Sports Calendar

Worst of all, a return to the patient diplomacy, which was a sensible and successful US policy until just a few weeks ago, would leave America’s key Middle Eastern allies dangerously exposed. In this sense, the watershed was Monday’s public demand by the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait for Saddam to go into exile. After making this brave and unprecedented public gesture, the rulers of these countries would feel utterly betrayed if the US now appeared to be turning back.

Putting all these factors together, it seems that war in Iraq is almost inevitable within the next month. And unfortunately, the consequences of this war now look far more daunting than they did even a few weeks ago.

If the UN Security Council fails to pass a second resolution to authorise the American and British action, there will be almost no chance of Saddam abdicating or being overthrown at the eleventh hour.

The authority of the UN and the very concept of international law will be seriously, perhaps irreparably, damaged. Ironically, the damage to the UN will be all the greater if the military operation turns out to be relatively quick and painless, since this will confirm all the unilateralist prejudices of US hawks.

Global co-operation on a host of other issues, ranging from trade and climate change to war crimes and asylum, will become far more difficult once an inward-looking America sees Europe as a trouble-maker or an outright adversary, rather than an ally. Terrorism could gain a new lease of life, despite the substantial progress now apparent in the battle against al-Qaeda, as a result of the breakdown of trust and cooperation between America and Europe that would follow any French or Russian veto at the UN.

In the absence of a clear UN mandate for American action, the Middle East and other global trouble-spots could become even more unstable, almost regardless of what ultimately happens in Iraq. US public support, already strained to breaking point by the Iraq adventure and the global outpouring of anti-American sentiment, would balk at military interventions anywhere else for many years. With the UN discredited, the disappearance of any “global policeman” could become all too evident in danger zones such as Korea and the Indian subcontinent, as well as the Middle East.

But probably the biggest loser from the new global disorder after a veto at the UN by France or Russia would be Europe itself — and especially the “old Europe” dominated by Germany and France.

Not only will the Franco-German betrayal of its erstwhile US ally lead to the demise of Nato (a goal which the Russians may well be trying to promote by apparently supporting France). Even more importantly, the division between America’s European allies and rivals closely matches the many other rifts in EU politics — over monetary union, deregulation and labour market reform, security policy and the new constitution. Thus a permanent cleavage between the federalist, inward-looking “core” of Europe and the faster-growing, Atlanticist, periphery is likely if France and Germany break with America over Iraq.

The biggest losers from such a division would, of course, be the Eurocentric French and German politicians who have precipitated the confrontation with Washington and undermined the chances of ousting Saddam without bloodshed. Is it too late for them to understand the consequences of their mischief?

Times Recommends

• Bank charges hit us for being human
• Sorry, Father, thou still shalt not steal
• The shed where Santa’s failures go to die