What began as a back-slapping session at the Security Council ended as abitter, tense dinner party, writes Conor O'Clery, at the United Nations
Before the formalities began, the crowded Security Council chamber resembled an international Broadway show, with much embracing and back-slapping by politicians who despise each other, in full view of the 500 silent council-goers in the gallery.
When the gavel was rapped and delegates took their seats, the scene became more like a bitter dinner party at which family tensions bubbled to the surface.
The script was dominated by the feud between US Secretary of State Colin Powell and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.
Powell, betraying a weary exasperation at having once again to lecture everyone on Iraqi intransigence, had one question for those around the table.
"Has the Iraqi regime made a final strategic and political decision to comply with its disarmament obligations?" He answered it himself. No, the Iraqis had not made a decision to disarm.
Sitting across the horse-shoe table, Monsieur de Villepin threw the question back.
"Why should we now engage in war with Iraq?" he asked.
"Why smash the instruments that have just proved their effectiveness?"
The chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed elBaradei had at the start given accounts of improving Iraqi co-operation.
While slow to produce documents, the Iraqis had begun to allow interviews on UN terms and overflights, Dr Blix said. His inspectors had found no evidence of chemical labs being moved or secret underground weapons facilities (as Mr Powell had alleged at the last council debate).
The destruction of the al-Samoud 2 missiles constituted a "substantial measure" of disarmament. "We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks - lethal weapons are being destroyed," he said.
All in all, after a period of somewhat reluctant co-operation, there was now an acceleration of activity by the Iraqis.
No doubt aware that the US and UK intended giving Saddam Hussein until March 17th to show he would disarm, Mr Blix posed his own, crucial question: "How much time is needed to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks?"
Even with pro-active co-operation it would take not years, not weeks but months, he said.
Mr elBaradei had hammered home an even stronger message of co-operation.
There was no indication of resumed nuclear activities, no indication of attempts to import uranium, no indication that aluminium tubes or magnets were imported for nuclear activities, no evidence or plausible indication of a revival of nuclear activity.
Mr Powell said he was pleased to hear of progress. But "I still find a catalogue of non-co-operation," he said.
He knew facilities underground existed. He had intelligence to claim that the missiles would be rebuilt.
But he spoke mainly in generalities, of 12 years of deceptions.
The time for slide shows and secret recordings of Iraqi officers was over.
Everyone there knew that the Americans would be absolutist no matter what. They had watched George Bush on television the previous evening making the case for regime change. There would be no credit given.
The implications of that hung over the council like a sword. This was not so much a debate about Iraq but about the future of the council itself.
Mr Powell warned: "If we fail to meet our responsibilities, the credibility of the council will suffer." And the French Foreign Minister seized upon that to change the focus of the debate to the very nature and purpose of the world body in resolving world crises.
The most important principle was that only the UN had the legal and moral authority to act in situations like this. "We are defining a method to resolve crises," he said.
There were crises in North Korea, south-east Asia and the Middle East. There were some who believed that these problems could be resolved by the use of force, but the use of force could arouse hatreds and increase instability. It would not bring democracy but would increase terrorism.
What was at issue, he continued passionately, was the very structure of the post-Cold War world, where one country dominated.
France would not allow a resolution to pass that would authorise the use of force, he said, adding that the situation was so serious that the heads of government should come to New York to discuss it.
Mr Powell knocked this flat when he left the chamber during the speech by the Iraqi delegate to talk to the press, ensuring that TV coverage switched to his briefing and American viewers would not hear the Iraqi case.
"Some people just don't want to see all the facts clearly," he said bitterly when asked why the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese all had come out against war.
Speaking near the end, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw announced that a date would be added to the resolution to give Baghdad time to demonstrate "full, unconditional, immediate and active co-operation".
Mr Straw made the only passionate case for confronting Iraq, addressing his French counterpart as Dominique, attempting to deconstruct the French argument, as Mr de Villepin glared back at him. "He doesn't need more time to comply," Mr Straw said of Saddam. "As he showed this week, he can act with astonishing speed when he wants to."
So, too, can the Americans - and yesterday's debate left no doubt that that action might be only days away.