US critics of the Bush administration's approach agree that a new United Nations Security Council resolution is needed. It should call on the Iraqis to allow unfettered access to UN weapons inspectors and authorise force if they refuse or employ their usual "cheat-and-retreat" tactics. So argues Mr James Baker, US Secretary of State from 1989 to 1992.
The argument about whether the United States should launch an attack on Iraq to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime is now well and truly joined within the Bush administration - and beyond it among sympathisers, critics, allies and antagonists. The US Vice-President, Mr Richard Cheney, and the Defence Secretary, Mr Donald Rumsfeld, have this week forcefully spelled out the case for a unilateral attack, with minimal reference to Congress, the United Nations or US allies in Europe and the Middle East. President Bush insists he has yet to decide and promises to consult, if not seek the agreement of, Congress and key allies. Alongside that there has been a drumbeat of opposition from former heavyweight members of his father's administration with extensive experience of international affairs, backed up by influential Republican and Democratic congressional leaders.
Such an engagement indicates how serious the issue has become and how deep are the disagreements aired about the potential effects on world politics, Middle East stability and global oil prices. It is a volatile cocktail indeed, which could profoundly affect the international economic picture with growth prospects so uncertain in Europe and North America. It requires the most detailed and close attention.
A similar case is made by Mr Richard Holbrooke in this newspaper today. He argues convincingly that the legitimacy of any military action will be strengthened amongst US allies and the wider international community by a fresh UN endorsement. European states would undoubtedly agree; but, given the pro-Israeli tilt of US policy, it would require a great deal more evidence of Iraqi bad faith to convince Arab leaders to support military action against that state.
The most disquieting case put by Messrs Cheney and Rumsfeld this week is not their rejection of the need for another UN resolution or for congressional approval, but their affirmation of a new pre-emptive doctrine to justify US unilateral military action against Iraq. Mr Cheney says "the imminence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection regime and the demonstrated hostility of Saddam Hussein combine to produce an imperative for pre-emptive action". Recourse to the UN would do more harm than good, he says, since it would allow the Iraqi leader play for time. Mr Rumsfeld believes the US should act alone if necessary. Their case enters dangerous new territory and needs to be vigorously contested. The widespread critical response to it this week testifies that this is now broadly realised.