ABSTRACT
To assert that the USSR possesses, and is likely to exercise veto power over a settlement must mean: first that Moscow could prevent its clients from taking actions that they would otherwise consider beneficial to their own interests; second, that the Kremlin has objectives of its own in the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict which are independent of those of its clients; thirdly, that the Soviet leadership would regard it worthwhile, on balance, to oppose one or more of its clients for the sake of objectives that conflict with those of the particular clients or client. Since Moscow has identified itself wholeheartedly with most of the objectives of its clients in the Arab-Israeli conflict, it has been concerned that client actions could drag the USSR into a crisis of military involvement, creating the stark alternatives of confrontation with the United States, or the humiliation of having to abandon or limit commitments to Soviet friends.
