War remains utterly inevitable. President Bush has gone too far and invested too much political capital to back down now. Nor can it be postponed for much longer, writes Jonathan Eyal
In many respects, Monday's UN Security Council session on Iraq will be a highly predictable affair. Mr Hans Blix, the head of the UN inspectors, will present a report which criticises Iraq for not co-operating fully but also admits that Baghdad has not been caught in the possession of any new weapons of mass destruction.
France, Russia, China and Germany will claim that the UN inspections must be given more time. The US, supported by Britain, will retort that the Iraqi ruler continues to defy the world.
So, why all the fuss about a meeting whose script is already so well known?
Essentially because the session at the UN is merely a smokescreen for a furious diplomatic confrontation behind the scenes. And it is a dispute which has already created one of the most serious divisions between Europe and the US in decades. The first salvo in the current diplomatic confrontation was fired by France and Germany, who announced earlier this week that they would not support any Security Council resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq.
Washington put a brave face on this development, dismissing it as just another "contribution to the debate", but it is an open secret that the administration is seething . And for good reason: for the Franco-German position, if taken literally, must mean Washington will never obtain an international legal cover for its proposed war.
US diplomats know, however, that although the French and Germans have a similar policy, their motives remain different. Prising them apart is now Washington's key diplomatic objective.
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder used the looming crisis in Iraq as a highly effective instrument in his recent re-election campaign. But the price has been high: a severe strain on US-German relations which Mr Schröder has been trying very hard to repair by offering Washington strong diplomatic backing on Iraq. Yet these efforts exposed him to further accusations of electoral opportunism. By publicly declaring, even before the UN inspectors have presented their report, that Germany is still against any military action, Mr Schröder is seeking to show that his initial opposition to the war remains unchanged, and that it is based on principles.
Co-ordinating Germany's position with France offers allows him to show his critics at home that Germany is not isolated in international affairs. Yet in practical terms, the German position makes very little difference to the US. Military planners never counted on German support, and the country has just one ordinary vote on the Security Council.
France is altogether different. Paris is not only able to veto any UN Security Council resolution, but can also be an important ingredient in any Middle East political settlement at the end of the war.
Furthermore, as long as France maintains its opposition, the chances are quite high that the Russians and the Chinese, unhappy about facing America's wrath on their own, would also continue to oppose military action. Gaining France's acquiescence must remain one of the key US policies in the days to come. .
President Jacques Chirac has been quite adept at playing the diplomatic game in the last few months. He was always careful never to rule out the possibility of a war; indeed, in recent remarks he urged military commanders to be ready for a Middle East conflagration. But he also carefully calibrated his position on the UN Security Council, sometimes opposing and sometimes supporting the US.
His message to Washington is that, regardless of the deals between the US and Britain, France cannot be ignored, both in the conduct and the aftermath of any war. For a variety of reasons, it suits the French to be close to the Germans at the moment. But that can change. For most states, the UN remains a necessity, an organisation which enhances their influence on international affairs; for America, however, the UN is seen as a luxury, a tool which may be good while it is useful, but which should not be allowed to constrain the world's only remaining super power.
So, although the Americans would prefer a solid international mandate for their war, the US also reserves its right to start hostilities without formal international approval. From this perspective, therefore, there is a limit to how far France, Russia and China can push their luck in the UN.
France knows that if a war begins without at least its benign acceptance, French oil companies will lose any chance for business in Iraq for years to come.
For similar reasons Russia can also not afford a formal break with the US. And China, which has now been given by Washington a pre-eminent role in the solution of the North Korean crisis, has too much at stake to have a public row with the Americans.
Some Security Council members are nevertheless adopting an uncompromising position because they suspect that Washington itself does not wish to break with the UN. Opinion polls indicate that a majority of Americans will feel uncomfortable about a war in which the US is the sole fighter. More importantly, President Bush has to be careful about Britain's position.
If the US ignores the Security Council, the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair's position will be even more difficult than it is already. Britain will still commit its forces, but the slightest mishap in the war could well cost Blair his job. In a strange way, therefore, the diplomatic game is now evenly balanced: the opponents of a war know that they cannot risk casting an outright veto against the US, but America itself knows that it cannot simply walk out of the Security Council.
The compromise probably lies in a US agreement that the inspectors could continue their work for a short period of time and with a very specific, narrow mission.
It is possible that the US will also use the session on Monday to produce additional information on Iraqi weapon systems.
Although hardly likely to be universally persuasive, it will serve to increase the pressure on Saddam Hussein. The real event will be President Bush's State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday which will be used to prepare ordinary Americans for the impending war. War, therefore, remains utterly inevitable; Mr Bush has gone too far and has invested too much political capital to back down now. Nor can it be postponed for much longer.
Apart from the difficulties of hot weather, there are two other practical considerations which point to next month as the start date for the conflict. US public opinion is likely to grow tired and lose interest if Iraq becomes a long drawn-out affair between foreign diplomats sitting around the table in the "irrelevant" UN. And Bush cannot keep his troops in the Middle East on high alert for many months, without incurring massive additional costs, and demoralisation.
The diplomats gathered in the Security Council this Monday know this - most of their real activity will be concerned with finessing the legal justifications for this conflict while extracting the maximum political concessions from the US.Mr Blix and his inspectors will be given some time. But their mission is practically over; the countdown to the war has already begun.
Jonathan Eyal is director of studies at the Royal United Services Institute in London