If for one moment, the international community were to come together as one (in voice, if not in deployment of field assets), then Iraq would immediately take note. Even more so, if the moderate states of the Middle East were to join in the chorus.
Saddam has longed survived on cunning and instinct, and is a much better player at geo-political behaviour than what either the world gives him credit for, or than what the world actually suspects.
In 1990, he actually thought that Kuwait could be occupied and absorbed as the 19th province.
Eventually, he called the UN's bluff, the bluff of the international community and of the USA.
In calling that bluff, however, he failed, as the Gulf War subsequently demonstrated.
But where the bluff was vindicated was in testing the willingess, or assuredness, of the Coalition forces to march into Baghdad.
In effect, he reasoned that the international community would only go so far (ie: liberate Kuwait, and essentially, no further).
This was one of the reasons why Iraq, at the time, was able to spirit away much of its air force to Iran and to Syria, and why much of its Republican Guard were kept in reserve, rather than at the front, and on attack.
Saddam, at the time, also reasoned that he could further reduce opposition to his regime, by attacking Kurdish interests in the North.
All things considered, Saddam reasoned that liberation of Kuwait was all that the international community was interested in, or was prepared to proceed with, at the time.
He was right, and so whilst on the battlefield, Iraq lost, politically, Saddam won, and has tightened his grip on power ever since.
The danger for Iraq this time round, however, is saddam's potentially unwavering belief that the international community will not come together and act as a single cohesive voice in now setting things straight, or that an attack will not occur.
On both counts, Iraq is playing a very dangerous game.
In public life, George Bush has demonstrated (particularly during his time as Governor of Texas) of being a master at consensus, and building bridges of support with his opponents.
If now george Bush succeeds in replicating his Texan experience as Governor, a united world front will soon emerge, Saddam will be given some more time in which to comply, and the message will be delivered to him in no uncertain times by those who previously Iraq had counted on for support.
No, I do not believe that an attack is either imminent or expected. But, I do believe that a time vaccuum is now being filled to ensure that Iraq does not do something silly (which it will later regret), and to keep the Israelis at bay.
There is a big difference between the placement of overwhelming force, and the use of that force.
The Coalition is gearing itself to ther former, but I do not believe that it is intent on the latter, unless either provoked, or if Iraq strikes first (unlikely, if the diplomatic efforts step up, particularly amongst moderates, etc).
