A crucial stage has been reached in the crisis over Iraq's compliance with United Nations resolutions on weapons of mass destruction now that its report on the matter has been handed over to arms inspectors this past weekend.
The vast bulk of the information provided and the need to assess it carefully mean it could be weeks before much is known about its quality. More time will then be required to intensify the inspection process. It is vital that Iraq maintain its co-operative attitude and that the UN Security Council retains full control of the inspections procedure in coming weeks and months.
It took a major diplomatic effort this autumn to ensure the arms inspections were reactivated and applied through the United Nations. President Bush's decision that he should go this route, rather than the unilateral course against Iraq urged by hardliners within his administration, was an important step. So was the pressure from European members of the Security Council - Ireland included - to ensure the UN controls the process.
Now that this stage has been reached there is evidence of mounting frustration in Washington over potential delays with inspections and how they are conducted. Those who want an attack on Iraq are seeking to find a plausible casus belli. But only the Security Council can decide whether Iraq has fully complied with the resolutions on reporting and destroying weapons of mass destruction and what to do if it has not. The United States government insists Saddam Hussein possesses such weapons and in support is likely to offer evidence from its intelligence services; but that must be verified through the UN arms inspectors, not by increasingly belligerent assertions from those who are intent on forcing a regime change to replace the Iraqi ruler.
It is wrong to conclude from the build-up of military preparations that a war is inevitable. These may, on the contrary, force Saddam Hussein to comply with the inspections by proving he does not have such weapons or by destroying them if they are found. His ambiguous apology to the Kuwaiti people this weekend for the invasion in 1990 may indicate flexibility, although it would be foolish to over-interpret such signals from such a despotic ruler.
The United States government must weigh up very carefully indeed whether to proceed unilaterally against Iraq if there is no Security Council agreement. It must be willing to listen to its friends and allies as to the wisdom of such a course. The dangers of antagonising them and destabilising the whole Middle East region would tax its political and military resources and commitments to the utmost. Such an operation is much more likely to encourage terrorism than to prevent it. So far the US has produced no convincing evidence to show links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda organisation. Its own interests and that of all the states involved are best protected by relying on the UN.