The later the better.

(From The Statesman (India))

Why should Bush attack Iraq now, when a war later this year could win him the 2004 polls? Why should he repeat his father's mistake of fighting the polls over economic issues instead of geopolitics, asks ANATOLE KALETSKY W HAT if there's no war? When Tony Blair said on Tuesday that Saddam Hussein was clearly rattled, when the White House promised that "the USA will not go it alone" against Iraq, when even the ultra-belligerent US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, conceded that the Iraqi regime might choose to go into exile rather than fight, when the UN inspectors have already scheduled a second report on the Iraqi weapons programme for March 29, it is curious how few politicians and media commentators seem to take seriously the possibility that the Iraq confrontation might end without a war.

American and British leaders at least have some creditable reasons for behaving as if war were inevitable, even while they state publicly that no decisions have been taken and insist that a full-scale attack on Iraq will be considered only as a last resort. George Bush's main objective is surely to intimidate Saddam into compliance with the UN demands or, better still, to frighten him into exile. To have any chance…