Administration Mends Rift on an Iraq Resolution to Submit to U.N.

The Bush administration has resolved a bitter debate between the Pentagon and the State Department about how hard to push for immediate use of force in a U.N. resolution on Iraq that the U.S. may present to the Security Council as early as today, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

But the tough language Washington agreed on may still be at odds with the closest U.S. allies, signaling a difficult fight ahead.

The differences were resolved when the Pentagon reportedly backed away from its stance that the U.N. resolution should declare Iraq in material breach of previous U.N. conditions and therefore conclude that “no further evidence is needed” to trigger military action if Baghdad does not show compliance within days. At the State Department, Middle East specialists had argued that such strong terms had no chance of Security Council support.

As a result, a U.S. official here familiar with the internal debate said Tuesday, the administration has ended up with “a more balanced approach” that may be offered as early as today. The official requested anonymity.

“But our strategy is and has always been very tough on Iraq,” this official stressed.

The Bush administration maintains that complete disarmament--preferably achieved by “regime change”--is its goal but has made clear that it has no faith in the U.N. weapons inspections program. The stance puts the U.S. on a collision course with the other 14 Security Council members, who want to give inspectors a chance before resorting to military intervention.

“Inspectors are one way to disarmament,” said a U.S. official, “but it has proven not to be a good way. Disarmament is the key, and regime change is the only way to guarantee it.” An upcoming meeting between the U.N. chief inspector and Iraqi authorities “isn’t even on our radar,” he said.

Of the four Security Council members who could veto a U.S. resolution, France and Russia have been the furthest from the U.S. position.

But Tuesday, British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, while holding firm on the threat of force, appeared also to distance Britain from Washington’s skepticism about the inspection process.

“We want disarmament to work through inspections,” said Greenstock. “That is the key for the U.K. We are focused on disarmament. The resolution is going to be focused on disarmament. Whatever decision the U.S. makes on anything else is for the U.S. alone.”

His comments suggested that the U.S. may face a tougher than expected fight to reach agreement on a resolution that it considers goes far enough.

The French are holding to their argument for two separate resolutions, one to empower the weapons inspectors and, if necessary, a later one to authorize use of force.

“We’re not prepared to give a blank check for military action,” said Ginette de Matha, a spokeswoman for the French U.N. mission.

Tuesday’s developments came as President Bush kept up his tough rhetoric on Iraq, again declaring that the U.S. is prepared to leave the U.N. behind if necessary.

“We don’t trust this man,” Bush said of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein after a Cabinet meeting. “For 11 years, he’s ignored the United Nations, and for 11 years he has stockpiled weapons.

“I again call for the United Nations to pass a strong resolution holding this man to account,” he added, “and if they’re unable to do so, the United States and our friends will act, because we believe in peace.”

The president’s comments followed Hussein’s insistence last week that weapons inspectors must respect Iraqi sovereignty, a term the White House interpreted to mean that he was keeping “presidential sites” off-limits to monitors without Iraqi escorts.

The Security Council would like to pass a resolution strengthening the powers of the monitoring program before Monday, when chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is to meet with Iraqi officials in Vienna to discuss practical arrangements for his teams’ work. U.S. delays in introducing the resolution might mean that Blix will begin talks with an outdated mandate.

Currently, the inspectors would not be allowed to make unaccompanied visits to the presidential sites--vast tracts of land surrounding presidential palaces that encompass hundreds of buildings where weapons materials or labs could be concealed. The U.S. insists a 1998 agreement between the Iraqis and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan setting the terms for inspecting those sites must be nullified with a new resolution.

Blix has outlined a 60-day period for inspectors to revisit old sites and reequip before starting official inspections. The teams are then expected to report to the council on Iraq’s compliance every 120 days, unless they are blocked or find something.

The U.S. and Britain would like to compress this timeline to coordinate it with the best season for a potential military strike--December through March, when the weather is cool enough for soldiers to wear full protective gear against chemical or biological attacks.

Amid this jostling, potentially powerful opponents to an immediate strike against Iraq find themselves weakened, either unable or unwilling to bring their influence to bear on the issue. For example, any possibility that continental European allies might try to weigh in with a common stance in effect disappeared with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s rejection of military action against Iraq under any circumstances.

Schroeder’s controversial stance was made in the thick of a political campaign that ended in his reelection Sunday and was assumed specifically to appeal to anti-American sentiments among left-wing voters. His position was apparently taken without consultation with France or other allies. Although weak individually, America’s continental European allies have managed in the past to influence U.S. policy when they have presented a united position.

“The Europeans are in disarray thanks to Schroeder,” noted Francois Heisbourg, a former senior French Defense Ministry official who now chairs the Geneva Center for Security Policy. “Maybe they can put something together, but right now, at this important time, there is no [common] European stance.”

In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s release Tuesday of a dossier detailing Hussein’s continued effort to develop weapons of mass destruction is likely to dampen public opposition to Blair’s tough stand and make it far harder for critics to attack Britain’s close alignment with Bush.

In Washington, congressional opposition to a swift strike against Iraq has weakened markedly in recent days. Although few Democrats have mounted frontal opposition to Bush’s request, those who have have welcomed the support they got Monday when former Vice President Al Gore gave a speech criticizing the apparent rush to war with Iraq.

Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), a leading voice of antiwar sentiment, said he hoped Gore’s speech would help move more Democrats into the camp opposing a military conflict.

“It was an excellent speech and showed real leadership,” Feingold said. “I hope it causes members of the Senate and House to come out and say, ‘What are our priorities?’ ”

Two House Democrats who have opposed military action announced that they will be leaving today for a trip to Iraq. Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) and David E. Bonior (D-Mich.) will become the second and third members of Congress to make such a trip in recent weeks, following a visit by Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.) in late August.

A spokeswoman for Bonior said he wanted to “observe the humanitarian conditions on the ground” a decade after the last war in the Persian Gulf.

“We ought to be looking at what we did 10 years ago before we engage in a second major military action against Iraq,” the spokeswoman said.

*

Times staff writers Maura Reynolds and Janet Hook in Washington contributed to this report.