With the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq, the possibility of a U.S.-led war has been delayed, but has not disappeared. Iraqi failure to comply with the Security Council resolution would open the door to UN review - and a U.S.-led war. The White House remains pessimistic on inspections, believing they won't yield results. The first test of Iraqi inspections compliance and U.S. response comes December 8.

Unless Iraq makes a major blunder that gives unequivocal evidence of her subterfuge, the U.S. must either wait out the inspections regimen - the preliminary work alone will take 12 to 18 months - or build a case file of transgressions as justification for war. The Bush administration has claimed the right to be the sole determiner of whether or not Iraq is complying with inspections - and, whether through a "coalition of the willing" or by going it alone, seems determined to checkmate Saddam Hussein.

A UN-less attack on Iraq, say experts, is likely to open a Pandora's box of response and retaliation that will springboard out of the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, and South/Central Asia. In his most recent communiqué, bin Laden explains his rationale for terrorist attacks against Western targets: "Because you attacked us [Muslims] and continue to attack us." Iraq has already dropped strong hints that a U.S.-led attack not backed by the UN would inspire an attack on Israel.

Would U.S. unilateral action rend the fabric of international law - and emit a worldwide shockwave of blowback? Is there a middle "owl" alternative to the political "hawks" and "doves"? As chief architect of the UN charter, does the U.S. possess a special responsibility to uphold its founding principles?