American officials believe that continued resistance by President Saddam Hussein to destroying banned rockets and to allowing scientists to leave the country could yet win a majority of the UN Security Council votes for military action.

Washington has, however, been forced to review most of its tactical considerations in the light of the weekend’s huge anti-war demonstrations and the progress made by inspectors that Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, reported on Friday.

US officials will almost certainly have to drop an explicit reference to war from any second resolution. They may have to include an ultimatum that they had hoped to avoid and may also have to concede French demands for a fourth report from Dr Blix on March 14.

Instead of tabling a resolution at the Security Council today or tomorrow, as hoped initially, Washington and London will limit themselves to circulating among potential allies the type of language that they wish to use in a resolution.

Forging ahead with a resolution so soon after Friday’s setback would risk looking domineering and suggest that the US and Britain were failing to heed the message delivered by the rest of the world. “We need to let everyone settle down,” one official said.

However, the week ahead will see a flurry of tense long-distance diplomacy as Washington tries to round up the nine votes on the 15-member Security Council that it needs to pass a resolution.

Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, spoke to Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, at least twice over the weekend and the debate about the new resolution’s wording will continue between the White House and Downing Street all week. One official expected President Bush and Tony Blair to speak before the weekend.

The two allies are currently discussing a brief, bald statement that Iraq has failed to comply with its obligations to the UN and that Security Council Resolution 1441, which was passed last autumn and set up the current UN inspection regime, should be enforced. Resolution 1441 which was passed unanimously, threatened Iraq with “serious consequences” — diplomatic code for force — if it failed to comply.

By omitting a new and explict authority for war, the United States and Britain hope to win support from swing-votes on the Security Council such as those of Chile, Mexico, Guinea, Angola and Pakistan.

In particular the US intends to try to twist arms by picking up two areas highlighted by Dr Blix in his presentation on Friday. It will argue that any delay by Iraq in destroying its arsenal of liquid-fuel al-Samoud 2 ballistic missiles, judged by Dr Blix to breach the 150km (93.2 mile) range imposed on Iraq, and the 380 casting chambers needed to produce the missiles’ motors, also outlawed by Dr Blix, will show that Saddam has no intention of disarming.

And it will seize on any failure by Iraq to provide the scientists that Dr Blix’s team has asked to interview. Dr Blix will report back on both issues on February 28, and Washington does not expect Iraqi co-operation to have improved.

In a notable change of tactics, however, America intends to allow Dr Blix to make its case for it. After the aggressive case laid down last week by General Powell at the UN backfired, or at least failed to rally Security Council opinion, Washington and London have concluded that the best chance of securing a resolution depends on Dr Blix’s evidence, not America’s urging.

Negotiations on the wording of a resolution may still be continuing at the end of the month, when Dr Blix next reports. By that time officials in Washington believe that they will be able to prove a pattern of obstruction by Baghdad sufficient to persuade swing states on the Security Council that more inspections will not disarm Iraq.

Explore World News

• Iraq News

• US & Americas News

• Europe News

• Middle East News

• Asia News

• Africa News

• Ireland News

Times Recommends

• 'He looks like a terrorist but I'll vote for him'
• Madonna and her Guy decide it’s over
• 'Defector' guilty in spying trial