After a UN resolution, the 30-day countdown starts

But to ensure compliance, observers say, it's essential to have both deadlines and the threat of "serious consequences" for stonewalling or deception.

Without deadlines and threat of force, "You're back in Iraq's world, where we've been the past 11 years," says Kelly Motz, a research fellow with the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

"You have to put the onus on Iraq, not on the inspectors to find everything Iraq is hiding. Why should Iraq be truthful? With US forces sitting on your border, looking like a credible threat to live up to the threat of 'regime change,' that might be enough to push Iraq to give up its weapons of mass destruction."

Of some dispute is whether Baghdad should be expected to disclose not only its weapons and programs, but also account for its vast chemical and petrochemicals industry - some of which is said to have "dual-use capability" in chemical weaponry.

The US resolution, drafted with British approval, calls for full disclosure of entire chemicals industry, also within 30 days.

But on Monday, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said that while the first demand is reasonable, "To declare all other chemical programs in a country with a fairly large chemical industry ... might be more problematic in a short time."

And while Blix has repeatedly described himself and UN-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed el Baradei as "servants" of the Security Council, a French diplomat said she would defer to the duo's judgment.

"The basic French position is to accept what Blix and el Baradei can accept," says the diplomat. "If they say it's acceptable, as experts they know perfectly what they need."

Blix and el Baradei, the leaders of UN weapons inspection teams were in Washington Wednesday for the second time in a month, this time for meetings with President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

A US official said American negotiators haven't decided whether to bend on the deadline, but defended the need for an accounting of the chemicals industry.

The official also suggested that some on the Council resist any sort of deadlines, seeing them as a recipe for confrontation - and a military attack.

"When you look at Iraq's past behavior and how much lying and deceit it has done, it's prudent to put such language in a resolution and not give them the benefit of the doubt," says the official.

"A full disclosure shouldn't be difficult to do; they keep records. Those who support Iraq are going to see a trigger in just about everything. But Iraq doesn't get to pick and choose what it has to do. The Iraqis have certain obligations."

Page: 1 | 2