William Safire at the NYT presents an analysis almost identical to mine :
Quiggin
“To put the point more bluntly, if Bush’s objective is to ensure an invasion of Iraq, his UN speech has ensured that the goal can be achieved only if Saddam chooses to assist him by refusing co-operation. ”
Safire:
“For this approach to succeed in overthrowing the dangerous dictatorship, the White House is relying on Baghdad to show not merely consistency in recalcitrance, but an insufferable, infuriating intractability in intransigence. Bush is betting that Saddam will (a) reject the U.N resolutions as humiliating or (b) accept the final-final warning and then negotiate endlessly with the inspectors so as to make their mission impossible.

The basis for this gamble is Bush’s certainty, based on the logical extrapolation of past and present intelligence reports, that Saddam has evidence of mass-murder weaponry to hide. The Iraqi dictator cannot accede to coercive inspection, enforced by U.N. troops, without blowing up what has cost him more than $100 billion in a decade’s oil revenues to build.

That would not be like Saddam. And on that presumed defiance rests Bush’s diplomatic strategy.”

This raises an interesting point. One could say that Saddam has always pushed issues to the brink and beyond, and that therefore he will do it again this time. Alternatively, one could say that Saddam has always done what it takes to survive. I don’t know which is right. But, as a risk-averse person, I’d prefer the outcome where Saddam decides to destroy his weapons himself rather than that where the rest of the world destroys Saddam, or at least lets the Americans do it. That said, I hope Saddam’s end comes soon, preferably by a revolt from within Iraq.