Irreconcilable differences of opinion?

They are veto-holding partners in Europe and on the UN Security Council. But as yesterday's speech by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, demonstrated, politically they have rarely been so far apart. What are the main points that divide them?

The threat from Iraq is overstated; it is no worse than other rogue regimes. What is the threat to Europe and the United States?

THE BRITISH VIEW

"We have to differentiate between the threat posed by Iraq and other would-be proliferators. No other country shares Iraq's history of deploying chemical weapons against a neighbour, or against innocent civilians as part of a genocidal campaign. It is this deadly combination of capability and intent that makes Saddam Hussein uniquely dangerous.

"Iraq has not accounted for up to 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals; up to 360 tons of bulk agent for chemical weapons; more than 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents."

THE FRENCH RESPONSE

France accepts that the Iraqi regime is dangerous. It does not accept that there is an "imminent" danger, which would justify a military invasion. In particular, Paris rejects the argument made by the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, last week that there is an active link between Baghdad and al- Qa'ida. French intelligence services (accepted as among the best-informed on Islamist activity) say there is no evidence of such a connection.

By backing diplomatic efforts with the credible threat of force we are somehow undermining international law.

THE BRITISH VIEW

"All laws require enforcement. And the UN Charter, in Chapter VII, specifically allows for the authorisation of the use of force to maintain and to restore international peace and security. In failing to hold Saddam to account, other would-be proliferators would rightly draw the conclusion that our commitment to prevent the spread of the world's deadliest weapons amounted to empty rhetoric."

THE FRENCH RESPONSE

France has not opposed the "threat of force" as such. It has always said that it would be prepared, as a final option, to take part in military action. The vast USmilitary build-up in the Gulf is not a "credible threat" but a way of pre-empting a decision that belongs properly with the UN Security Council. America and Britain are in effect, saying: "It is up to the UN to decide but if you fail to go our way, we will send in the troops any way." It is this which is undermining international law.

If the decade-long policy of containment against Iraq is working, why do we threaten disarmament by force?

THE BRITISH VIEW

"This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Iraq's obligations. Iraq was found guilty 12 years ago. Yet it built up its weapons of mass destruction; lied and lied again; disrupted and intimidated the inspectors, making their lives so difficult that they were forced out in 1998.

"Extending the no-fly zone and introducing blue-helmeted UN troops [the Franco-German proposals] would not work because extending the no-fly zone would require the complete and permanent grounding of the Iraqi air force. Blue- helmeted troops are peacekeepers. Peace-keeping requires consent and a permissive environment."

THE FRENCH RESPONSE

The UN inspectors should be given more time (although not endless time). The UN presence will contain Saddam but it has also proved capable in the past of disarming him. Both Paris and the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, point out that more weapons were uncovered and destroyed by the inspectors in the 1990s than in the Gulf War itself. Paris wants up to three times as many inspectors. This has been rejected by the chief weapons inspectors as irrelevant. But France believes the inspectors themselves should decide whether to continue.

Won't military action have a disproportionate effect on Iraq and the wider region?

THE BRITISH VIEW

"If military action does prove necessary, huge efforts will be made to ensure that the suffering of the Iraqi people is as limited as possible. And, I know, I am certain, that we will have put an end to far greater torment and killing which will otherwise be perpetuated by the Iraqi regime. There are never exact parallels but ... who today would question the moral case for the allied intervention which led to the fall of Milosevic?"

THE FRENCH RESPONSE

War is always the worst and last option. Apart from the military and civilian casualties, France is convinced that a US-led invasion – however short and surgical – will compound hatred of the West in the Islamic world and make the "war on terror", which should take precedence, harder to win.

Isn't our real motivation to secure control of some of the world's largest oil reserves?

THE BRITISH VIEW

"Our mission is about disarmament not oil, fear or greed. In the event of military action, Iraq's oilfields would be protected from any environmental terrorism, and the revenues generated would be used to benefit the Iraqi people. The sceptics would never be convinced, but if oil was the issue, would it not be infinitely simpler to deal with Saddam who, I am sure, would be delighted to give us as much oil as we wanted if he could carry on building weapons of mass destruction."

THE FRENCH RESPONSE

The "all-about-oil" argument is heard in the French press (especially the left-wing press). It is not an argument used by the French government. French officials note, however, that the American oil industry is already talking about sharing out post-war access to Iraqi oil between US companies, allowing an "honorable share" to the British but nothing for the French and other reluctant warriors.

In calling for the enforcement of UN resolutions against Iraq, aren't we guilty of double standards in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict?

THE BRITISH VIEW

"We want to see UN Security Council resolutions implemented all over the world. We are working tirelessly to achieve this in respect of Israel/Palestine.

"We look to both leaderships to make renewed effort. We shall support them in this; we know from our recent experience at the London meeting that real engagements by outsiders with the parties can produce results."

THE FRENCH RESPONSE

France and Britain take the same view of the Israel/ Palestine issue. Washington has abdicated its responsibility to put pressure on Israel to stop, at least, making the problem worse (by excessive repression of Palestinians and by extending Israeli settlements). French officials contrast the approach of Bush fils with that of Bush père before and after the first Gulf War. The administration of the senior George Bush was not scared of using American influence to restrain Israel during the war and to promise efforts post-war to solve the Palestinian issue.

By concentrating all its moral indignation on Saddam but protecting the Israelis, Paris argues that Washington is building dangerous resentment in the Arab world.