UN: Deaglán de Bréadún, Foreign Affairs Correspondent, looks at the varying positions of United Nations Security Council members on the prospects of a US-led war with Iraq
Everything at the United Nations Security Council hangs on the report of the weapons inspectors, which will be delivered by Mr Hans Blix next Monday. If he finds that Iraq is in clear breach of Resolution 1441, and can report that weapons of mass destruction have been discovered on Iraqi territory, then all will be plain sailing for the US and its allies.
So far, and despite many media appearances, Mr Blix has not spoken of finding any "smoking gun".
Well-placed UN sources say that if the US feels it has sufficient basis in the Blix report, it will seek a further Security Council resolution giving a mandate for military action.
But other council members are pressing for the inspectors to be given more time to conduct further investigations. The positions of the various council members are coming under close scrutiny, especially the five veto-wielding powers who hold a permanent seat: China, France, Russia, the UK and the US.
China: Beijing has never been keen on international US military operations and would doubtless prefer if this problem could be resolved peacefully. But China has not been at the forefront of opposition, leaving it to France to head up the "awkward squad".
France: The French were an alternative pole of attraction to the US when Resolution 1441 was being negotiated. France has its own economic and diplomatic interests in the region and has been distinctly lukewarm at the prospect of a potentially destabilising attack on Baghdad. There is a large Muslim community in France which will look askance at politicians who vote for war.
In the event of a second resolution endorsing a US-led attack, France could conceivably abstain, or even exercise the veto. This would generate a massive diplomatic crisis and would be deeply embarrassing for the US, evoking memories of the way the Americans themselves stymied the military ambitions of France and Britain at Suez in 1956. As things stand, France is expected to play for time and seek to give the inspectors further opportunity to search the palaces and warehouses of Iraq.
Russia: Seen to be in the French camp on this issue, Russia will at the same time be anxious not to antagonise Mr Vladimir Putin's friend, Mr George Bush. Russia has an interest in Iraqi oil and will be carefully calculating the financial consequences of different courses of action.
United Kingdom: Despite being dubbed "Bush's poodle", Mr Tony Blair has not wavered in his support for the US in this crisis. His growing isolation in Europe and in his own party has not deflected him. The British would claim that their public loyalty to Bush has enabled them to exercise a moderating influence in private on the Americans. Foreign Secretary Mr Jack Straw spoke sternly at the council on Monday, warning Saddam that patience was running out.
United States: Secretary of State Mr Colin Powell was talking tough at the UN this week. He hoped there would be a peaceful solution, but if Iraq did not come into full compliance, the council "must not shrink" from the responsibility before it. While some US hardliners would wish to go ahead on a unilateral basis, there seems to be little appetite for this among the general public. Growing international opposition to the war is another incentive for President Bush to proceed on a multilateral basis, which effectively means a UN mandate. On the evidence provided so far, that seems improbable in the short term.
The so-called "Elected Ten" are confined to a two-year period on the council, and do not hold a veto. But they will still be courted and pressurised for support:
Germany: The Germans joined the council on New Year's Day, but their turn to hold the rotating presidency falls next month, a crucial moment in the drama. Chancellor Schröder's general election success was probably due to his anti-war stance. The colourful Foreign Minister, Mr Joschka Fischer, told the council that a military strike against Baghdad could involve considerable and unpredictable risks, including long-term regional instability.
Mexico: There is a long tradition of militant anti-American rhetoric in Mexican politics, but economic ties between the two countries are growing ever closer. On Resolution 1441, Mexico was one of the last to give its support and will be anxious to seek a peaceful way out on this occasion. But the pressure from Uncle Sam could be enormous.
Pakistan: Although seen by some as a client-state of the US since the Afghan war, Pakistan has a large and troublesome fundamentalist minority. Observers say Pakistan is likely to support the US when it comes to the crunch, but sotto voce rather than stridently.
Spain: Traditionally a close ally of the US, especially on the issue of terrorism: the fight against ETA and al-Qaeda are regarded as one and the same. While Paris and Berlin will be appealing for support on grounds of European Union solidarity, Madrid will not lightly take its distance from the Americans.
Syria: To many people's surprise, Damascus voted for Resolution 1441 but will find it very difficult indeed to back a military invasion. If that were to happen, it would be a great triumph of US political, diplomatic, economic and military influence. The "street" in the Arab world would be incensed.
Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea: There is some residual French influence in the case of the west African countries, Cameroon and Guinea, but if France decides not to try conclusions with the US, these five will hardly stand in Bush's way.
Ireland: Our term on the council is over but, before that, Irish diplomats worked hard to modify the language in Resolution 1441. Ireland was seen as being an ally of France but critics say there are limits to the Government's willingness to frustrate US military ambitions, as the use of Shannon by American military personnel demonstrates.