It is tempting, in the afterglow of Iraq's apparent capitulation to the collective will of the United Nations, to believe that the latest crisis between the regime of Saddam Hussein and the civilised world has ended.
Sadly, if history is anything to judge by, we have yet to see the end of this dangerous crisis.
In examining what has happened in the past 24 hours, and looking forward to how events might unfold in the coming weeks and months, it is worth pausing to acknowledge the role played by the UN and its Secretary General, Mr Kofi Annan.
The extraction of the letter from Baghdad allowing the return of UN weapons inspectors "without conditions" is a triumph for the primacy of the rule of international law, for the body that speaks for the nations and peoples of the world, and for the US president, Mr George Bush, whose robust, uncompromising speech to the General Assembly last week concentrated minds - in Iraq just as much as elsewhere.
The question is: "Can Saddam be trusted?" A close examination of the text of the letter will lead to the conclusion in Washington that nothing, essentially, has changed. There are two important caveats in the letter.
The first is Baghdad's insistence that prior to the return of inspectors, there needs to be discussions about "the practical arrangements". Given President Saddam's track record, there will be fears that what this means is protracted negotiations regarding the number of inspectors, their nationalities, the length of their stay and the sort of equipment they will be permitted to bring with them.
The second potential stumbling block is the insistence that the UN respect the "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq". Several analysts are already of the view that this is code for no inspections of Saddam's palaces - one of the main reasons why inspectors gave up in frustration in December, 1998.
American officials were making clear yesterday that they still see the need for a new Security Council resolution underpinning the work of any returned inspection team. The US will want a clear, precise, strongly-worded and time-specific resolution to allow for what some in the Bush administration are calling, "muscular inspections". Such a resolution, or its implementation on the ground, may well provoke the sort of Iraqi reaction that some in Mr Bush's cabinet - notably Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Cheney - appear to want: a military showdown and, ultimately, a "regime change" in Baghdad.
Regime change remains President Bush's aim. That is not something the UN can or will mandate. Washington is likely to go along with a new inspection, confident that President Saddam will sooner or later run foul of the inspectors. In that event, President Bush's acknowledgement last week of the importance and authority - legal and moral - of the United Nations, may well be set aside in favour of war delayed.