Ever since Bush’s turn to the UN, I’ve been debating the significance of UN resolution 1441 on Iraq with other bloggers, notably including Steven Den Beste, who initially thought Bush was knuckling under, then changed his mind. When the first draft was announced, that it was, in effect, a one-and-a-half resolution I observed that it effectively required a second UNSC vote

All that’s left in the reported draft resolution, and in the statements of the UK and US governments, is that, if inspectors report obstruction to the UNSC, the US and UK will not necessarily accept a veto on military action cast by, say, France.

Although, the US Administration is still resisting this interpretation, Tony Blair has now accepted it almost word for word

Mr. Blair said, “Of course we all want a second U.N. resolution. I believe we will get one.

But he added, “Where there is an unreasonable veto put down, we will not rule out action.

On this issue, Blair’s interpretation is more important than Bush’s. The US Administration has already made up its mind that it wants a war, whereas the British government has not.

Of course, all of this may turn out to be academic (in the pejorative sense) if the latest reported discovery of shells for chemical weapons turns out to provide the much-sought-after ‘smoking gun’. On the other hand, the precise interpretation of 1441 will be very important if the inspectors turn up incriminating, but not conclusive, evidence against Saddam. It’s still too early to tell on this one.