The United States has built up a potent strike force in the Gulf. Over 300 combat aircraft are available, together with several warships armed with cruise missiles. Britain, Washington's staunchest ally, also has an aircraft carrier in the region. All the signals point to a sustained attack against Iraqi installations should no diplomatic compromise be found. But as our Defence Correspondent Jonathan Marcus explains, this may be no more productive than diplomacy in forcing President Saddam Hussein to back down.

The USS Nimitz: part of a substantial armada

The Americans are making it clear that this time things will be different. They are not contemplating isolated attacks against Iraq, but a sustained air campaign, perhaps over several days, to cause so much damage to Iraq's military infrastructure that it would force Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, to open up all his suspected weapons sites to UN teams.

But it is far from clear if the United States has the political will to pursue such a course. And it is also far from certain that it would have the desired effect.

Military action is feasible

Allied firepower is significant

There is no doubt that the Americans can carry out their threat and that Iraq has only a limited ability to defend itself. Its air defence system is still substantial, but lacks the sophistication and flexibility that it once had.

The United States is likely to use cruise missiles launched from warships, submarines and giant B-52 bombers. And Iraqi air defence sites and command centres will be an early target to ensure the safety of US pilots.

The BBC's Barnie Choudhury says Saddam may wait until the last possible moment to back down (3'10'')

The Americans would clearly hope to hit some of the suspected weapons sites, together with Republican Guard installations - the main prop of Saddam Hussein's regime. Given the proximity of many of these potential targets to populated areas, there is a considerable risk of civilian casualties, however effective the targeting.

How far to go?

Britain has sent Harriers

But the real problem for the Americans is to decide when to call a halt to any operation. Bombing alone cannot eradicate Iraq's weapons programmes.

Long-term monitoring is essential. And once the smoke has cleared, the Iraqi government's permission will be as necessary as ever, if the weapons inspectors are to resume their task.

Iraq's cooperation not assured

This latest crisis, just like the one that erupted in October of last year, was prompted by Iraqi opposition to the participation of US nationals in the UN inspection teams. Iraq regards Washington with suspicion and hostility and sees its involvement in the inspection regime as merely a means of spying on Iraq's strategic secrets.

Inspectors need Iraqi cooperation

Of course, the terms under which the Gulf War ended mean that - at least in the field of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry - Iraq is not allowed to have any strategic secrets.

And until it gives a full and credible account of its activities, UN imposed economic sanctions will continue. The real issue in this crisis is not the composition of the inspection teams, but the future of the inspection regime itself.

Competing interests

The UN Security Council as a whole insists that Iraq must honour its commitments. But this crisis is complex. It illustrates the difficulties of the post-Cold War world; the competing interests, commercial and strategic; the problematic nature of US leadership; and the reluctance of many of its closest allies to be drawn, passively in Washington's wake. It also shows the difficulty of matching means to ends. Economic sanctions cause untold suffering among the Iraqi people, while leaving the regime's leaders untouched.

Saddam Hussein senses that America's allies are growing weary of the whole thing. Many, like Iraq itself, would like more normal relations. At the end of the Gulf War the United States chose not to challenge Saddam Hussein's leadership in Iraq. Having made that decision, this latest crisis was probably inevitable.
 

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage	©