American officials have long known that Saddam Hussein employs a string of doubles to impersonate him. They had not realised, until recently, that Julie Andrews must be one of them. But as they continue to study Iraq’s fantastic submission to the United Nations the link becomes more explicit. For Saddam’s document, and especially its extraordinary definition of “dual-use materials”, echoes the words of Ms Andrews in The Sound of Music: “Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens/ Bright copper kettles and warm woollen mittens/ Brown paper packages tied up with string/ These are a few of my favourite things.”

Unfortunately for Saddam, the string is beginning to slip off his brown paper package. That process will continue in front of the United Nations Security Council this week. It is an achievement of sorts to issue 11,807 pages in order to demonstrate absolutely nothing. It tells us little except that General Hassam Mohammed Amin, the man responsible for this exercise, much have been a journalist before acquiring an interest in weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq has slipped out of the British headlines in the past six weeks, a departure that is but temporary. It has been displaced by a bizarre combination of Paul Burrell, Andy Gilchrist, Cherie Blair and Peter Foster (or see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil and evil). These strange distractions will have left many unprepared for the news that a Royal Navy taskforce will sail to the Gulf shortly and that up to 20,000 of our soldiers may be mobilised imminently.

The sense of surprise is understandable. There has been an impression of stalemate. Indeed, for friend and foe of George W. Bush alike, it has appeared that the “UN route” is a cul-de-sac. Mr Bush had pledged to end the era of “cheat and retreat” in favour of “disclose and dispose”, the term “dispose” standing for the disarmament of Iraq and eviction of Saddam. Despite this, “grin and spin” has been witnessed from the moment that Iraq welcomed back the inspectors.

At first sight, Iraq might look in a stronger position today than before the President offered the UN a final encore. The presence of the inspectors in Baghdad is, for many in the US, the ultimate pyrrhic victory. The Bush Administration cannot start a military assault while UN teams are running around Iraq, even if they are uncovering nothing more than bright copper kettles and warm woollen mittens. They have become, conservatives in Washington bemoan, high class human shields for the Iraqi leadership.

The opposition to Saddam, meanwhile, which met in London this weekend, is deemed too feeble, fragmented and fratricidal to achieve anything. Saddam is, the theory continues, playing for time and is destined to obtain it. He will manage, it is said, to string everyone along into the heat of the summer and then the presidential campaign season. Mr Bush may thus end 2002 having missed his sole opportunity to make the Middle East anew in America’s image.

Saddam has hung on for so long that to bet on him swinging now might seem wildly optimistic. There is, nevertheless, a decent case to be made that the “UN route” will allow Mr Bush to reach his destination sooner rather than later. The errors and omissions in Saddam’s massive disclosure statement, which as one American operative noted has “holes wide enough to drive a tank through”, will be his undoing. They will place the United Nations in a position where, if it does not condone what the United States will do, it cannot credibly condemn it either.

There are three solid reasons for concluding that Saddam’s days are numbered — and that those days are unlike to exceed 120 in number. First, Hans Blix, encouraged by the US, is prepared to interview key Iraqi personnel outside of that country and with their families under his protection. This information, coupled with what American intelligence information, will provide the evidence that Saddam is in severe “material breach” of the latest UN resolution. He may feel obliged, for fear of political humiliation, to abandon co-operation with Dr Blix well before that showdown arrives.

Secondly, the alleged irrelevance of the Iraqi opposition is itself irrelevant. They may well be feeble, fragmented, and fratricidal. So were those who stood against the Taleban 16 months ago. It is the fate of many an opposition until it receives outside assistance. A member of Saddam’s inner circle might spend a month in and around the House of Commons and be convinced that the Opposition here is feeble, fragmented and fratricidal. The true opponent of Saddam’s regime is, though, not the Iraqi National Congress but the American Administration.

Its campaign has already started and it may succeed with very few shots being fired. The CIA is now working against Saddam as never before. It is, as in Afghanistan, lubricating loyalties with mountains of money. The “no-fly zones” patrolled by American and British aircraft have become “no-move zones” as bases and facilities are struck with increasing severity.

The United States has, of late, reached understandings with Kuwait, Qatar, and Turkey, with important strategic consequences. The message for the Iraqi Army, which has most to lose from any conflict and which has little love for its commander, does not require translation.

I can appreciate why many in Washington think the UN is as much use in Iraq as a colander would be for the construction of sandcastles. They should have more faith in their President. Either the inspectors will produce the silver bullet that would trigger an American invasion, or others will reach for the single bullet that should render that enterprise unnecessary. And for Saddam and his entourage, unlike the Von Trapp family in The Sound of Music, there will be not be a happy ending and there will be no escape to neutral territory.

Times Recommends

• The ghost of Robin Cook haunts Chilcot’s feast
• The truth shouldn’t need oaths
• Violence: let’s separate the men from the boys