WASHINGTON - The explosion between Israel and the Palestinians has not changed the underlying logic for regime change in Baghdad. But it has greatly affected the regional political context, making it essential that a compelling positive case be made in the Arab world for such a pursuit.

So far, a strong, coherent public message has not come out of Washington. Certainly one can be made.

Washington can make the point that there are two possible futures for Iraq.

One is a continuation of the present regime led by Saddam Hussein, with its growing threat to the region and repression of its own people.

The growth of Iraq's weapons capabilities (eventually including nuclear), the leverage of growing oil production and the wasted potential of a vibrant population all point to an inevitable future problem. This is unacceptable over the long term - especially for the United States, whose military will ultimately be called upon.

A second possible future for Iraq is a more positive one in which its leaders subscribe to international norms and its people can achieve their enormous potential.

Iraqis are energetic, assign great prestige to education, engineering and the arts and, in my experience, would like nothing better than to be reconnected to the rest of the world, including the United States. The combination of the Iraqi people and their huge oil and agricultural resources should be the engine of development in the Middle East.

The difference between these two possible futures is Mr. Hussein. Given the unique authoritarian nature of his regime, it is disingenuous to say that the Iraqi people on their own should change their leadership. Therefore, outside intervention is needed to create the conditions under which the Iraqi people can change their own government. They will never be able to achieve their potential under Mr. Hussein.

Therefore, action against the regime is not an attack against Arabs, as Mr. Hussein would say, but for Arabs. In fact, leaving Mr. Hussein in power is an anti-Arab position.

Creating the conditions to permit a change of government in Baghdad requires that the United States take the lead with an unquestionable commitment to bringing about that change. This will force Iraqis and leaders in the Middle East and Europe to evaluate what relationship they will have with the next Iraqi government.

Once this mindset is established, it will become apparent that a new Iraqi government is in their interest and that it would be shortsighted to act to preserve the current regime, despite Mr. Hussein's attempts to buy support through oil contracts.

To this end, the message must be that the United States seeks both the greatest and the least change in Iraq - the greatest being the removal of Mr. Hussein, the least being retention of established institutions such as the civil service, the various civilian ministries and even the regular army. These national institutions will be essential in a post-Hussein government.

Success will depend entirely on making it clear that the United States is absolutely committed to following through on a regime change. This will mean preparing and being willing to deploy as many military forces as necessary.

Only this level of commitment can provide the incentive for the necessary switch in mindset among Iraqis (and the rest of the region). Once Iraqis become convinced that Mr. Hussein's fall is inevitable, he will find himself very lonely in Baghdad.

A special element in this strategy is Russia. Washington must convince Moscow that it will benefit by a new government. For example, only if there is a new government in Iraq will Russia be able to exercise its contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields and receive repayment of $8 billion of debt.

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians provides a political smokescreen for Mr. Hussein. Washington needs to reverse this by demonstrating that a new regime in Iraq is a pro-Arab policy. This diplomatic and political work needs to happen now, even if potential military options are delayed.

Charles Duelfer, the deputy chairman of U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq from 1993 to 2000, is a visiting resident scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.