WASHINGTON - In just two months, the Bush administration has gone from almost exclusively making the case for preemptive military action to topple Saddam Hussein to pursuing a broader strategy of disarming the Iraqi regime, backed by the threat of force, that could put off a war for months, perhaps indefinitely.
By deciding to work through the United Nations Security Council, President Bush has won a measure of international praise that could yield more military allies for the United States if a war becomes the only way of destroying Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and long-range missiles.
Polls show most Americans want Bush to pursue a diplomatic route before resorting to force.
Almost daily, Bush says he's prepared to go to war if the United Nations flags in its resolve, and some Iraq watchers insist his basic policy is unchanged.
"People fool themselves into thinking there's some distinction between disarmament and regime change," said Danielle Pletka, a vice president at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "We will not be able to disarm Iraq without getting rid of him [Hussein]."
But Bush's new strategy takes the initiative out of U.S. hands, at least for the time being. If Hussein makes a show of cooperation, it could take a year for U.N. weapons inspectors to find out he's still cheating. Meanwhile, the president could be distracted by other pressures at home or abroad.
Asked this week if the delay in getting a U.N. resolution would hamper a military campaign, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that Bush "made a judgment that going to our Congress first and to the United Nations second had more advantages than disadvantages. And those were all considered and weighed at the outset."
Many influential conservatives view Iraq as pivotal in transforming the Middle East from a region fraught with grave threats to the United States, Israel and the industrial world's oil supplies to a more stable zone friendly to the West.
In an Aug. 26 speech that spelled out the threats and the possibilities, Vice President Dick Cheney built the case for preemptive action to change the Iraqi regime.
"Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon," Cheney said.
The prospect of an aggressive dictator sitting atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves having such weapons posed "enormous implications" for the Middle East, he said.
Cheney further warned that a return of U.N. inspectors could provide "false comfort," while Hussein "would continue to plot."
Pushing regime change, Cheney said that "when the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace."
But 2 1/2 weeks later, in a speech to the United Nations, Bush set a new course for using inspectors and international pressure to disarm Hussein, while holding out the option of force. Implicitly, Bush offered Hussein the chance to stay in power, if he cooperated.
In an Oct. 8 speech in Cincinnati, before Congress gave him authority to go to war, Bush veered from advocating "regime change" to say that compliance with U.N. resolutions would change "the nature" of Hussein's regime. This was viewed by hard-liners, including some in the administration, as backpedaling.
Administration officials don't believe Hussein will change his spots. They also say the resolution that the Security Council appears close to adopting corrects past inspection weaknesses and is designed to expose a lack of cooperation by Iraq.
"There's nothing in their past performance to show they are prepared to uphold their obligations," a senior official said. "Nothing in their dilatory tactics during the summer and fall suggests they're prepared to cooperate."
Meanwhile, U.S. officials are trying to assess new signs of domestic pressure on the regime in Baghdad, which recently saw rare demonstrations of dissent, particularly among the downtrodden Shia majority.
For now, going the U.N. inspections route means that weeks or even months may elapse before a showdown. Military experts say the optimal time to go to war would be this winter, thus avoiding Iraq's blistering summer.
New inspectors are being trained, and it will take "some weeks" before the teams are ready to launch major searches, a U.N. official said. Once they do, they may encounter some of the same problems that delayed effective inspections for years after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
During the Clinton administration, U.N. inspectors found repeatedly that by the time they could pursue significant leads, the Iraqis had moved or destroyed the evidence. "We were getting information that was good, but by the time we got it, it was old," the U.N. official said. "This enabled Iraq to keep one step ahead."
Bush signaled a new confidence in the inspections process Wednesday when he met with the United Nations' two top inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei, who also met with Cheney and another administration hard-liner, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
Richard Perle, a prominent Washington hawk who heads the Defense Policy Board, has testified before Congress that inspections are doomed to fail. "That's still my view," he said yesterday.
Bowing to France, the administration is willing to give the Security Council the first crack at considering how to respond to any new Iraqi defiance, although it remains prepared to act militarily if the council stalls.
The administration's tough rhetoric - coupled with signs of a powerful U.S. military buildup, its stated intention to train Iraqi opposition forces, and high-profile visits to the region by top military officials - has had a galvanizing effect on the region and the United Nations.
After four years of barring inspectors, Hussein abruptly agreed in September to let them back into Iraq. A new consensus is building in the Security Council behind inspections, backed by the threat of force - replacing the paralyzing splits of the late 1990s.
Senior U.S. officials insist that Bush won't flag. "This is a different president," one said, contrasting Bush with former President Bill Clinton's abandonment of disarmament after weapons inspectors were barred in 1998.
But the saber-rattling, followed by a perceived shift, also raised new expectations among Iraqi exiles and Persian Gulf allies that are now coming into question. If the administration fails to follow through, Kuwait in particular stands to be isolated from other Arab regimes because of its willingness to be host to U.S. forces, a diplomat from the region said. "Your credibility is at stake," he added.
Among exiles, who felt let down by Clinton, the current administration's credibility is already fading, said one Iraqi opposition figure who declined to be identified:
"If the administration doesn't go through [with toppling Hussein] very few Iraqis will be willing to work with the U.S. again. For the last three weeks, the general feeling is that [the policy] is losing steam, changing direction."
