Difficulties remain over the vexed issue of Iraqi sanctions at the United Nations, despite the unanimous vote at the Security Council last week to extend curbs on the Saddam Hussein regime for a further six months.
The compromise reached between the US and Russia on implementation of the sanctions left some issues still in need of clarification. The possibility that the US, flushed by its success in Afghanistan, might now move against Baghdad has also contributed to the general uncertainty.
An unspecified threat by President Bush to take action against President Saddam if he failed to admit UN weapons inspectors was subsequently played down by the Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell. But it is known that a faction in the US government would be keen to follow up the change of regime in Afghanistan with a similar operation in Iraq.
If the US were to embark on such a venture it would, as UN sources put it yesterday, knock the compromise over sanctions "into a cocked hat". However if, for example, evidence emerged of an Iraqi connection to the anthrax attack in the US or if strong links were reported between Iraq and the September 11th atrocities, a US-led invasion could quickly become a reality. Potential European, Arab and Russian objections might be muted or overridden.
The joint US-UK drive to institute "smart sanctions" has been successful in principle. Resolution 1382, passed last week with the support of all council members including Ireland, provides for a "Goods Review List (GRL)" to be put in place next May. This would permit items with potential military use to be examined and perhaps blocked while normal civilian goods could be imported without hindrance by the Iraqis.
Observers believe this was in part motivated by a desire to remove one of the main propaganda props of the Iraqi campaign against the sanctions, placing much of the odium for civilian deaths definitively on the shoulders of President Saddam. As UN sources put it: "People can say, what are you complaining about?"
Whereas Ireland has supported the US-UK campaign for smart sanctions, it has joined the French and the Russians in seeking greater clarity on the position that would obtain if sanctions were suspended and how it would be proposed to monitor Iraq's continuing compliance with the UN ban on weapons of mass destruction.
Ireland has strongly advocated that the sanctions regime be revised to allow foreign investment and more international services contracts in order to develop and "normalise" the Iraqi economy and infrastructure on a long-term basis.
Some ambiguity remains over the likely sequence of events when the "targeted sanctions" come into operation in six months. Iraq has not been alone in its concern that the new arrangements could constitute a more durable sanctions regime.
A statement from Baghdad at the weekend said: "Iraq categorically rejects the goods review list which comes in the second paragraph of the resolution."
Despite the apparent US-Russian rapprochement over the latest resolution, there is a certain ambiguity and conditionality in the text, which makes the items on the Goods Review List "subject to any refinements to them agreed by the Council in light of further consultations" before the list comes into effect in six months.
"The Russians gave themselves an out," UN sources said. "It is an advance, but not a spectacular advance."
The durability of the agreement may be tested when the details of the new sanctions regime are finalised in May.