Today the Iraqi diplomatic confrontation with the UN could escalate into an armed clash with the United States. The chief of the UN commission monitoring Iraq's weaponry, Mr Richard Butler, said on Friday that UN surveillance flights by USowned and piloted U-2 planes would resume today. Iraq has threatened to shoot down the U-2s. The United States has warned that this would constitute an "act of war" and elicit military retaliation, most probably a cruise missile attack on sensitive Iraqi targets.

The Iraqi challenge and US response were inevitable. Baghdad is now more determined than ever to break out of the "box" which the US has used to confine the country since its occupation of Kuwait in August 1990.

Iraqi determination is fed by US official statements that the punitive sanctions regime - which has reduced Iraq from first world to third world economic status over the past seven years - will not be lifted until Mr Saddam Hussein is no longer in power in Iraq.

Or "never lifted", to quote Mr Edward Peck, former head of the US mission in Iraq, because "it is impossible to determine" that Iraq has fully disarmed and disclosed all details of its weapons programmes.

Thus Baghdad sees itself frozen in the oil-for-food programme which allows it to purchase $2 billion worth of food and medical supplies annually from the proceeds of limited oil sales.

Why has Iraq chosen to act now?

The oil-for-food programme has doubled basic rations but failed to solve the country's humanitarian crisis. The cumulative affect of seven years of privation has not been reversed by the limited import of supplies approved by the US-dominated sanctions committee.

A year ago 4,500 Iraqi children under five died every month from illness and malnutrition caused by sanctions; today the figure is 6,500. Many of those who survive are mentally and physically retarded.

A growing generation of Iraqis is at stake: even a crude and cruel government cannot ignore this.

The US-led Gulf war coalition which liberated Kuwait has collapsed. The US and UK constitute the pro-sanctions faction in the Security Council. Their ability to influence Russia, France and China, the other three permanent members, is waning as these three countries all have important economic interests which would be served by the lifting of sanctions.

They and non-permanent members of the council favour a flexible approach which would reward Iraq for its co-operation with the UN programme to dismantle its weapons by easing the embargo.

But the conciliators have been unable to persuade the US and UK, so sanctions remain and Iraqi frustration grows.

Iraq's neighbours are becoming restive over the deadly impact of sanctions on civilians, and the loss of Iraq as a trading partner. Jordan and Turkey are suffering economically from the absence of Iraq as a market for agricultural produce.

Syria, Iraq's inveterate political antagonist, has recently reopened its borders with Iraq for trade, and Egypt is promoting Iraq's return to the Arab fold.

European and regional governments are impatient with the US over its policy of "containing" both Iran and Iraq, a policy adopted after the 1991 Gulf war but not adapted to fit changing circumstances.

The appointment of Mr Martin Indyk, the originator of the policy of "containment", as undersecretary of state for Near East affairs in the US State Department, makes it even more unlikely that Washington will shift from its immovable stance.

Mr Graham Fuller, an analyst formerly with the CIA and now with the Rand Corporation, told The Irish Times that this stance has been solidified by Congress, which is committed to "containment" and sanctions. Iran, Mr Fuller stated, could "break out" by "cultivating its relations with its Gulf neighbours".

But Iraq cannot because of Mr Saddam Hussein, a ruler who has been demonised to the extent that even someone of Mr Fuller's experience and sophistication can claim he has "killed someone in every Iraqi family".

Whatever happens between Iraq and the US, Mr Saddam believes, rightly or wrongly, that he cannot lose by trying, once again, to "break out" of his "box".

On this occasion Iraq has prepared an extensive dossier to prove that US members of the UN inspection teams are abusing their position in order to maintain sanctions and undermine the security of the country. On Friday, his case was made round the world via CNN and in the press.

However hard the UN and US try to refute and discount Iraqi charges, the world has been reminded that Iraq remains in a "box", that it has met most of the conditions for the lifting of sanctions but still its people suffer.

Once again Iraqis blame the US for their plight and feel reassured that their President is attempting to end sanctions. Once again, Arabs see Iraq under threat while Israel ignores with impunity UN resolutions on settlement activity and Jerusalem, and refuses to honour its commitments to the Palestinians.

Once again Russia, France, China, Jordan and Turkey postpone lucrative deals with Baghdad.

If the US launches missile strikes at Iraq or persuades the Security Council to impose additional economic sanctions on the country, Washington will be seen as punishing a people who have already been punished too harshly; citing Mr Saddam's cruelty to his own people cannot justify US cruelty.

Firing cruise missiles at Iraqi targets before or during the November 16th-18th economic conference in Qatar would wreck US efforts to get Arab political figures and businessmen to discuss co-operation with Israelis.

Blasting, or tightening the screws on Muslim Iraq will heighten tension between the US and Muslim leaders scheduled to meet at summit level on December 9th in Tehran. It would also give impetus to the demand for an end to "containment", isolation and sanctions against all the Muslim countries targeted by the US - Iraq, Iran, Libya and Sudan.