The British view from the Economist

The Economist has an editorial about the all-but-inevitable war in Iraq called “In Need of Resolution”. Here are two key paragraphs:

Whether America can win the anti-war countries over will depend in large part on the level of Iraqi compliance with weapons inspectors' demands in the coming days. The inspectors have given the Iraqi regime until March 1st to start destroying the al-Samoud 2 missiles. In an interview with the CBS television network, Saddam indicated that he would not demolish the missiles. This has left some Iraq-watchers bemused, for refusal to comply would almost certainly hand on a plate to America the votes it needs in the Security Council to approve a UN resolution confirming Saddam's overthrow by military force.

and

Mr Bush says he believes the al-Samoud 2 missiles are “just the tip of the iceberg” in terms of the illegal arsenal that Iraq possesses. Even if other countries refuse to back a second UN resolution, he has said America is prepared to lead a coalition of the willing to topple Saddam. Were other members of the Security Council to vote against the resolution, or use their vetoes, American officials have argued that the credibility of the UN would be greatly reduced, and that the organisation could expect to be bypassed when future crises erupt.

By this point, the vote in the United Nations is not about Iraq, but about the mettle and the mission of the U.N. itself.