The stand-off between Iraq and the United States has become much more dangerous with Baghdad's decision to expel American arms monitors working for a UN weapons inspection team. With characteristic bravado, Saddam Hussein pushed ahead with the expulsions - which have been threatened since October 29th - only hours after Wednesday's unanimous UN Security Council resolution to impose a travel ban on senior Iraqi officials who obstruct UN inspections. The UN also warned, vaguely, of "serious consequences" if Iraq does not conform with its international obligations. The Iraqi leadership appears entirely unconcerned about such vague, unspecified threats. Indeed, it gave the small team of US weapons inspectors just six hours to leave the country and then forced them to undertake an arduous overnight journey to Jordan - a gesture clearly designed to complete the humiliation of the UN. Saddam has chosen his moment to again flout international law with great care. Baghdad may have been roundly condemned by the international community for its action, but, critically, the UN Security Council is divided about its response. Both the US and Britain have signalled their support for a military strike. But this would not find favour with France, Russia and China who are also reluctant to impose further sanctions on Iraq. Saddam has other advantages; he can rely on support from the Arab world which resents continued American support for Israel at a time when the peace process has stalled.
It is the division within the international community that so clearly distinguishes this crisis from that in 1991 when Washington was able to assemble a diverse international coalition, united against Iraq and agreed on an appropriate response to the invasion of Kuwait. On this occasion, the international coalition has fractured, the Anglo-American alliance appears isolated and the Iraqi leadership appears to enjoy a distinct tactical advantage. That said, there are important principles at stake in this dispute. No state can be allowed to stand aside from resolutions of the UN. And no state can be allowed to determine the composition of UN monitoring teams - let alone one like Iraq which has used the considerable military hardware at its disposal with ruthless efficiency to quell internal dissent. President Clinton has accused Iraq of mounting a "clearly unacceptable" challenge to the world community. Certainly, there is a sense in which he appears to be almost goading Washington into some kind of limited military action. The US has responded by sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf while British Harriers are also poised to mount an attack. President Clinton faces an awkward policy choice; international support for a military strike is uncertain and it is by no means clear if existing UN resolutions give him the authority to launch an attack. But, faced with such a flagrant violation of international law, the President is also under pressure to assert his authority. In all the circumstances, diplomacy is surely the better way. The Iraqi foreign minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, spent much of yesterday stressing how he stood ready to consider diplomatic options. President Clinton should take him at his word and explore every possible diplomatic option - before deciding on the next step.