No one knows for sure what Saddam Hussein has in his arsenal. But he remains a regional threat and an oppressor of his own people, reports Denis Staunton
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein represents a threat to his neighbours and a torment to his own people.
When the UN coalition defeated him in the Gulf War a decade ago, Mr Bush's father chose to leave Saddam in place as Iraq's ruler. The victorious allies designated a no-fly zone in the north of the country to protect the Kurdish minority and UN weapons inspectors were sent to investigate Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
The inspectors were expelled from Iraq in 1999 and Saddam has refused to allow access to the UN since then. In their final report, the inspectors said Iraq had destroyed most of its biological and chemical weapons but they were uncertain how much remained.
Most analysts agree that Saddam is unlikely to have a nuclear capability but there are fears that he may still have stocks of nerve gas and biological agents. An Iraqi defector claimed last year that he had worked in chemical weapons facilities hidden in houses and hospitals.
Saddam's weapons are useless without delivery systems such as missile launchers and defence experts doubt that Iraq is equipped with the necessary hardware. But Iraq's army of almost half a million soldiers could put up a formidable fight against any US-led invasion.
Even if Iraq is unlikely to launch a nuclear or chemical attack on the US or Europe, it remains a threat to the stability of the Middle East. During the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scud missiles into Israel and he is likely to attack Israel again if the US attempts to topple him. Western strategy towards Iraq over the past decade has been aimed at containing Saddam and preventing him from threatening his neighbours. Economic, military and diplomatic sanctions have been accompanied by humanitarian exceptions to limit the impact on Iraqi civilians.
Saddam claims the sanctions have led to the death of one million people since 1991 but Western governments argue that the Iraqi government itself is responsible for its people's suffering.
If the extent of Saddam's arsenal is unknown, there is no doubt about his government's human rights record, which is appalling. In its most recent report on Iraq, Human Rights Watch reported widespread abuses and the systematic repression of Saddam's opponents.
"The Iraqi government continued to commit widespread and gross human rights violations, including arbitrary arrests of suspected political opponents, executions of prisoners, and forced expulsions of Kurds and Turkmen from Kirkuk and other districts. Known or suspected political opponents living abroad were reportedly frequently targeted and threatened by Iraqi government agents," the report said. Amnesty International's report for 2001 is even stronger in its condemnation of Saddam's regime, documenting the murder and torture of numerous political dissidents.
"Hundreds of people, among them political prisoners including possible prisoners of conscience, were executed. Hundreds of suspected political opponents, including army officers suspected of planning to overthrow the government, were arrested and their fate and whereabouts remained unknown.
"Torture and ill-treatment were widespread and new punishments, including beheading and the amputation of the tongue, were reportedly introduced. Non-Arabs, mostly Kurds, continued to be forcibly expelled from their homes in the Kirkuk area to Iraqi Kurdistan," it said.
Any military intervention in Iraq would be risky, not least because there is no equivalent to the Northern Alliance, which acted as a US proxy in Afghanistan. An attack could galvanise anti-Western opinion throughout the region and pose a threat to pro-US regimes in countries such as Saudi Arabia.
But advocates of a campaign to topple Saddam argue that, as long as he remains in power, Iraq will continue to pose a threat. There is disagreement however over the proper timing of an attack and some of Mr Bush's advisers believe that it should be decoupled from the war against terrorism.
Writing in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, Mr Kenneth Pollack, a member of the US Council on Foreign Relations, urges caution. "The reason for even contemplating all the costs that an invasion would entail is the risk that a nuclear-armed Saddam might wreak havoc in his region and beyond, together with the certainty that he will acquire such weapons eventually if left unchecked. Nevertheless, there is no indication that he is about to get them within weeks or months. Containment may be dying but it is not dead yet and a determined US effort could keep it alive for some time longer. Iraq represents an emerging threat but bin Laden and his accomplices constitute an immediate one," he said.