Here We Go Again.

Another Iraq resolution, another go-round at the U.N. Security Council. Surely it couldn't be as bad as the last time, when those warmongering Americans and Brits slapped down the Franco-German "axis of weasels" and invaded--right on schedule. The war was won, Iraq was liberated. True, there's the matter of the missing WMD, not to mention a spot of bother on the postwar road to peace and reconstruction. Now come the Americans, hat in hand, asking the United Nations for a little help. Surely, we'll all be spared the rancor and recrimination of last winter, won't we?

Not a chance. If anything, the next confrontation promises to be as nasty as the last, and possibly more damaging to the transatlantic relationship. Reason: the Bush administration is desperate. With Iraq in chaos, it needs the semblance of multinational cooperation more than ever. And this time, it's personal. President George W. Bush was angry with Germany and France half a year ago; this time, with the 2004 elections, his own political future is at stake. The U.S. administration hopes a new U.N. resolution will bring more international cash and troops to Iraq--but it's willing to give up relatively little. As the debate gets underway in New York this week, no one expects quick agreement.

For now, the two great combatants, America and France, are being polite. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell says Washington wants the world to "come together" to the aid of Iraq. His French counterpart, Dominique de Villepin, says France appreciates Washington's "openness." But neither government has appreciably changed its prewar position. Powell: "The lead role has to be played by the United States... We are the ones who took over the country." Villepin, in effect: non. Just last week he proposed a full transfer of authority to Iraqi civilians, starting with the establishment of a provisional government next month- -a suggestion Powell dismissed as "totally unrealistic."

This is a classic diplomatic standoff: everything has changed, and nothing has changed. The war is over, but few Europeans buy the argument that the White House, post-Iraq, is a born-again multilateralist. Neither does Washington believe that Europeans, having opposed the war, will suddenly rally to the U.S. cause. The German magazine Stern summed up Europe's popular skepticism last week, portraying a frowning Bush on its cover rattling his geopolitical tin cup: from bigmouth to beggar.

Some diplomats still hope for an artful compromise. Last month's bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad was an attack on the entire international community, Spain's Foreign Minister Ana Palacio told NEWSWEEK. "It crystallized an attitude that, although we didn't agree on military intervention, we should leave that to historians and look to the future--because it concerns all of us." Palacio believes that a new "progressive approach" at the United Nations will ultimately bridge U.S. and European differences, starting with Spain's proposal to set a clear timetable for handing power over to a newly elected Iraqi government.

The trouble is, this approach assumes that the coming Security Council battle is about Iraq. It is, of course--but only on the surface. From a European vantage point, the issue (just as it was a year ago) is power. On one side is America's avowed willingness to go it alone in the world, without constraint by its allies. On the other is Europe's insistence on a broader, more inclusive world leadership that might (particularly in France's view) have avoided the whole current mess. "There's been no narrowing of these fundamental differences," says Robert Kagan, the author of ...