How likely is a war in Iraq this winter? Absolutely inevitable, if you judge by the tabloid headlines. Almost certain, if you listen to the pundits and military analysts who dominate the media and advise multinational companies on what is “really” happening in world capitals from Washington to Baghdad. Roughly a 70 per cent probability, if you speak privately to British politicians directly involved in the trans-atlantic negotiations. But all these people have incentives to talk up the likelihood of war — respectively, to sell papers, justify consulting fees and intimidate President Saddam Hussein.

It seems to me that peace is considerably more likely than war in Iraq, at least for the next 12 months. In fact, I would not put a probability above one in three on a ground war in Iraq by late March, when the climate gets too hot for fighting in the heavy gear required to thwart chemical warfare.

How can I venture an opinion against the near-unanimous array of experts who are infinitely better informed? Because I have an inside track to the only two people in the world whose views count: George W. Bush and Saddam. Where do I get this exclusive information? Simple. I read each morning’s Times. That isn’t a sales pitch; the same information is available from any other serious paper, supplemented by the American press websites.

Consider the US position. The media headlines tell us that war is inevitable and will begin imminently, maybe even before Christmas. This is nonsense. How do I know? Because the only person who can start a war is President Bush and he told the American people in a nationwide TV address last week, that “war is neither inevitable nor imminent” because he still hopes to disarm Iraq through the UN process.

Do the experts who claim that war is inevitable know Bush’s mind better than he does himself? It seems more reasonable to take what he says at face value, especially when he keeps repeating it, as he did on Monday: “The use of the military is my last choice, my last desire.”

Or do those who predict imminent war believe Mr Bush is lying? If so, why? His diplomatic incentives are to sound as tough as possible to intimidate Saddam. Perhaps he is playing to his domestic audience? But if that is the case, it confirms that domestic political pressure is growing for the President to seek a peaceful solution, at least while the UN process appears to be moving forward. Public opinion has shifted decisively against a unilateral or peremptory attack on Iraq. In a recent CNN poll, the number of voters who supported an attack without UN backing and without allies had dwindled to 39 per cent.

The turning point for public opinion was, of course, Bush’s UN speech on September 12. This raised expectations of an international solution which were bitterly opposed by the Pentagon hawks. They naturally try to scupper the UN process by presenting American positions in the most belligerent light. The media naturally give them maximum coverage, since “imminent” war is more exciting than glacial diplomacy. But the UN genie is out of the bottle. Bush would now pay a crippling political price if he abandoned the UN process prematurely.

Still, the hawks remain confident of war. The UN process, they insist, will soon become paralysed; either the Security Council will fail to act or Saddam will refuse to comply. But is this plausible?

Consider the other key players: Saddam, France and Russia. Saddam’s main motivation is to hold on to power for as long as possible. Once the alternative of war became clear, he quickly accepted an inspection regime which he had been defying for years. He now shows every sign of making more concessions, as soon as the UN demands them. He naturally wants to procrastinate as long as possible, but he submits when the alternative is war.

The intentions of France and Russia are equally transparent. They want to maximise the influence and prestige of the UN Security Council, since this is a body where they enjoy global power out of all proportion to their economic or political importance. They must therefore dilute US demands just enough to give Saddam a chance of complying, without being so obstructive that they empower the US unilateralists.

Now let me return to my spuriously precise probability guesstimate of one-in-three for war. Mathematics tells us that the best way to calculate the probability of a complex event such as war, is to consider how likely it is not to happen. So let us consider the steps which will have to be taken to avoid a war.

First, the Security Council must agree a resolution. Given the powerful motivations to work through the UN process discussed above, there must surely be a 90 per cent chance that a UN resolution will be passed by early November, with France and Russia stretching out the negotiations to narrow the opportunity for war. What are the chances that Saddam will accept it? Again, about 90 per cent, since the terms of the resolution will be sufficiently conciliatory to win the support of the French and Russians. The inspectors will then take a month to set up in Iraq. So the probability of avoiding war until early December is 90 per cent of 90 per cent — 81 per cent.

Once the inspections begin, Saddam will do his best to slow them down, but he will try even harder to avoid any provocative breaches — at least until the summer. Let us give him a 90 per cent chance of avoiding any provocations for three months. This takes us to early March. The probability of avoiding war by then is 90 per cent of 81 per cent, ie 73 per cent.

Times Recommends

• In the real world, the public sector must pay
• Playing politics in a land of double Dutch
• Be like the plinth people: not set in stone