Iraq's decision to accept the United Nations Security Council's unanimous resolution on arms inspections and disarmament unconditionally is welcome - and well-advised. It sets in motion an investigation by an international team into whether that state is manufacturing and harbouring weapons of mass destruction.
Any evidence they uncover to confirm it is doing so would put Iraq into material breach of explicit and detailed prohibitions reaffirmed by the resolution. Unless the Iraqis co-operate fully with the investigation and the requirement to disarm, they face the prospect of military action to force them to do so.
A great deal therefore depends on whether Iraq, in fact, co-operates with the UN inspection team as unreservedly as it has undertaken in the letter to the Security Council published yesterday.
In its debate the Iraqi parliament heard highly critical speeches about the resolution, saying it is designed to trigger, rather than prevent, a war. The resolution is certainly stringent. But it does provide room for Iraq to show willingness to accept the terms laid down. The more it does so, the more difficult it will be for the United States to convince other Security Council members and allies that military action is necessary.
Thus alongside the inspection process there will be a continuing political process of interpretation on whether the terms of the resolution are being met. It will be up to Ireland and other Security Council members to monitor this extremely closely to make sure the resolution is not being used cynically by those who want a war simply as a means of legitimising it. There is ample scope for them to do so in the resolution. But it should be possible for those who believe Iraq is complying to argue their case against such interpretations by using the agreement to reconvene the Security Council before any military action is taken. The best way for the Iraqis to prevent a war will be to comply with the demands for disarmament. That will put this political process to a severe test.
The latest document from Osama bin Laden welcoming a series of terrorist attacks around the world was yesterday being taken as evidence he is still alive and directing the al-Qaeda organisation. This is a stark reminder that the relationship between his activities and Iraq is extremely tenuous. President Bush says Iraq is harbouring weapons of mass destruction which could be passed to terrorist organisations; but despite much effort by US intelligence services there is no proof Saddam Hussein is actually doing so or intends to in the future. Against this there must be set the much greater likelihood that he would use whatever weapons of mass destruction he has if he were in danger of being overthrown. A war would also provoke more widespread terrorism in response.
That is why it must be avoided, if at all possible, by putting continuing and relentless pressure on Iraq to comply.