Blueprint for future conceals a declaration of war

By RUPERT CORNWELL

There were a few conditionals at the start, describing what "would" happen if an American-led coalition were to invade Iraq. There was the obligatory expression of hope that Baghdad will "meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully". But that pretence quickly vanished.

Within a minute or two, it wasn't "would" but "will" - what will happen when Saddam Hussein's regime is destroyed and the American military runs Iraq.

President George W. Bush's words on Thursday can be read in many keys: as a breathtaking exercise in Pollyanna-ism; as a deft renewal of America's commitment to a peace deal between Israel and Palestinians, amounting to far less than met the eye; as an attempt to persuade a disbelieving world he is a man of peace, not of war; and as an unconvincing bid to show America still believes in the Security Council.

But in one respect, Bush was utterly unambiguous. Forget the "ifs" and "buts" and "mights". Even before the first leaks appeared of the new report by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, Bush made it clear that America was going to war, some time in the middle of this month. In short, just as he has intended for ages, at a moment dictated by temperatures in the Gulf and the impending presidential election campaign at home.

The President spoke in familiar style. He was measured, almost serene in his confidence in his own judgment. No wonder those who deal with Bush's people complain that for American officials these days, "consult" means to listen to what allies have to say - and then going ahead with whatever they originally planned anyway.

Nonetheless, the speech to the American Enterprise Institute - a think tank with close personal and intellectual ties to his Administration - was one of the most important of his presidency. Yes, as his aides promised beforehand, it was "broadbrush". It dealt in generalities, grand themes and noble visions rather than the nitty-gritty of dirty deals, of dollars and cents, on which such visions tend to founder. But it offered an insight into the thinking that drives the Bush agenda.

Critics will dismiss the rhetoric as a familiar example of US self-interest, grudge-bearing and paranoia clothed in a pious idealism. But the idealism is not entirely phoney.

Long before Bush took office, powerful officials such as Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, saw the toppling of Saddam not just as overdue completion of a job mistakenly called off in March 1991, but as the first step in the transformation of the entire Middle East.

Amazing as it may sound to world-weary Europeans and the majority of regional specialists, this school genuinely believes regime change in Iraq will break the Arab world's political logjam, and prove a "beacon" of hope in the Middle East.

That includes the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. In his State of the Union address only a month ago, the President devoted 18 words to the crisis that fuels anti-Americanism through the region. This time it got five paragraphs; the intended message was of an even-handed America, of a George Bush who has decided that, just as his father proclaimed to Congress after his 1991 victory over Iraq, "the time has come to put an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict". Examine his words more closely, however, and this Bush is offering little.

Everything is posited on an end to "Palestinian terrorism". Only "as progress is made towards peace" will the demand kick in that "settlement activity in the occupied territories must end". No dates, no timetable. In the showdown with Iraq, America is doing the begging for Israel not to retaliate if Saddam fires at it.

Does America have the patience, the tact, the money, to manage a country like Iraq? Its record in Afghanistan does not inspire confidence. But this will not deflect Bush. To reprise the motto of a celebrated conviction politician, this President's not for turning.

- INDEPENDENT