Increasing international and domestic disquiet about the United States' plans to invade Iraq and change its regime has led President Bush to give assurances that he will consult US allies and political leaders and explore non-military options before any action is launched.
It is the least he could do to allay growing fears that this is an ill-considered and dangerous strategy which would cause many more problems than it could resolve.
Few doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a totalitarian tyranny which continues to endanger the Iraqi people and neighbouring states. The country's huge oil and human resources have been systematically diverted into a succession of military adventures, as a result of which its population has been made to suffer from severe penal sanctions imposed by the United Nations. There is clear evidence that it has accumulated biological and chemical weapons, which it has previously been willing to use against domestic and foreign antagonists. It may have developed a nuclear capacity since UN arms inspectors were last refused entry.
All this is well known. In response the international community, through the UN, has developed a successful policy to contain Iraq's power militarily and economically. The US and Britain have been especially active in enforcing it. The other permanent members of the Security Council - France, Russia and China - have been more ready to accommodate Iraq, insofar as it is willing to abide by successive UN resolutions on arms inspections. The Iraqi leader has played a canny game by resisting them without substantially violating the security equilibrium imposed by this containment policy, thereby lending it a gruesome stability.
President Bush now argues that the Saddam Hussein regime so threatens world peace and stability that it should be overthrown to prevent this deadly military capacity being used. He associates Iraq directly with the al-Qaeda network responsible for the September 11th attacks on New York and Washington last year. The most hawkish members of his administration believe it will be possible to overthrow Saddam Hussein with a well-planned invasion, reordering the Middle East region in the process by making it more amenable to US and Western political, security and economic interests.
They have failed to provide the evidence to justify such a risky strategy. They have not presented compelling arguments showing containment and deterrence have failed and pre-emptive action is required. Their argument relies on an unproven assumption that such a military capacity is bound to be used once achieved. Alarmingly, it rejects the need for a fresh UN Security Council mandate to justify military action against Iraq because of failure to comply with the sanctions regime; even more so, some members of the administration openly say the need for regime change is not related to UN policy and should be pursued unilaterally.
Iraq must comply with UN arms inspection policy so as to avoid the looming threats to its survival and to world stability.