The arrival of Iraq’s encyclopaedic declaration of weapons data over the weekend impels the Bush Administration toward the last "off ramp" along the road to war.

Even as America mobilises for a campaign to disarm and decapitate the Baghdad Government, President George W. Bush is facing final determination of whether the Iraqi arms declaration is an honest rendering—a step toward disarmament—or a capricious lie that establishes the basis for disarmament by force, a step Bush says he will take as a last resort. Therefore, the last off ramp—the expression is a favourite of Secretary of State Colin Powell—is the one that leads to a relentless U. N. inspection programme, backed by a credible threat of force, that persuades Saddam Hussein to surrender anything that could be construed as illicit weapons or banned tools for making them.

It may be wishful thinking that Saddam can ever change or abandon his ambition to lead the Arab world. But the question that clings to Washington like the first snow of winter is whether anything will be enough for Bush.

"Everyone in this town who claims to know the President’s mind says he is determined to finish off the Saddam weapons of mass destruction problem and the regime," said Fritz Ermarth, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council under the first President Bush and is now a resident at the Nixon Centre.

Still, he added: "We are at a colossally important milestone. How this plays out is extremely important for the international order, for the credibility of the United States as a power, and as a consensus leading power, or not." Copies of the 12,000-page Iraqi declaration on banned weapons reached U. N. offices in Vienna and were en route to the United Nations in New York for analysis. But senior U. S. Senators of both parties dismissed its contents as lies and spoke of a likely war that they said would have surprisingly broad backing.

Diplomats and statesmen have been seized by the momentous deliberations over Iraq. Many echoed Ermarth, saying that decisions made in the coming weeks will heavily influence the rules for security, war and intervention at a time of unrivalled American power. Yet most Americans seem to focus more immediately on whether there will be another military dash across the desert like the one the President’s father ordered in the Gulf War in 1991. Polling data shows that an impressive majority of Americans are game. They would like Bush to work within the U. N. system in confronting Iraq, but also realise that he may not be able to abide with constraints on the goals he has set for himself for changing the Iraqi Government. Ermarth, who used to make his living handicapping the likelihood of nuclear war, regional conflicts and other great events for the Central Intelligence Agency, sees the possibility of delay and obfuscation by Saddam. "Saddam is playing for delay, and a lot of other international actors are playing for that, too," he said. Other nations, some close allies, want time to see what the inspections yield. Others want to see more intelligence on whether Iraq actually has the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon over the next five years. "We all know that Saddam is a terrible fellow," said Brian Urquhart, a former Undersecretary General of the United Nations. "But there is no real serious or credible information about his nuclear programme." With inspectors now inside the country, he asks why not give them time to find the truth about the risks.

At the United Nations, there was a substantial measure of scepticism that Bush was looking for an off ramp at all. Some officials questioned whether the Administration, with its bellicose statements on regime change, was trying to undermine the diplomatic and inspection track.

"There is a very fine line between showing a seriousness of intent and conveying the impression that you are going to war no matter what happens, and that fine line should not be crossed," said a U. N. official who spent the week trying to evaluate the statements emanating from Washington.

"It is one thing to show determination to go to war if inspections fail, but it is quite another to convey that whether inspections succeed or not, the intent is to go to war."

What seemed new this season was that the President, in a prominent interview with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, extended earlier public remarks on how fighting terrorism would be the focus of his presidency into a broader vision that seems quixotic. Bush said: "They tell me we don’t need to move too fast" to take action to free oppressed peoples. "I just don’t buy that," he said. "Either you believe in freedom, and want to—and worry about the human condition, or you don’t."