The very survivability of the Ba’th regime can be considered a real achievement in view of the US’s determination to overthrow it - Iraq has undoubtedly paid a far higher price because of this. The real victims are the Iraqi people who bear the full consequences of Saddam’s leadership. As to your penultimate point - the (Gulf) war did not remove the threat but spawned a new and dangerous Middle Eastern arms race, which involved the purchase of long-range missiles by Saudi Arabia, and the development of chemical warfare capabilities by Libya and Syria. This, together with the friction between Israel and the Arab States, could lead to further horrendous risks throughout the Middle East.

I agree the Iraqi disease is hardly benign and I suspect the American’s are in a dilemma. They may find themselves locked into a situation in which they find that they have no other choice. Saddam continues to remain evasive and I retain a healthy scepticism as to his intents and it is for this reason that the US maintains significant military forces on, or near the Border. One has to assume that at some future date it will lead to conflict. The Gulf War may be over, but the end of the conflict is still not in sight.

Personally, I believe the American’s will have to take action – the question is when? As I read the news reports, my instincts, the words written, tell me that the situation is deteriorating and strife appears in their shifting pattern – even conflict. I get the definite sense that people view such action as a necessary evil and it may well prove to be a positive move rather than a negative.
Military action will have implications for the region in general? The Iraq regime lacks the power to defend itself and has lost the power to mount an offensive but will Saddam retaliate and if so, will this retaliation take the form of deliberate acts of terrorism or a chemical attack on population centres and economic targets as a defensive move?

While anything is possible from Saddam I, like you, remain decidedly pessimistic – I doubt whether Saddam will reverse his animosity. He finds it convenient to present the Americans as the real villains. It is they who cause the stoical Iraqi populace economic hardship and privation. After all, to do so simplifies the picture of the situation. It also justifies Saddam’s stance and an attack on the country by an external power would justify and strengthen his position. It is also convenient giving Saddam the moral cover of martyrdom and suffering in the face of an unjust superior force, to camouflage the comprehensive defeat of his goals. Used previously this approach has had a good measure of success, as the enormous pressures placed on the Iraqi people reinforce its cohesiveness and create a strong sense of shared destiny.

Iraq has agreed to readmit UN inspection teams. Iraq in the long term has no option but to accept the UN resolutions, but will Iraq fully comply to the terms set out? Adherence to any agreement would seem to be unlikely. In the past, Iraq has proved hostile to the idea of weapons inspections and the idea that Iraq has fully accepted UN resolutions seems inconceivable. Iraq has shown a flagrant disregard for treaties and rules of law and I am little reassured by Saddam Hussein's recent delaying tactics in talks between UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix over inspections details. We should not be fooled by a simulated acceptance of UN conditions. There is a great deal of subtle activity underlying Iraq’s acceptance.

The UN must make every effort to negotiate and enforce compliance regarding the monitoring of weapons of mass destruction. Ultimately, acceptance is Iraq's decision. They have the choice. If Iraq refuses to recognise the terms, then I believe the UN must consider military action. The UN cannot afford to underestimate Saddam's ruthlessness. Further resistance is a very distinct and viable possibility. Saddam is completely unpredictable and does not follow any logical pathway. Whatever the reason for his compliance, if he backtracks from the agreement, then I believe the UN should demonstrate its power to compel the ratification of any agreement made by Iraq.

The US has made it known that it will also pick up the gauntlet if any agreement is not adhered too? Will Saddam deliberately try to provoke the US and will his ulteria motive be to gain further sympathy from Arab nations and bring the Middle East into conflict?