With Saddam Hussein's extraordinary NBC television interview last night in which he refused to destroy missiles, and the tabling of a UN Security Council resolution by the US authorising the use of force, the Iraq crisis is entering its political and military endgame.
Dr Hans Blix, the chief arms inspector, says Iraq must destroy missiles which are in breach of UN demands. His demand has been flatly rejected by Saddam , who denies they violate the sanctions.
Dr Blix is expected to spell out 30 more unresolved disarmament questions today. Saddam's response to these further demands will be crucial. If he demonstrates a clear willingness to comply voluntarily support could return for the French position, also put before the Security Council last night, that more time be given to the arms inspectors to complete their work. But France's position loses credibility in the light of Saddam's interview.
The deep disagreement between these two major perspectives on the crisis, aired once again at yesterday's meeting of EU foreign ministers, has hinged on two straightforward judgments: about the extent to which Iraq has complied with UN demands, and about timing. A dramatic action by the Iraqi regime acceding to Dr Blix's demands would have shifted the balance of the political and diplomatic argument back towards the French position; last night's interview undermines any such expectation. Dr Blix has so far shown a scrupulous concern for Iraqi co-operation on substance and process and has successfully resisted efforts to hurry or crowd his team. But there is an unmistakeable sense of an ultimatum to Iraq in his latest pronouncements. Last night's interview could well be the turning point in this crisis.
France has made it clear that Iraq must comply with the Security Council's demands if the use of force is to be avoided. Despite the differences between French policy and that of the US and Britain their argument has clarified the issues at stake. Realistically it will be impossible to resist the logic of war if Iraq refuses to co-operate further, however much doubt remains on whether it does indeed pose the threat claimed by the US administration. The Security Council is likely to authorise the use of force in that event, rather than see its influence and legitimacy dissipated by unilateral action against Iraq led by the US and Britain.
It is essential that the Security Council's integrity be maintained by remaining in control of these events. If a majority of its members believe Iraq deserves more time to disarm its weapons of mass destruction the US and Britain will have little political option but to concede the case. But after last night's refusal to destroy these missiles it is hard to see how any other act of compliance can satisfy UN demands.