The key issues
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE MISSILES
After the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq was banned from producing missiles with a range longer than 150km. Its claim that all such missiles were destroyed is still being verified. So when the UN confirmed that Iraq had recently tested al-Samoud 2 missiles with a range of up to 183 km, they had to be destroyed under UN supervision. Iraqi missiles constitute a danger not simply because of their range, but because of the chemical or biological payloads they could deliver (although some experts say that Iraq has not perfected its delivery system).
THE DEADLY AGENTS
UN arms inspectors destroyed much of Iraq's chemical weapons stockpiles, munitions and production facilities before they left in 1998. But Iraq still hasn't accounted for 3.9 tons of deadly VX nerve gas and 8.5 tons of anthrax. Saddam Hussein must also account for 6,500 chemical bombs as well as 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.
THE AL-QA'IDA LINK
The US claims Baghdad has provided instruction in terrorist tactics to al-Qa'ida in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. But President Saddam has strongly denied any connection with either al-Qa'ida or Osama bin Laden, and British intelligence remains sceptical. But the possibility that weapons of mass destruction from Iraq could fall into terrorist hands has been a leitmotif in Tony Blair's justification for war.
HUMANITARIAN CRISIS
Two-thirds of Iraq's sixteen million population are dependent on food aid. In the event of war, two million people or more could flee across the border, mainly to Iran. War will also damage water and sanitation systems already on the verge of collapse after 13 years of sanctions, and UN agencies, which administer humanitarian supplies to Iraq through the oil-for-food programme, warn that military action would cause the system to collapse. Only $36.7m (£23.2m) has been pledged by governments so far for UN relief work, against an anticipated cost of $123.5m.
The counter-argument – advanced by Mr Blair and others – is the humanitarian cost of leaving President Saddam in power. It has been calculated that more than one million Iraqis have perished as a result of his iron rule.
TIME
From a military perspective, there are major advantages in fighting before April, when desert temperatures rise sharply. But the longer war is delayed, the easier it is for President Saddam – through judicious concessions to the UN arms inspectors – to drive a wedge between the two camps of the veto-holding UN Security Council members. The pro-war camp argues that: President Saddam is not co-operating, and it is not lack of time that is preventing him from doing so. The anti-war camp argues that delay, though frustrating, is preferable to war as long as even a faint chance remains of war being averted.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments