Bush Isn't as Lonely as He Looks

(2 of 2)

Of the other permanent members of the Security Council, the French know those arguments just as well as the British but won't stress them. For Paris, the key thing is not to oppose American military action in Iraq for the fun of it — in fact, relations between the French and American governments have been quietly improving — but to ensure that any war has a U.N. seal of approval. A carefully crafted Security Council resolution should do the trick, as it should for the Chinese — similarly opposed to the unilateral display of American armed force — and the Russians. "Russia isn't going to mess up its relationship with the U.S. because of Iraq," says a Foreign Ministry source in Moscow. To be sure, Russian support for the U.S. will come at a price. Major Russian oil companies like Lukoil have interests in Iraq but, with an eye to the long term, have chosen not to develop them until the political situation is settled. A hint from the U.S. that it would welcome Russian commercial involvement in a post-Saddam Iraq would go down well. The U.S. has told Moscow, says a senior Administration official, that it has a lot more chance of getting the debts it is owed by Baghdad paid back with an "Iraq that is part of the international community." Translation: Shut up, and we'll look after you.

But if the diplomatic environment at the U.N. looks encouraging for Washington, in the Muslim world it does not. Last week Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, said an American war would "open the gates of hell" in the Middle East. Why the hyperbole? First, because Arab governments wonder if the U.S. will stay the course if casualties mount or stick around to help govern Iraq after a war. Second, because Iraq — cobbled together from three provinces of the Ottoman Empire after World War I — is a fragile state that could easily break up amid yet more violence. But above all, because Arab governments are convinced that America is so loathed on "the street" that a war might see instability cartwheel throughout the region, shaking pro-U.S. governments in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. "Public opinion will react extremely negatively if any Arab country is bombed," says an Arab diplomat. "The bombing and the refugees will be on TV from Day One."

As usual in diplomacy, however, all is not as it seems. In Jordan, King Abdullah has said that a war would be Saddam's responsibility — a sign, say some analysts, that if fighting starts, he would stay neutral. Qatar, ostensibly opposed to war (and where the U.S. is building a new military base), may similarly be hedging its bets. In Washington, officials are convinced — or say they are convinced — that there's no reason to worry. "The Arabs," says a senior Administration official, "are not going to fall into line until we do something."

That's comforting — or it would be if "something" was likely to be done soon. But here's one more thing about diplomacy: it's slow. The Security Council may not start thinking about Iraq until October. On the reasonable assumption that Saddam won't roll over, it may be months before Iraq is declared in breach of its obligations, hence opening the way for war. "The timeline," says a senior British official, "is significantly longer than most people think." President Bush is not normally thought of as a patient man. But his dad was (it was nearly six months from the invasion of Kuwait to the start of the Gulf War). Who knows? Maybe patience will turn out to be a Bush family trait too.