(Dis)Trust, But Verify

Iraq’s recent announcement that it would accept United Nations weapon inspectors on its soil pursuant to U.N. Security Council resolutions and without conditions marks a potential turning point in the recent American drive to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Although many nations have lauded Iraq’s gesture and argued against any further action either by the U.N. or the United States, Hussein must not simply be taken at his word.

The United States must take steps to aid weapons inspectors’ return to Iraq, but it also must lay the groundwork for further action should Iraq’s policy prove to be only a tactical maneuver. The international community must be willing to act if this offer is only designed to give Hussein more time by driving a new wedge between the Bush administration, with its oft-stated intention of initiating regime change, and its potential allies and coalition partners, many of whom favor a more moderate approach in dealing with Iraq. The old adage, “Trust, but verify,” must inform America’s policy in responding to this new Iraqi overture.

As a first step in allowing Iraq the opportunity to make good on its word without leaving the door open for further obfuscation, the United States must push the U.N. Security Council for a new resolution clearly specifying its requirements for Iraq and, critically, providing a mechanism for enforcement should Iraq fail to comply with U.N. directives. In the event that Iraq is hedging in its cooperation with weapons inspectors, the new resolution must include a provision for the use of force to compel Iraqi compliance. It is vital that the resolution serve only to give Hussein one last chance; it should not allow any room for his government to worm its way into another stalemate. Should a military action eventually be required, a new, strong Security Council resolution would also bolster Bush’s case in building a coalition and gaining the necessary acquiescence and aid of critical allies both in Europe and the Arab world.

Thus far, Bush and his administration have been anything but enthusiastic over Iraq’s seeming capitulation on the issue of weapons inspectors. Although Hussein is far from trustworthy, Bush’s reaction that this is a “trick” only serves to make the United States appear belligerent by refusing to consider his offer—it leaves him wide open to criticism that he is shifting his goalposts from merely demanding compliance with U.N. resolutions to accepting nothing short of regime change. Bush would be much wiser to allow Hussein the opportunity to make good on his word. If Iraq allows weapons inspectors unfettered access to industrial complexes, presidential palaces and other sites deemed worthy of inspection, then America will have made significant gains toward achieving its goal of eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction—and the U.S. should then immediately cease its preparation for war. Should Iraq fail to live up to its commitment, the international community would be blind not to recognize Hussein’s duplicity, giving a strong mandate to the Bush administration to declare war.

Simply dismissing Iraq’s overtures virtually guarantees unilateral American military action; skeptical cooperation with Iraq offers a far better alternative, and will serve American interests just as well in the long run.