The drumbeat grows louder by the day. A second U.S. invasion of Iraq seems to many a foregone conclusion. The Bush administration appears committed to what it calls "regime change" - a war that would commit up to 250,000 American troops, kill 10,000 Iraqi civilians, and cost $80 billion at a time when the U.S. economy is on the ropes. Who will pay the price of this war and for what purpose?

Last week Iraq invited Congress to visit any site alleged to be developing weapons of mass destruction and welcomed the UN Security Council's new inspection team leader to Baghdad for talks. Many world leaders welcomed the move as a means to restart weapons inspections, but the White House quickly dismissed it.

Since inspectors were driven from Iraq over three years ago, officials have been unable to determine the status of Iraq's weapons programs. It is unclear exactly how much of a threat Iraq poses. Effective inspections, say former inspectors, offer the best hope for destroying her weapons of mass destruction.

• Iraq's current military prowess is barely one-third its pre-Gulf War strength.
  
  
• Most of Iraq's neighbors possess sophisticated anti-aircraft capabilities.
  
  
• UNSCOM destroyed 90-95% of Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear stockpiles and equipment.
  
  
• Iraq's nuclear plants continue to be inspected, with no evidence of nuclear weapons development.
  
  
• It's more likely, say analysts, that Saddam Hussein would smuggle biological agents into target countries - a type of terrorism better prevented by border checks than bombing campaigns.
  
  
• Arab nations endorsed a resolution opposing an attack against Iraq at the June summit of the Arab League.
  
  
• The U.S.'s closest allies all oppose a pre-emptive military invasion.

What would an invasion do to an already unstable Middle East? Why does the White House rebuff opportunities to jumpstart inspections? What is the best way of dealing with Iraq or any other nation with weapons of mass destruction?