242, which plainly

The October War and U.S. Policy

William Burr, Editor

(October 7, 2003)

Documents

Table of Contents