Here we go again. A year after they last massed in the region to prepare for an attack against Iraq, the US forces are preparing for a repeat performance, this time perhaps with a "proper" finale.
To paraphrase Albert Reynolds, himself just returned from Iraq, "war-war", or the threat of it, is better than "jaw-jaw", at least as far as the governments of the US and Iraq are concerned. And the rest of us can only watch and wonder.
On at least four occasions since the Gulf War ended in 1991, US forces have attacked Iraqi territory in response to alleged violations of cease-fires or no-fly zones. For his part, Saddam Hussein has seldom hesitated to make life difficult for the United Nations Special Commission, UNSCOM, which is responsible for eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The problem for the Americans is that while their military firepower could easily launch a devastating once-off strike on Baghdad or any other Iraqi target, winning a full-scale war and/or toppling Saddam is a task of a different order.
In their various skirmishes of the past seven years, Saddam has effectively exploited the gap that exists between the US and its allies in the West. European nations will generally side with the Americans on UN votes, but with the exception of Britain they are slow to give military backing. Russia is even more wayward, and the pro-Western Arab states are extremely reluctant now to make their bases available to US warplanes for refuelling.
This partially explains why Saddam is still in power seven years after his ignominious defeat in the Gulf War, still taunting the US and still acting as a focus for Arab antagonism towards America.
The last big set-to was in January, when Iraq banned the weapons inspectors from the presidential palace. A huge US and British military build-up ensued. Only the last-minute intervention of the UN Secretary General, Mr Kofi Annan, averted a military clash.
Over the past year, Iraq has embarked on a publicity offensive to break up the support for sanctions. Numerous visitors, the latest being Mr Reynolds, have returned home to report on the appalling effect of sanctions on the lives and health of ordinary Iraqis. More than a million people have died, and the effects of radiation from war materiel has caused huge rises in cancer rates in the war-affected areas. Half of Iraq's 20 million population is malnourished and many are starving.
However, the Iraqi regime's campaign has been undermined by revelations about the arsenal of murderous weapons Saddam has been found to possess. In June, the UN determined it had the capability to manufacture 200 tons of VX nerve agent. In August, the head of UNSCOM, Mr Richard Butler, said Iraq was hiding information on biological weapons. Already in 1996, UNSCOM had blown up a biological weapons plant at Al Hakam. The problem for the Americans is that UNSCOM's word counts for little in the Arab world. It was always seen as being dominated by British and American experts. Last year, Saddam ordered out US members of the UNSCOM team, accusing them of being CIA agents.
One way the US could improve its credibility in the Middle East would be to make the same demands on weapons inspection of Israel as it does of Iraq. However, there is little likelihood of this occurring.
With the withdrawal of UNSCOM's staff over Iraq's latest refusal to co-operate with disarmament attempts, the way is clear for US strikes. This time it will be different, the Americans are letting it be known. Mr Butler is already on record as saying the present conflict is the worst so far. Only one thing will remain the same: CNN will be there.