November 14, 2002

Iraq has accepted the U.N.'s arms inspection resolution. "We are ready to receive inspectors to carry out their mandate in making sure that Iraq has not produced mass destruction weapons," said an official Iraqi letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

But things are not so simple.

Saddam and George W. Bush are two duelists in a clearing, neither knowing if the other will shoot to kill or if they are there merely to save face. Duelist Saddam has a problem: What if he fires in the air, and then Bush shoots to kill? If there is a chance of that, he, too, must shoot to kill.

The recent arabesque at the U.N. Security Council was on this very point. In compelling Bush to return to the council prior to attacking Iraq, the French, Russians, Mexicans and others were seeking to constrain Bush in the case Saddam fires in the air.

Bush agreed to return to the council to hear the weapons inspectors' report, but not necessarily to agree with it. Thus Saddam faces the real possibility of firing in the air, only to be shot dead after his pistol is empty.

Weapons inspections are messy affairs, especially when dealing with chemical and biological materials. Nuclear verification is easier because it involves reactors or enrichment plants which are hard to hide, and Iraq was cleared of any illegal nuclear activities when inspectors left in 1998.

Bush makes much of the claim that Iraq must be attacked to keep Saddam from getting "the bomb," but the fact is that Saddam does not have the bomb, and recent CIA and British reports say he is unlikely to get the bomb as long as Iraq remains under embargo. Pakistan does have the bomb, but that is another story.

Weapons inspectors will be looking for biological and chemical plants. But they are not only easy to hide, they may not be weapons plants at all. A biological plant, says UCSD's Herb York, one of our leading arms analysts, is no bigger than a beer-brewing tub. Chemicals can be used in things, like pesticides, that are not illegal.

Saddam had no choice but to accept Resolution 1441, but likely has concluded that Bush also has no choice, that he cannot come this far with his war rhetoric and war preparations only to stand down. If Saddam reads Bush that way, the last thing he will do is disarm prior to the coming attack.

Let's consider the option that Saddam complies fully with Resolution 1441, bares everything, the full Monty. He puts his trust in the Security Council, gives up anything that might be weaponized, beer tubs and pesticides included. He saves face by telling Iraqis that Resolution 1441 promises that sanctions against Iraq will be lifted once the inspectors are satisfied.

Bush could not attack in such a case, we hear. To do so would be treacherous defiance of the Security Council, Resolution 1441 and world opinion. America would be isolated and become a target for resentful Muslims and Arabs everywhere.

But read Bush's remarks. For three months his message has been that Saddam must go, that the world is not safe with him in power. Bush won the Nov. 5 election by tying Saddam to terrorism in the minds of voters, and the idea that the world is suddenly safe because Saddam gives up some beer tubs and pesticide plants won't slake his lust for Saddam's scalp. Bush "hates" Saddam, he has told us.

True, if Bush attacks Iraq despite Baghdad's compliance with Resolution 1441 he will bring down the wrath of the Security Council on America, but how many divisions does the council have? As for terrorist attacks, Bush has his homeland security bill and plans to mobilize the National Guard.

If Saddam sees things this way, and I suspect he does, he will be forced to play a double game, just as Bush is doing. He will cooperate with the inspectors, but he also will be doing some war planning.

The Pentagon's plans for "inside-out" war and for seizing the current no-fly zones as beachheads to advance on Baghdad, a city of 5 million, are on front pages. There will be, we read, a "seamless transition" from war-fighting to a military governor who will preside, like MacArthur in Japan, over Iraq. The assumption is that Iraqis hate Saddam, will turn on him as Italians turned on Mussolini, and will embrace us as liberators.

A more reasonable assumption is that thousands of lives will be lost in Bush's war, that Iraqis, whatever they think of Saddam, will fight the invader just as Germans fought their invaders, not for Hitler but for Germany. They will have no chance of winning, but it is a matter of honor.

How will Muslims around the world react? What radical pressures will be brought on regimes trying to hold the line against anti-Americanism in places like Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia? How will Israel, its provisional Cabinet crammed with people seeking to rid the occupied territories of Palestinians, seek to take advantage of America's war against Arabs?

Even as U.S. soldiers go whistling past the minarets of Baghdad, patrolling under the U.S. proconsulship, the region will erupt in a spasm of hate and anger against America. Imperialism has no place today, and Bush's war, whatever he calls it, is an imperialist war.