Bush’s appeal to the United Nations has made the Iraq situation a good deal more predictable, in the sense that it’s now possible to set out a chain of events leading to a plausible peaceful outcome in the medium term, and then to consider the various possible deviations from that predicted chain.
Prediction 1: The Security Council will pass a new resolution, essentially repealing the ‘compromise’ resolutions of 1998 and 1999, which gave Saddam a basis for refusing access to presidential palaces etc, but, at least implicitly, requiring specific authorisation for further military action. My probability 0.8
Prediction 2: Saddam will protest vociferously, but will accept the new resolution. Once the inspectors are in Iraq, he will obstruct them as much as he dares, but not enough that they declare him to have breached his commitments. My (conditional) probability 0.9
Prediction 3: The British government will refuse to participate in military action unless the UN determines that Saddam has failed to comply. My (conditional) probability 0.9
Prediction 4: Bush will not go to war without Britain. My (conditional) probability 0.7
The probability of the complete chain of events, obtained my multiplying the probabilities of each of the elements is about 0.45. Since nearly all of the deviations lead to war, I’d say it is about an even-money bet at present.
The other important feature of this analysis is that, in my view, each prediction is based on the assumption that the key decision-makers will act in their own self-interest. If there is a war, it will be because ‘someone had blundered’.