U.S. to challenge opponents

The Bush administration has made clear that it expects to be at war with Iraq within the next several weeks. But senior officials acknowledge they have yet to determine how to get there with the least amount of damage to its international relations and the largest possible number of allies on the front lines.

Much is riding on the assessment of Iraqi cooperation with United Nations weapons inspections that chief inspector Hans Blix will deliver to the Security Council today.

If Blix declares that Iraq has utterly failed to comply with the demands of last November's council resolution, as the administration is pressing him to do, U.S. officials see a relatively simple path forward.

The United States and its chief Security Council ally Britain will call for the council to vote to impose the "serious consequences" - meaning a military attack on Iraq - that it promised to consider when it unanimously passed Resolution 1441.

But in the likely event that Blix's report will present a less black and white picture, saying that Iraq has failed to cooperate in many important ways but that some progress has been made, the administration faces the strong possibility of having to fight a war that the United Nations has refused to approve.

Security Council members France, Russia and China - each with the power to veto a new resolution - and the chamber's current president, Germany, already have called for giving inspections more time.

The stakes for today's meeting increased on Wednesday when all four opponents announced their foreign ministers would attend. U.S. officials said Secretary of State Colin Powell likely would be going as well.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov denied that their joint stance was "a challenge thrown down to America." But U.S. action outside the United Nations, he said, "would create a schism in the international community."

U.S. and British officials have drafted several possible resolutions, sent strategy documents flying back and forth across the Atlantic and begun cajoling and twisting the arms of fence-sitters among the rest of the council's 15 members.

But they have come to no decision on "how you get from A to B - from where we are now to a Security Council resolution that effectively authorises the use of force," a senior official closely involved in the deliberations said. "We don't have an answer to that now."

Pending the perceived strength or weakness of Blix's presentation, the official said, "we have not yet come to a firm view, and are having to build in all kinds of tactical flexibility. ... We are agreed that action should follow pretty fast after February 14, but we've got to be nimble and flexible."

Senior U.S. and diplomatic sources said the options under discussion include going for broke and daring opponents to veto an authorisation for war.

"If the United States and Britain and other friends in Europe continue to be implacable on this, people in places like Paris and Berlin are going to have to start thinking what side they want to be on," said one diplomat. "A veto of a resolution is a hugely significant thing to do which will echo around the world for years."

Another option is to introduce a new measure invoking the words of Resolution 1441, which says that "failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

Since "no one in their right mind is going to give the Iraqis a clean bill of health," the diplomat said, it would be hard to argue that the breach has not already occurred. Declaring such a judgment is implicit authorisation, the United States, Britain and their allies then would proceed to war.

Arab leaders have been pushing for a resolution giving Iraqi President Saddam Hussain an ultimatum, with a short deadline to either "shape up, get out, or face the consequences," the diplomat said.

With 150,000 U.S. troops deployed to the Gulf region and opinion polls showing most Americans believe that war is the best option, the need to try to persuade international organisations has been frustrating for an administration that came to office with little regard for multinational consensus.