If there were any doubts beforehand, there can be no doubts after his speech to the General Assembly - George Bush is serious about Iraq, writes Conor O'Clery from the United Nations in New York.
It wasn't just the fast-developing conflict between the United States and Iraq that made yesterday's opening session of the United Nations General Assembly so tense and expectant. It was the open disharmony between the UN Secretary General and the President of the United States over the very legitimacy of multilateralism as a way of resolving world problems.
It is unprecedented for a Secretary General to impose himself as a counterpoint to a speech by a US president. But yesterday Mr Kofi Annan took the floor before President Bush, to warn that choosing to follow or reject the multilateral path must not be a simple matter of political convenience.
Unilateral action had far-reaching consequences, he said, and "there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations".
Mr Annan made it personal. "I stand before you as a multilateralist by precedent, by principle, by charter and by duty," he said. The UN leader even took the unusual step of releasing his remarks overnight to ensure that the tone of the debate was not set by Mr Bush alone.
No one by now is in any doubt that - unless he is bluffing on a major scale - Mr Bush is serious about Iraq. The US, too, had been releasing information in advance to dictate the terms of the debate, and the US President flagged his speech by telling the nation from Ellis Island on Wednesday evening, with the Statue of Liberty in the background, that he had no intention "of appeasing history's latest gang of fanatics".
Underlining US battle preparations, the Pentagon announced on the eve of the General Assembly debate that it is sending 600 top military officers from its Florida central command to the Gulf state of Qatar, placing a war staff right on Mr Saddam Hussein's doorstep. US officials have also been leaking details of preparations to strike Baghdad, possibly before the end of this year.
Gen Tommy Franks, head of the US General Command, presented plans to the Pentagon on Tuesday calling for the rapid deployment of up to 75,000 US troops and massive air strikes against Mr Saddam's forces. Already there are reported to be 1,500 marines, 400 aircraft, 230 tanks and 120 Bradley fighting vehicles in the region and, just offshore, four destroyers and two cruisers.
The US and the UK have, of course, been involved in military intervention in Iraq for 11 years to enforce the two no-fly zones and the embargo.
AS Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey said yesterday, it is not a choice between an invasion and nothing, but between sustaining a military effort designed to contain Mr Saddam and a military effort designed to replace him.
The UN Secretary General did not spell out the risks of the latter course, but staff diplomats at the UN talk gravely of the possible consequences of a pre-emptive attack, including a precipitous move by Baghdad into the Saudi Arabian oil-fields or an attack on Israel with chemical or biological weapons.
What Mr Bush was doing yesterday at the UN was seeking legitimacy for the US war plans by depicting inaction as appeasement. He was saying "disarm Iraq or leave the job to us". Unless the United Nations confronts Saddam Hussein and brings about the destruction of his most lethal weapons, the United Nations "will be irrelevant".
Over the debate yesterday hung the shadow of the last catastrophic failure of a world body to stop a major war.
The UN Security Council was created, Mr Bush pointedly remarked, "so that - unlike the League of Nations - our deliberations would be more than talk". This did not go down well with countries that have been frustrated by the US's refusal to go along with the UN on crucially important global issues ranging from the international war crimes court to climate warming.
In briefings, UN officials say the message is that "we have plenty of resolutions about Iraq, now we have to choose whether the UN exists to pass resolutions or make them stick".
Mr Bush presented a strong case against Iraq yesterday for defying 16 UN Security Council resolutions.
But many other countries point out that the US is being selective, and has not sought to pressurise its closest ally, Israel, into acting on previous Security Council resolutions that would affect Israel's perceived national interest.
Mr Bush does seem ready, however, to accept a final inspection effort. The next step then in the unfolding drama is the drafting, by the US or its closest ally, Britain, of a new resolution for the Security Council (of which Ireland is a member until the end of December) to authorise military action or force a major compromise from President Saddam. That could take two to three weeks, UN diplomats say.
This fits the time-scale being kicked about by US administration officials, following the suggestion by French President Jacques Chirac this week of a three-week time-table. Then if Mr Saddam does not agree, or the moment his officials obstruct the weapons inspectors, the US has its causus belli.
What we witnessed yesterday was the UN Secretary General desperately trying to avoid US-led military action against Iraq, and the US President saying he "cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather".
Meanwhile, the build-up continues.