Could the US demand for regime change in Iraq now mean a change of heart in Baghdad instead of a change of leader, asks Deaglán de Bréadún at the UN in New York
The chill winds blowing around the UN headquarters building on New York's East River are in tune with the frosty attitude of more than a few delegations and their governments to plans for a US-led onslaught on Saddam Hussein.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it," is a time-honoured American maxim but it sums up the feelings of many critics of the aim - so close to the heart of the Republican right in Washington - to secure "regime change" in Iraq.
Domestic American criticism of the plan is also on the increase. This war is in danger of becoming deeply unpopular before it even begins. Meanwhile, US hawks, not known for their subtlety, are having to come to terms with the delays and evasions of international diplomacy, which has been brought to a fine art on the UN Security Council.
A US-UK draft resolution has circulated to the other members of the Council's Permanent Five - China, France and Russia. China has been taking a circumspect approach but France, with more muted backing from Russia, has consistently questioned and challenged the US approach.
The difference revolves around this issue: two resolutions or one?
The US wants a text which will, in effect, authorise it to use force if Saddam again fails to comply with UN demands on weapons inspection and disarmament. The French position is to have a resolution now on the issue of weapons inspection; then, if the inspectors return empty-handed and with a flea in their ear, a further resolution could be considered on the use of force.
The sound of fingers drumming impatiently on executive desks in Washington can almost be heard. But wiser figures like the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, know the importance of having world opinion - or at least the leading world governments - on side or neutralised before the bombing starts and the troops go in.
Six weeks after negotiations began, the US and UK had still not presented their resolution to the full 15-member Security Council by yesterday afternoon. This indicates reluctance of a high order on the part of the French and their Russian allies.
The Permanent Five met on Monday but failed to reach agreement. The Americans were open to the idea of further debate on the Security Council if Saddam Hussein flunked the inspectors' examination but would not agree to any language that would hinder it from also taking unilateral action.
The US continued to favour a single resolution that would contain a sufficiently strong threat of retribution against a recalcitrant Saddam to allow Bush to order the planes to take off with their lethal cargo. Some of the "trimmings" were dropped, such as the US demand to send its own weapons inspectors to Iraq with the UN personnel.
But Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister, Yuri Fedotov, said Moscow did not want a resolution authorising the automatic use of force or making "unfeasible" requirements of the Iraqis.
How long can this go on? The US is the major power in the world and cannot be seen to be humiliated. Trying the conciliatory approach, Bush appeared to alter the definition of "regime change" at a news conference. Instead of a change of leader, it might mean a change of heart. If Saddam were to meet all the UN conditions, "that in itself will signal the regime has changed". The reporters who heard this must have been startled but they were ushered out of the Oval Office before they could ask questions.
After so many years explaining things in black and white, Bush had developed a sudden and unexpected taste for grey. What happened the "axis of evil" of Iraq, Iran and North Korea? Consistently portrayed as an evil man, it seemed even Saddam might not be beyond redemption.
In part, Bush may have been reflecting poll findings that the US public does not favour a hawkish unilateral approach to foreign policy. It certainly reflects the fact that he is a cleverer politician than some of his more ideologically driven admirers.
As one of the 10 elected members of the Security Council, Ireland does not hold a veto but our vote could be important in achieving the requisite majority of nine out of 15, in the event that some members of the Permanent Five abstained and others, such as Syria, voted against.
The Government is understood to be pleased that the explicit authorisation of force has gone from the draft US-UK text and that, while a second resolution is not specifically provided for, this is implicit in the recognition that the Security Council would meet immediately to consider the implications of a negative report from the arms inspectors.
A further meeting of the Permanent Five took place in the Russian mission on East 67th Street last night, but the outlook for early agreement was not good.
Reports from Washington indicated a desire to "wrap it up" but the word from the French side was that a lot of work remained to be done.
Whether or not a military attack could take place between the first and second stage, i.e., between a negative report from the arms inspectors and due consideration of the matter by the Security Council, now appears to be the key issue.
The US has unmatched military might and could probably overthrow Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks, if not days. But Iraq is a powder-keg of religious, ethnic, tribal, class and ideological tensions, and keeping the country together in peace would be a daunting task.
The potential for instability in the region is also considerable. As an old colonial power, France is more experienced in the ways of the Arab world and consequently more aware of the complexities and dangers.