George Bush's September 16 assembly was deemed master. ful by the US media. In fact the speech was a crude piece of bullying which showed complete contempt for the UN. In effect Bush was saying 'we are giving you the opportunity to agree with us, support our war drive or we'll do it anyway'.
Not since the days of Theodore Roosevelt and the doctrine of 'Manifest Destiny' in the first decade of the 20th century have US imperial ambitions been so blatant. 'Manifest destiny' led the US to try to extend its domination from Latin America to the Pacific. It ended up with Hiroshima, Korea and Vietnam.
Bush was bowing to the demands from inside his administration, from Blair and from Kofi Anan that an international coalition was needed and UN approval had to be sought for a new attack on Iraq. So he had to swivel US demands away from simple 'regime change' to concentrating on fabricated allegations about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and to putting the stress on the demand the Iraq readmit the UN 'weapons inspectors', a large percentage of whom last time round were just CIA agents.
Saddam Hussein tripped up this change of tack by the obvious and simple riposte -declaring on September 18 that the weapons inspectors could come back "without conditions". At that point it seemed as if the US diplomatic tactic had been torpedoed and the US war schedule delayed.
But reports from Baghdad, both the regime and people in the street, made a more downbeat assessment; they did not expect that the issue of weapons inspec tors would resolve the issue and were convinced that war was certain.
And war is highly likely unless stopped by mass opposition. The future of the 'war on terrorism' depends now on overthrowing Saddam. Weapons of mass destruction, even if they exist, are a side issue. The US will try to go ahead with or without the UN, but the chances are strong that Bush will get a pro-war resolution from the UN.
The resolution will not be from the 180+ states in the general assembly, but from the 15 members of the security council. Of these, only the five permanent members can veto a resolution. The US and Britain are for war anyway and neither the French, Chinese or Russians are likely to veto a war resolution. Russia wants compensation for the several billion dollars that Iraq owes it, and the Americans will pay - together with offering Saddam Hussein tripped up US change of tack by declaring that the weapons inspectors could come back "without conditions" Russia a stake in the postwar reconstruction of Iraq. The Chinese bureaucratic capitalist regime is utterly cynical and will merely try to get some US concessions And French president Chirac will ultimately find a formula for agreeing a resolution or at best abstaining. None of these capitalist governments want a full-scale confrontation with the US.
Bush, at the time of writing, has B Democrat leaders for a Congress
secured agreement from resolution authorising war. Bush has carte blanche to attack Iraq at a time of his choosing.
Failure to launch a war will be a massive political defeat for the Bush administration, and one they will do all in their power to prevent.
There is something else which has to be noted. While mass opposition to war is building up, and the US is taking a massive ideological hit with even Nelson Mandela, who supported the Afghan war, accusing the US of being an international bully, among governments and in Iraq there is a feeling of inevitability
Media reports of disaffection among Saddam's Republican Guard could well be disinformation. But among the Iraqi elite there must be many who think that Saddam's overthrow is a matter of time These people will be thinking of their own future under a new regime. If this is the mood in Iraq, then resistance to a US attack might be minimal.
Rumours abound of US attempts to put the uncle of the King of Jordan in as the replacement of Saddam. This would have a pleasing symmetry among American reactionaries, since the 1958 Ba'athist revolution overthrew the Hashemite monarchy which had ruled there with British support.
Wolfowitz, Cheney and their ilk must be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of expunging the Iraqi nationa revolution from history.
Predictions about wars are notoriously risky. Gary Younge in the Guardian was right to say that mass opposition can still stop the war. But the clock is ticking and the US has not taken its foot off the war drive accelerator. The anti-war movement may have been given a little more time by the Iraqi offer to allow the weapons inspectors to return. But the time to make mass opposition count is limited.
Is we go to press, the media is reporting a new document from the Bush regime which bluntly outlines what the US has in store if opposition to the 'war on terror' fails. The US will strike against its 'enemies' with or without the support of its allies Never again will the US allow its overwhelming military superiority to be chal.