EDITORIAL
Bush 15, Saddam 0 — but patience required

It's the beginning of the end, now, for Saddam Hussein.

He can't ignore the international consensus against him as reflected in Friday's unanimous Security Council passage of a tough resolution demanding that he honor the surrender agreement he made at the end of the 1991 Gulf War: disarm and prove it to the world.

The best possible outcome is quick and honest compliance by Iraq.

The problem for Saddam is he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't:

• Trotting out the arms that he's sworn don't exist, and allowing their public destruction, would constitute a fatal loss of face in that prideful society.
• But in refusing or failing to comply, Saddam would include, tragically and unnecessarily, thousands of innocents in his self-destruction.

Bush and his Security Council colleagues have done a credible job, in the circumstances, of cobbling a clear and effective resolution. Unfortunately, it is likely that Saddam in his desperation will seek to split the consensus through the resolution's only ambiguity. That is, the resolution calls for Security Council consultation if Saddam drags his feet in any way, but doesn't bar the United States from sending in the bombers first.

It was the best deal the French and Russians could bargain for. Their public motivation was to bind Washington to multilateral action, rather than Lone Rangerism.

But they also would benefit if the outcome is Iraqi disarmament without regime change, since their oil companies have deals in place with Saddam to begin exploitation of Iraq's substantial reserves once U.N. sanctions are lifted.

France and Russia ultimately couldn't afford to be left out of any coalition confronting Saddam, however, since American oil companies have deals with the exile Iraqis who presumably would govern if Saddam is overthrown by an American war.

Oil is hardly the only factor, but it's been a consistent if largely unspoken thread running through eight weeks of tense Security Council negotiations.

Despite this diplomatic success at the U.N., Bush will feel subtly but uncomfortably constrained by the deal. Bush's goal, after all, was regime change, not just disarmament and certainly not a time-consuming weapons inspection regime.

The best time for an attack on Iraq would be early next year, when there is less heat and dust to hamper ground troops. There's no way the inspection process, if Saddam allows it to proceed, can be completed within that window. Bush will be sorely tempted to declare Iraq in "further material breach" at the first opportunity.

But for the first time in his campaign for Saddam's scalp, Bush has undeniably — even in Syria, which voted for the resolution — seized the moral high ground. He'll keep that high ground if he allows inspectors to keep the pressure on Saddam.

He's said that disarmament is preferable to war. If he truly means that, he'll be patient.