By deciding to work through the United Nations Security Council, President Bush has won a measure of international praise that could yield more military allies for the United States if a war becomes the only way of destroying Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and long-range missiles.
Polls show most Americans want Bush to pursue a diplomatic route before resorting to force.
Almost daily, Bush says he's prepared to go to war if the United Nations flags in its resolve, and some Iraq watchers insist his basic policy is unchanged.
"People fool themselves into thinking there's some distinction between disarmament and regime change," said Danielle Pletka, a vice president at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "We will not be able to disarm Iraq without getting rid of him [Hussein]."
But Bush's new strategy takes the initiative out of U.S. hands, at least for the time being. If Hussein makes a show of cooperation, it could take a year for U.N. weapons inspectors to find out he's still cheating. Meanwhile, the president could be distracted by other pressures at home or abroad.
Asked this week if the delay in getting a U.N. resolution would hamper a military campaign, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that Bush "made a judgment that going to our Congress first and to the United Nations second had more advantages than disadvantages. And those were all considered and weighed at the outset."
Many influential conservatives view Iraq as pivotal in transforming the Middle East from a region fraught with grave threats to the United States, Israel and the industrial world's oil supplies to a more stable zone friendly to the West.
In an Aug. 26 speech that spelled out the threats and the possibilities, Vice President Dick Cheney built the case for preemptive action to change the Iraqi regime.
"Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon," Cheney said.
The prospect of an aggressive dictator sitting atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves having such weapons posed "enormous implications" for the Middle East, he said.
Cheney further warned that a return of U.N. inspectors could provide "false comfort," while Hussein "would continue to plot."
Pushing regime change, Cheney said that "when the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace."
But 2 1/2 weeks later, in a speech to the United Nations, Bush set a new course for using inspectors and international pressure to disarm Hussein, while holding out the option of force. Implicitly, Bush offered Hussein the chance to stay in power, if he cooperated.
In an Oct. 8 speech in Cincinnati, before Congress gave him authority to go to war, Bush veered from advocating "regime change" to say that compliance with U.N. resolutions would change "the nature" of Hussein's regime. This was viewed by hard-liners, including some in the administration, as backpedaling.
Administration officials don't believe Hussein will change his spots. They also say the resolution that the Security Council appears close to adopting corrects past inspection weaknesses and is designed to expose a lack of cooperation by Iraq.
"There's nothing in their past performance to show they are prepared to uphold their obligations," a senior official said. "Nothing in their dilatory tactics during the summer and fall suggests they're prepared to cooperate."
Meanwhile, U.S. officials are trying to assess new signs of domestic pressure on the regime in Baghdad, which recently saw rare demonstrations of dissent, particularly among the downtrodden Shia majority.
For now, going the U.N. inspections route means that weeks or even months may elapse before a showdown. Military experts say the optimal time to go to war would be this winter, thus avoiding Iraq's blistering summer.
New inspectors are being trained, and it will take "some weeks" before the teams are ready to launch major searches, a U.N. official said. Once they do, they may encounter some of the same problems that delayed effective inspections for years after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
During the Clinton administration, U.N. inspectors found repeatedly that by the time they could pursue significant leads, the Iraqis had moved or destroyed the evidence. "We were getting information that was good, but by the time we got it, it was old," the U.N. official said. "This enabled Iraq to keep one step ahead."
Bush signaled a new confidence in the inspections process Wednesday when he met with the United Nations' two top inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei, who also met with Cheney and another administration hard-liner, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
Richard Perle, a prominent Washington hawk who heads the Defense Policy Board, has testified before Congress that inspections are doomed to fail. "That's still my view," he said yesterday.
Bowing to France, the administration is willing to give the Security Council the first crack at considering how to respond to any new Iraqi defiance, although it remains prepared to act militarily if the council stalls.
The administration's tough rhetoric - coupled with signs of a powerful U.S. military buildup, its stated intention to train Iraqi opposition forces, and high-profile visits to the region by top military officials - has had a galvanizing effect on the region and the United Nations.
After four years of barring inspectors, Hussein abruptly agreed in September to let them back into Iraq. A new consensus is building in the Security Council behind inspections, backed by the threat of force - replacing the paralyzing splits of the late 1990s.
Senior U.S. officials insist that Bush won't flag. "This is a different president," one said, contrasting Bush with former President Bill Clinton's abandonment of disarmament after weapons inspectors were barred in 1998.
But the saber-rattling, followed by a perceived shift, also raised new expectations among Iraqi exiles and Persian Gulf allies that are now coming into question. If the administration fails to follow through, Kuwait in particular stands to be isolated from other Arab regimes because of its willingness to be host to U.S. forces, a diplomat from the region said. "Your credibility is at stake," he added.
Among exiles, who felt let down by Clinton, the current administration's credibility is already fading, said one Iraqi opposition figure who declined to be identified:
"If the administration doesn't go through [with toppling Hussein] very few Iraqis will be willing to work with the U.S. again. For the last three weeks, the general feeling is that [the policy] is losing steam, changing direction."