It is remembered that President George W. Bush said not long ago that if force is to be used against Iraq, it is simply impossible to disclose in advance as regards what method will be employed and when action will be taken. He will not let US media know, still less will he tell Iraq about all these. If one recalls related things, one will find that it seems the US President pays particular attention to wording, he only mentioned a variety of means for choice to reach his aim of changing the Iraqi regime, and it seems he does not insist on achieving his aim through war.

There are several countries the United States has labeled as "axis of evils", and there is no small number of countries branded as "war-like" simply because they keep on talking about opposition to the United States, and there are even more countries regarded as dictatorial countries by Washington, then, why does Washington sets its mind on getting rid of President Saddam?

According to a world opinion analysis, the most possible reason for a direct war to be broken out again between the United States and Iraq is that Baghdad refuses to allow UN weaponry examiners to return to Iraq for examination. Because in the four years after their withdrawal from Iraq, it is entirely possible for Baghdad to re-establish its endeavor to resume the manufacture of large-scale weapons of mass destruction. The United States firmly believes that Iraq has developed many weapons during this period, at least it has intensified its biochemical weapons, and is possible that it has even reached the stage of getting close to the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Washington affirms that due to reasons such as whether UN weapon examiners are allowed to return to Iraq and even Baghdad agrees to the examination, the process of which would be full of twists and turns, and finally it would be hard to have notable results in the examination therefore, the Saddam regime has constituted threats to its neighbors and the world at large, except for topping it, it is impossible to obstruct its determination to develop nuclear weapons. Therefore, it can be said that presently US attitude toward Iraq is far from being a question of resuming weapon examination in accordance with the resolution of the UN Security Council, but rather it is purely American intention to throw out President Saddam.

It is not a rare phenomenon that in international affairs, the United States groundlessly guesses, doubts and even makes similar charges and intimidation against other countries, nor is it rare that it makes mistakes due to the intelligence it relies on. Nevertheless, this time the United States takes a firm hold of Iraq and is determined to overthrow the Saddam regime as if it had got a handle against Iraq. One year after the "desert fox" military action, the UN Security Council passed the 1284 Resolution on December 17, 1999, under which the UN can unconditionally check any suspicious place within Iraq. It is exactly with this "imperial sword" that Washington has become so "overbearing", UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan can only "act according to rules", and Iraq cannot but "make concession to save the situation".

An analysis says Baghdad is hesitating and in a dilemma over the question as to whether or not allowing the UN weapon examiners to return to Iraq, one of the reasons for this is: If it allows examination, perhaps it will never be possible for Baghdad to make the United States and others satisfied; but if it refuses, it would be hardly possible to rid itself of the international sanctions against it. Although Iraq has been working hard in recent years to improve its relations with Arab countries and has gained extraordinary achievements in the Arab Union, to this date it still pays a price for the "slip" it made in those years, it may well be said that that has caused it endless troubles.

On August 12 Iraq seemed to close the door to weapon examiners-a government minister, while being covered by the Qatar Peninsula TV Station, indicated that it was already unnecessary for UN weapon examiners to return to Iraq, because this work had been over four years ago. Later, report said that on the evening of August 15 the United Nations again received a signed letter from Iraqi foreign minister to Secretary-General Kofi Annan as a reply to the latter's August 5 letter, indicating that Iraq was willing to discuss with the UN again question on allowing UN weapon examiners to return to Baghdad. Sources say that this time Baghdad actually has little new idea, it is only bargaining with the United Nations, so it can hardly gain Kofi Annan's identification. This seems to indicate that while making every preparation, Iraq is trying hard to avoid military attacks from the United States.

With regard to military attacks to be possibly launched by the United States against Iraq, it is really only an individual case that countries such as Israel which hope the United States to make a prompt decision and think the earlier attacks are launched the better. Among the EU countries, it seems only a few such as Britain which would finally follow up if Washington really dispatches troops. In the United States, even within the Republican Party, there are divergent views: For instance, Brent Scowcroft, the national security advisor to old George Bush recently said in his article published in Wall Street Daily that attacking Iraq out of the consideration of America's narrow interests instead of solving the most urgent Palestine-Israel question in the Middle East makes it likely to trigger a war, thus thoroughly destroying the US hard-formed global anti-terrorism alliance. In which Israel may get involved and may use nuclear weapons after being attacked by Iraqi missiles, and it would thus be most dangerous for a war to break out in the Middle East region.

Nevertheless, it must be noticed that there are obviously different reasons for the current vehement opposition by the international community to America's planned military attacks on Iraq. Some countries and personages also do not favor the Saddam regime and even think it better to replace it, only they are worried that once a fight is started, its process and consequence would run contrary to one's wishes and it would get out of control. Even within the Arab world, it is hard to say that their motives are entirely the same in their opposition to the use of force against Iraq.

Judged from US recent invitation to leaders of six major Iraqi opposition organizations and related personages to Washington to meet with US officials and their discussions on questions concerning the establishment of "post-Saddam age" "democratic" politics and US aid and financial support to these leaders and personages, although Bush had made up his mind to "topple Saddam", it seems that he has not chosen concrete method to achieve this purpose. Furthermore, even if the United States resorts to force, it is still hard to determine the scale of the fight. Because if America's real aim is just to overthrow the Saddam regime, then just as it did to the former Panama Noriega regime in those years, it needs only to launch tactical attack. In this way, it would meet with much less opposition and incur much fewer damages to itself. It is reported that President Bush, now on a vacation, recently indicated on the vicinity of Texas Farm that he was concerned about people's debate on a possible fight against Iraq and he would make a decision on the basis of the latest intelligence and the protection of US interests. He reiterated that currently he had not decided how and when he would "go into action" and that before he made the final decision, he would solicit the opinions of US Congress, allies, friends and leaders of some countries around the world.

It appears that there is still opportunity for the international community to stop the United States from launching a fight against Iraq; and there is still hope for Iraq to flexibly adjust its diplomatic tactics in order to avoid taking a beating.

(Xu Ping August 20, 2002)