When President Bush says Saddam Hussein will be disarmed - with or without war - few people around the world doubt him. It's the "without war" clause that looks less and less likely.

Scenarios for accomplishing Iraq's disarmament without the use of force by the world's only superpower are still viable, experts say, but the window on them is closing fast.

They cite three reasons:

• Because a solution short of war depends on Saddam Hussein, who shows few signs of having changed his well-honed behavior of international deception.

• Because the US goal remains regime change and not just Iraqi disarmament.

• Because President Bush failed early on to win over countries that could have helped make an outcome other than war work.

"The only way I can see a solution to this for the US - short of war - is to reach an iron-clad agreement for Saddam Hussein to destroy his weapons, all his stocks, his chemicals, everything very quickly - say, within two weeks," says Henri Barkey, a former State Department Iraq analyst who is now a professor of Middle East affairs at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Penn. "Either that or Saddam exits."

Historic precedent exists for the US reaching the brink of war - even nuclear war - and pulling back without giving up its main goal in the crisis. Throughout the Iraq confrontation, scholars have pointed to parallels with President Kennedy's treatment of the Cuban missile crisis. But other experts point to the previous administration, Eisenhower's, for lessons on how a conflict was resolved - in this case with China over Taiwan - without resorting to confrontation.

In March 1955 President Eisenhower frightened Americans and caused an international uproar during the conflict with China by saying that "A-bombs can be used ... as you would use a bullet." US military leaders predicted war, saying the president was planning "to destroy Red China's military potential."

Whether Eisenhower ever seriously intended to use nuclear weapons remains debatable, but what is clear is that within a month China ceased attacks on Taiwan and announced a desire for negotiations.

In a similar way, President Bush's uncompromising position on Iraq - the constant threat of military force - is widely credited, even by United Nations weapons inspectors, as the only way the Iraqi regime is as closely scrutinized as it is today.

But some experts say the brittle relations between the US and key international partners is also making the leap from brinkmanship to peaceful resolution less likely.

"There are two keys [to resolving the Iraq crisis short of war]: that the policy be tough, and that the international community stay and act together," says Bruce Jentleson, director of the Terry Sanford Institute for Public Policy at Duke University in Durham, N.C. "The Bush administration has pursued the tough, but not the together."

Page: 1 | 2