Short of a coup against Saddam, war this winter is inevitable

By putting the stress on the word 'disarm', the Americans and the British have laid a trap for Saddam Hussein

New York. This is the city where the most intense negotiations in the UN's history are taking place, but you wouldn't get any sense of that from watching American television. Instead, the networks and cable channels are obsessed with the private war of a sniper. Entirely understandable, you might say. If such a thing were happening in Britain we, too, would have wall-to-wall coverage. Even the lifts in my hotel are fitted with televisions so that the moronic voices of cable channel presenters, intoxicated with drama, can accompany us from floor to floor. But several blocks across town on the banks of the East River a drama of pretty astonishing proportions is being played out to remarkably little local attention.

Meetings of men in suits speaking through translators make for remarkably dull television, as anybody who has tried to cover EU deliberations will tell you. But these men are debating the prospect of a war that could have huge ramifications for all of us, not least the citizens of America whose representatives are forcing the Security Council towards a moment of decision. The absence of television coverage probably suits the Bush White House for it prevents Americans from understanding the depth of international opposition to the planned war. President Chirac of France may win the admiration from those opposed to war in Europe and the Middle East, but his demand for a two-stage resolution counts for nothing out in Iowa. There may not be a public clamour for war, but all the opinion polls suggest that Americans believe Saddam is somehow tied in to the people who attacked the Twin Towers. They have accepted the Bush line that Iraq represents phase two of the war on terror.

The so-called "doves" in the administration, like Secretary of State Colin Powell, are keenly aware of public opinion, however mindful they may be of the dangers of a war. So Powell is not about to commit political suicide by breaking ranks with a hugely popular president. Opponents of war have seized crumbs of comfort from statements by Powell and Condoleeza Rice that getting rid of the weapons of mass destruction was the US priority, as well as the assertion by George Bush that if the regime changed its ways that would amount to regime change. Forget it. That was disingenuous weekend spin designed to mollify the other Security Council members. Preparations for war might be discreet, but they are still going on.

So while Europeans like to delude themselves that Colin Powell the moderate will restrain Bush the warrior, the reality is that the only disagreement between them now is over the tactics used to get American troops on to the battlefield. The limited criticism of the administration's Iraq policy in the Senate and Congress is now also a thing of the past. It may revive, of course, as the moment of conflict draws nearer, but the overwhelming impression here is of a country heading for war. America may not be entirely unified on this, but the White House is at least unimpeded by the prospect of large-scale domestic opposition.

The role played by Colin Powell is not dissimilar to the one he played in the wake of 11 September. Back then it was Powell who made the case in the White House for a period of restraint and coalition building. But don't forget that once Powell's work was seen to be done, military action followed.

So how might all this play out in the next few weeks? Here is the scenario put to me by a diplomat friend well informed in the ways of the United Nations. There will be a vote sometime in the next fortnight involving all 15 members of the Security Council. Before that Bush will open a direct line to Putin and persuade him not to use the Russian veto. Abstain if he must, but no veto. The carrot will be billions of dollars in assistance to make up for what Russia stands to lose if Saddam is overthrown. The Americans also believe the Chinese won't use their veto. Ever the pragmatists, the Chinese take a long view in which relations with America on issues like trade and Taiwan are far more important than Saddam.

The French are now also regarded as less of a problem. President Chirac has already extracted maximum image benefit from the six weeks of negotiations at the UN, and in any case his position has always been contingent on being able to stand alongside bigger and mightier Russia. If the Russians were out of the picture, Mr Chirac would be most unlikely to stand alone. Again abstention would offer an honourable alternative.

The vote will give the Americans most of what they want, with the warning of "serious consequences" being seen by the White House as strong enough to permit a military attack. Having secured the vote, the inspections will begin, with Hans Blix in the toughest and loneliest job given to any man in a very long time. By all accounts Mr Blix will not be intimidated by the American desire for war or by stonewalling on the part of the Iraqis. Those who watched him at work on the North Korean issue some years ago say he is a very fair dealer. It will become apparent fairly quickly whether or not the Iraqis intend to comply and, if they don't, Mr Blix will say so.

The administration is convinced that Saddam will refuse to disarm. As the White House spokesman Ari Fleischer put it, Iraqi disarmament is the "mother of all hypotheticals". Indeed, by putting the stress on the word "disarm", the Americans and the British have laid a trap for Saddam. The Iraqi leader has repeatedly insisted that he has no weapons of mass destruction. How, then, can he possibly disarm? You cannot hand over what you say you don't have.

His alternative will be to allow full and aggressive inspections which will turn up evidence of chemical and biological weapons production. If nothing is found, Bush and Blair will face unprecedented humiliation. This is a very unlikely scenario. More probable is Mr Blix will find evidence, forcing Saddam to admit he was a liar and humiliating him in front of the Arab world. If Saddam is to prevent the latter scenario he must obstruct the inspections, and if he does the spotlight returns here to New York.

America will cry "I told you so" and the march towards war will accelerate into a sprint. The other alternative is that the Americans won't get a vote at the UN and will decide to go it alone. Then Tony Blair faces the most difficult choice of his political life. But we can be reasonably sure he will decide to send British troops to fight alongside the Americans. If the war is over quickly and does not spread a violent contagion to other countries in the region, if there are minimal British and civilian casualties, Mr Blair will be able to say he made the right choice. But he must realise that the "ifs" in any of these scenarios loom uncomfortably large. Short of a coup against Saddam, war is now probably inevitable. The Bush administration has certainly decided this is the case and is actively readying itself for a conflict late in winter. The most important lesson of the post-11 September world is that when America decides it has a clear national interest America will act – with or without the rest of us.

The writer is a BBC Special Correspondent