By intensifying its pressure on opposing forces, the US administration hopes to overcome stiff resistance to a military strike on Iraq. Mohamed El-Sayed Said writes from Washington Click to view caption This week the Bush administration began to exert pressure on the international and domestic fronts to push forward its Iraq policy. However, the administration is coming against stiff opposition to its proposed military and diplomatic solutions. In recent weeks, the opposition of fellow UN Security Council members with veto power, France, China, and Russia, has grown more ardent and more vocal. The administration has been working diplomatic channels to convince the international community of its mission against Iraq. The most formidable tool in negotiations has been the threat of an Anglo-American war being launched without a supporting resolution from the UN Security Council and without support from the international community. There is a very real possibility that the administration will not receive the necessary support in the Security Council. In light of the lack of enthusiasm from fellow Security Council members, Bush has been pushing congress to pass legislation that would grant him full war powers in any action against Iraq. Possessing a broad mandate from Congress on the Iraq issue, will be a strong bargaining chip for the Americans once the issue comes up for a vote in the Security Council. Congressional approval will prove that Bush has conquered domestic challenges to his Iraq policy, which will allow him to pursue the policy without fervent international support. On the other hand, approval of war powers by the US Congress will leave the other Security Council permanent members one choice: either to capitulate or see their role in the future of Iraq and the region marginalised or simply ignored. Congressional experts and political pundits state that the administration is likely to gain overwhelming support from Congress for launching actions against Iraq. However, the administration is currently faced with the possibility of winning the political battle but suffering a moral defeat. Objections against a unilateral war from within Congress and the printed media has grown during the last week. The opposition is in fact diverse, but shares a common complaint -- the administration has failed to build a case for its claim that Iraq represents an immediate danger to American national security. Those against acting in Iraq believe that unilateral military invasion is certainly both illegal and politically unwise. Debate on the war powers resolution in the Senate proved to be more contentious than expected. Many senators expressed doubt over the wisdom, approach, and motivation Bush's need for urgent action in Iraq, especially as the mid-term elections are fast approaching. The administration found itself on the defensive for the first time on the Iraq issue. A powerful speech delivered by Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy added fuel to the fires of people opposing unilateral pre-emptive action in Iraq. President Bush was at times his worst enemy, by accusing the Democrats of being lax on national security issues he enflamed the party which led to a toughening in their stance against some of Bush's proposals. Moreover, the number of opinion pieces and editorials in major American newspapers that raise doubts about the wisdom of a unilateral military attack on Iraq have started to outnumber those which support the administration's war plans. Given these circumstances, there is a slight chance that the Senate may ruin the administration's policy of using the congressional vote to pressure the Security Council. If the congressional resolution makes reference to the Security Council resolution as a priority, the administration may be caught between a rock and a hard place. This could result in the UN using the congressional resolution as a means of watering down the draft resolution prepared by the Bush administration on the subject. The fluidity of the present situation within the UN and the US is further symbolised by a number of contradictory trends. Polls published by US media outlets have demonstrated a clear trend among the public showing that the war should be supported by the UN and by the allies of the United States. Another trend, and perhaps most important, is the continued failure of the Bush administration to bring a quick end to the dissenting views expressed by Russia, France and China on Iraq. In fact, the administration itself is strengthening the opposition by presenting an unrealistic formula for a draft resolution on the issue. The Bush language would include some of the more extreme ideas that have been presented in the American media, such as the use of unannounced inspections by groups accompanied by armed personnel. In addition to authorising the use of force, the draft resolution orders Iraq to provide a full account of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction. Many diplomats see the draft resolution as being designed to be rejected. Some of the less controversial themes may pass into a final resolution but many of the demands are so far-fetched that implementing them would threaten the fabric of the international system. The idea of military-escorted inspections runs contrary to international law and is the most aggressive and least acceptable idea in the proposals. The third trend is the belief by the current administration that by exerting its full pressure on the remaining permanent members of the Security Council it can obtain the resolution it wants. It is premature to predict what a final resolution will look like but it is expected that a resolution will reflect a compromise between the US and other permanent members' views on the issue. A fourth trend relates to the position of Iraq, which is seen to have suddenly toughened after an initial flexibility. In fact, Iraq managed to win diplomatically after declaring its consent for returning the UN inspection regime. However, the speech of President Saddam Hussein read by his Foreign Minister Nagi Sabri, in the General Assembly was met with general disfavor in the UN. In addition to wasting a great deal of the good will generated by Iraq's flexibility, the speech signalled a shift back toward traditional rigidity in both the language and substance of the Iraqi position. This return to traditional policy by Iraq was immediately used by the US officials to support their harsh propaganda on the issue. It is generally expected that Iraq may have already reached its ceiling of compromise on the inspection regime. In all these trends, the question of war and peace looms large. A great majority of observers in the American political community continue to believe that war is seemingly inevitable regardless of what happens in the security council. However, some experts are bewildered by the fact that talks about an imminent strike by administration officials are seldom matched by actual military preparedness on the ground. The reluctance shown by a number of Arab states, pivotal to any large scale ground attack on Iraq, is seen as another stumbling block. Nonetheless, many in the UN and the international community are baffled by the shying language used by officials of Arab states whose strong objections could have mattered most now and in the coming days. The ambivalence of Arab leaders is yet another very important factor that adds to the fluidity of the issue of Iraq. Related stories: A fatal duplicity Is war inevitable? The road to Baghdad Removing the blindfolds
