Although weapons inspectors are receiving co-operation, President Bush is claiming "so far the signs are not encouraging", writes Conor O'Clery from Washington
'Savour the moment, uncork the fine vintage, because tomorrow it could be sour wine again." This was the advice Republican senator Mr Chuck Hagel gave his friend, Mr Colin Powell, at a time when the often beleaguered US Secretary of State is relishing a string of diplomatic victories for Washington.
His most significant triumph was to get the UN's Security Council to vote unanimously on November 8th for a new, tough regime of weapons inspections in Iraq as a possible means of avoiding military conflict.
But now that the UN weapons inspectors are meeting smiling co-operation from Iraqi officials, the talk of war has suddenly been renewed by the White House.
After an unusual period of silence on the issue, President Bush talked tough when visiting the Pentagon on Monday. "In the inspections process, the United States will be making one judgment: has Saddam Hussein changed his behaviour of the last 11 years? Has he decided to co-operate willingly and comply completely, or has he not? So far the signs are not encouraging," said Mr Bush. Iraq had responded to UN disarmament demands with "protests and falsehoods".
Vice-President Dick Cheney, who argued in August that inspections would be useless, went further. Saddam Hussein's defiance "will invite the severest consequences", he said in a speech to the Air National Guard in Denver, Colorado. He claimed, contrary to the tone of US intelligence reports, that the Iraqi government "has had high-level contacts with al-Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al-Qaeda terrorists".
This is the talk of someone who is not contemplating anything other than regime change in Iraq.
The reaction of tough-talking US officials contrasts sharply with the satisfaction at the UN that the inspections are going well. "Co-operation seems to be good," said UN Secretary General Kofi Annan yesterday.
The strong US rhetoric reflects private unease among hawks in Mr Bush's cabinet that the appearance of co-operation by Iraq could sap the international willingness to achieve disarmament of Iraq by force.
The concern of some members of the administration about Mr Powell's victory in the UN has always been that Saddam Hussein will not provide a specific pretext for war.
They must, therefore, turn the argument back to the unique threat posed by the Iraqi dictator, i.e. his potential to develop weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear capacity. Proving that Iraq has committed a "material breach" of UN resolution 1441 - the UN-approved pretext for "serious consequences" - may be impossible.
They are also concerned that the declaration that Iraqi must make by December 8th of "all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and other delivery systems" will be made up of many bulky documents which could take months to verify.
The opportunity might pass for an invasion during the winter months when conditions would be optimum for US troops operating in heavy suits designed to protect against chemical and biological warfare.
US policy also appears to be driven by the argument that a delayed war might be more costly. As Mr Bush said: "The temporary peace of denial and looking away from danger would only be a prelude to broader war and greater horror."
THE Pentagon is moreover almost ready to strike. There are 60,000 military personnel in the Persian Gulf region, with heavy armour flowing in. Of these troops, 12,000 are poised at the Iraqi border, backed by attack helicopters, aircraft, equipment for two armoured brigades and advance headquarters units from the army and marine forces.
The administration has already signalled that its response to the declaration will be sceptical no matter what it contains. White House spokesman Mr Ari Fleischer said that if Iraq admits it has chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programmes then "we will know that Saddam has deceived the world". If it declares it has none, "then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world".
Mr Bush made clear that the declaration will be held to the most severe standards, and that "any act of delay, deception or defiance" will prove that Iraq has "rejected the path of peace".
The US appears to be shifting public attention from the current inspections to the demand for "zero-tolerance" full disclosure. This is in a co-ordinated effort with Britain, which ratcheted up the pressure on Monday by accusing Saddam Hussein of the most horrendous forms of torture and killings.
The UN deadline is a crisis point, though it may not be the occasion for an immediate declaration of war. Rather it will be the beginning of the endgame.
Though Iraq has until Sunday to declare all of its banned biological, chemical and nuclear weapons work, as well as its long-range missiles, Iraq's ambassador to the UN, Mr Mohammed Al-Douri, said the declaration could be ready before that. It would contain no surprises.
"We have repeated our position several times that we have nothing hidden."
The Americans refuse to believe that. Administration officials say that intelligence on Iraqi weapons programmes has not yet been shared with UN inspectors, so that Saddam Hussein has to guess what Washington knows or doesn't know.
The most important date, a US official said, would occur when the US intelligence services have completed their assessment of the declaration.
What will happen then - in the unlikely event of the US being satisfied that it is a prelude to the disarmament of Iraq - can be guessed at from something else Mr Bush said on Monday. "America will confront gathering dangers early, before our options become limited and desperate."