IT'S EXPECTED THAT, in a week's time, international weapons inspectors will return to Baghdad after a four-year hiatus. They will arrive with a strong, unequivocal mandate from the United Nations that leaves Saddam Hussein with few options -- disarm voluntarily or else.

The tough stance is the result of a unanimous resolution by the U.N. Security Council that makes clear its position if the Iraqi dictator fails to cooperate fully with the inspectors. It took the United States eight weeks of deliberations to secure that knockout, 15-0 vote last week. For President Bush, it was a victory, no question about it.

In September, the president challenged the United Nations to live up to its responsibility to police and punish Iraq for its deceit and noncompliance. Then he dispatched his troops to ensure that the U.N. lived up to its responsibility. Up until the actual vote, it was unclear whether Syria, the only Arab member of the Security Council, and Russia would fall in line. They did.

But there's more at work here than the United States' persuasive powers. The U.N. vote came just days after the president scored big wins in the midterm elections. Mr. Bush has maintained all along that he had the power to attack Iraq without a new U.N. resolution or the imprimatur of the international body. As the idea of a pending war entered the public dialogue, however, more and more Americans expressed reservations about the United States going it alone.

France, Russia and China preferred a diplomatic solution and refused to cooperate without certain assurances. Why should they? The Bush administration pressed ahead, wrangling with its allies but ultimately offering concessions on select points.

But on Election Day, the American public gave Mr. Bush a vote of confidence by voting into office the Republicans for whom he had heartily campaigned. Despite the threat of war, Wall Street's financial scandals and the country's economic woes, voters followed the president's lead and returned Republicans to power in Congress.

Given Mr. Bush's popularity, Security Council members opposed to a war with Iraq may have decided that voting for the U.N. resolution would delay a military strike, and perhaps make it unnecessary. A united front against Iraq might persuade Mr. Hussein to save his regime and disarm, to come clean on biological and chemical weapons and any preparations for a nuclear arsenal.

But if Mr. Hussein decides to play it as he has in the past -- 12 years of lies, deceit and obfuscation -- then Mr. Bush will be in the enviable position of being able to tell the world, "I told you so."

He will have satisfied U.S. allies' desire to proceed initially on a diplomatic track. He will have helped deliver a strong mandate for the inspectors, who felt they needed the clout to deal effectively with the Iraqi regime. And he will have acted as a responsible international citizen.

Then Mr. Bush will be in position to exercise his war powers with or without the rest of the world. America's ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has already laid down the gauntlet: "Defy the U.N.'s will," he told Iraq from his office at 10 Downing Street, "and we will disarm you by force."

In a few months, the United States' success in securing the unanimous U.N. resolution will be viewed as either a prologue to peace or a pretext for war.