as US ponders options Baghdad maintained its decision to halt cooperation with UN weapons inspectors, sending a strong message to the international community that it would stand firm on its demand for an end to the eight-year-old regime of economic sanctions imposed after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. On Sunday, Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz declared that Iraq would not back down. His announcement came on the heels of a UN Security Council resolution accusing Baghdad of "flagrant violation" of UN resolutions following its decision on 31 October to sever all its links with the UN weapons teams. "We will stick to our stance until the Security Council fulfills its obligations towards Iraq," the official Iraqi News Agency quoted Aziz as saying. He stressed that Baghdad expected the Security Council to lift the ban on oil sales "as a step towards the final lifting of the embargo in its entirety". Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan on Monday called the Iraqi move to halt weapons inspections "objective, just and legal". Trade Minister Mohamed Mehdi Saleh had earlier said a possible American military strike would be no harder on the country than the sanctions. "They will not kill in a military strike more [people] than they are killing with sanctions everyday," he said. The Iraqi resolve has put the credibility of both the UN and the US on the line, pushing Washington to look for new ways to deal with Iraq. However, following the visit of two foreign dignitaries to Baghdad this week, there were signs that Iraq may be willing to compromise to head off threats of military action. "We believe that with goodwill on both sides, a compromise could be worked out," former Irish Prime Minister Albert Reynolds told reporters on Sunday after more than two hours of talks with Aziz. Reynolds, now a member of the Irish Parliament, described the Iraqi deputy premier as "open" and "very flexible". The Irish politician, widely hailed for encouraging the Irish Republican Army's 1994 cease-fire, said he would travel to the US on Thursday to discuss the Iraqi crisis with American officials. Earlier, a visiting Russian lawmaker had said Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein wants a timetable on when the sanctions will be lifted before he decides to allow weapons inspectors to resume their work. Ultra-nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky told reporters after talks with Saddam that the Iraqi president had "no problem" with monitoring. "But he would like to have information on when the blockade [will be lifted]," Zhirinovsky said. "When? This year? Next year? Next century?" Meanwhile, there were reports from Baghdad suggesting that Aziz was in almost daily contact with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan whom he wants to convince to step in and mediate a new deal to end the crisis. President Saddam Hussein has also reportedly sent messages to several Arab leaders asking for their support. However, both Washington and the UN seemed unmoved by these tactics that appeared to be similar to the ones Iraq used before the Gulf War, when it resorted to sending trial balloons through foreign dignitaries visiting Baghdad. Annan rejected the Iraqi manoeuvres and demanded full compliance with UN resolutions. As expected, the US was also uncompromising, demanding that Baghdad respects UN resolutions without conditions. Most of the Gulf war allies, especially the Europeans, took similar positions and made it clear that Iraq would not gain from its latest defiance. Beyond this denunciation, however, the big question remains: what can the international community, and in particular the US, do in order to make Iraq back down? On Sunday, President Bill Clinton summoned his entire national security team to the presidential retreat at Camp David to try and forge an American response. After two hours of talks, Clinton put off a decision on whether to use force against Iraq. A spokesman for the National Security Council later said that Clinton had asked for a follow-up on both the diplomatic and military options. But he insisted that the situation was "very serious". Amid speculation about the US response, The New York Times reported Sunday that the Clinton administration had concluded that the UN inspection regime was no longer an effective instrument for containing Iraq. Quoting an unidentified senior official, the report said the administration was instead looking at other forms of traditional containment, including more sanctions and the use of force, which he described as "more likely now than any other time" since the end of the Gulf War. Most observers believe that Clinton has no other option but to use force against Iraq. What is at stake, they say, is his own credibility and that of the United States which have both been undermined by Iraqi defiance. They argue that a soft policy towards Iraq will make Clinton look weak and will give Saddam the opportunity to lay down the rules of the game. Others believe that any move by the Clinton administration now should ultimately aim to oust Saddam. Anything short of that, they say, will only play into the Iraqi leader's hands. Reported by Al-Ahram Weekly's special correspondent
