It was a revolutionary week in geopolitical reality. For the first time since 1934 an American President won seats in both Houses of Congress in a mid-term election. The Security Council of the UN was unanimous in its resolution to disarm Iraq. George W. Bush’s position is far stronger than it was a week ago. History is on the march.

Three people come particularly well out of the unanimous passage of Resolution 1441 by the Security Council. President Bush himself decided that the reference to the Security Council would strengthen rather than obstruct America’s policy of disarming Iraq. The hawks in Washington had argued that the United Nations reference was a waste of time.

The other two were Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, and Tony Blair. Colin Powell not only won the Washington argument, and persuaded the President to follow his advice, but was very effective in his diplomacy with the other nations of the Security Council. Mr Blair fully supported Mr Powell. The President sees Britain as the reliable ally of the United States in maintaining world order. He sees Tony Blair as a steadfast friend. That is a national asset for us.

American diplomacy was strengthened by two acts of terrorism which occurred while the Security Council discussions were taking place. The Chechen hostage-taking in a Moscow theatre reinforced those, including President Putin, who already realised that Russia is as much threatened by Islamic terrorism as the United States. Of course, Russia also has financial interests in Iraq to protect. The Bali bombing reminded Asian countries that they, too, are under threat.

The surprise was that the United States managed to persuade Syria, currently a member of the Security Council, to vote for the resolution. Syria’s vote has received support from other Arab countries which gives the resolution the added strength of unanimity. Despite protests, such as the Florence demonstrations, Europe, Russia, Asia and the Arab world are all agreed that Iraq must be disarmed. Their weapons of mass destruction must be declared and destroyed. Otherwise there will be war.

The United States has waited for this resolution, but has not delayed the military build-up. If Saddam Hussein does not give total compliance, American forces will be ready for war by the New Year.

There are still several possibilities, though there is little doubt about the eventual outcome. In theory it is possible for Saddam Hussein to survive by total compliance. There are certainly people in the Arab world, and among anti-war protesters, who hope that will happen.

Disarmament would, however, be an extraordinary humiliation for a regime which relies on prestige. The United States will be watching for a single false step. Washington would rather deal with a new regime in Iraq than tolerate even a disarmed Saddam.

There is a possibility that Saddam will be overthrown by his own people, by the politico-military establishment of Iraq. He takes every precaution to purge his own supporters in order to protect himself from frequent threats of assassination. It will not be easy for his army to conspire against him. On the other hand he has completely failed Iraq. He is not only the worst sort of brutal dictator, guilty of genocide, but in policy terms is a complete failure. His war against Iran was a disaster; so was his invasion of Kuwait. Now he has brought the United States back in great force into the Middle East, determined to disarm his country. Iraq, though rich in oil, has been impoverished. Although they must be implicated in his crimes, the commonsense thing for his generals to do is to get rid of him before the Americans get rid of them. But that is easier said than done.

Perhaps the most likely of the possibilities is that there will be an Anglo-American invasion, starting with an air attack which would probably be timed between mid-January and the end of February. Perhaps a surprise attack could come a little earlier. There is no support in Washington for postponement into the second half of next year. They do not want Saddam Hussein more time to prepare a counter-attack.

The American campaign would have great military advantages. From the first hours there would be complete control of the air. There would be overwhelming firepower, able to inflict very heavy casualties on the Iraqi forces, probably with little loss of life on the American side. The Kurdish population in the North and the Shia Muslims in the south have been brutally massacred and detest the regime. There might be resistance in Baghdad itself, but there might well not.

Once Saddam is seen as a loser, the war could rapidly become a matter of “sauve qui peut”. The conditions for a long resistance do not seem to exist.

America’s critics have put forward three scenarios in which the United States might pay a heavy price. The first is that of terrorist attacks, particularly on Western cities. These could include chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons, perhaps in the form of “dirty” bombs. Such terrorist attacks are expected by the British Government; given the support for Islamic terrorism, they could occur whatever happens in Iraq.

Times Recommends

• Britain doesn’t need a dose of shock therapy
• Why the sea eagle has no right to land here
• Let older women have a voice at the BBC