Ex-inspector: Iraq may be playing 'dangerous game'

Iraq announced Wednesday that it would "deal with" a U.N. resolution demanding it allow weapons inspectors to return with unrestricted access after a four-year absence and denied having any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

The response left room for interpretation on whether the Iraqi government had accepted the latest U.N. call to disarm, as the Security Council has demanded -- and its denial sets up the possibility of a new crisis December 8, the date the country is required under the resolution to disclose details of its weapons program.

"Let there be no doubt that any failure by Iraq to comply with its obligations will lead to serious consequences," British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said. "For it is only the credible threat of force which has brought Iraq this far today."

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Thursday he hasn't read the letter "completely or carefully" and said questions have been raised about its translation from Arabic to English. But he rejected Iraq's assertion that it is free of weapons of mass destruction.

"I'll just simply say they do have weapons of mass destruction," Rumsfeld said. "And the purpose of the U.N. resolution, of course, is for them to allow inspectors in and allow inspectors to make some conclusions."

An advance team of inspectors is due to arrive Monday in Baghdad. That team, which will spearhead the establishment of the new inspection program, will be headed by Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. (More on inspectors)

Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said Iraqi officials most likely are trying to figure out how much Western powers know about their weapons programs.

"If they are not going to comply, what you would expect to see in a declaration is their estimation of what we know about them -- in essence, give us what we know about them and be very forthright about it and hide the rest," he said. But he called that "a very bad idea."

"It's a very dangerous game that Iraq plays if it chooses not to comply," Albright said. "The methods are very powerful that can be deployed by inspectors, particularly if they're backed up by information from intelligence agencies."

Iraq's nine-page letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is filled with condemnation of the United States and its supporters, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whom the letter refers to as a "lackey."

If inspectors carry out their duties "professionally and lawfully, without any premeditated intentions, the liar's lies will be exposed" and the Security Council will be obligated "to lift the blockade and all other unjust sanctions on Iraq," Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri wrote. (Full text of Iraq's letter)

But after a meeting Wednesday with President Bush, Annan said it is not what the letter says that is important, but what Iraq does.

"The issue is not the acceptance, but the performance on the ground," Annan said. "So let the inspectors go in, and I urge the Iraqis to cooperate with them and to perform, and I think that is the real test we are waiting for."

Annan suggested the letter was meant more for the Iraqi people than for international consumption. Iraq has promised to send another letter to Annan, outlining how it believes the U.N. resolution violates international law.

After seeing the Baghdad government's response, a senior U.S. State Department official said it was unclear whether Iraq had even said "yes" to the U.N. resolution demanding unfettered access for inspectors to search for weapons.

Russia and China welcomed the announcement of the Iraqi letter, with the Moscow government also urging Iraq to comply fully with the inspections and repeating its opposition to unilateral military action by the United States. (More world reaction)

The U.N. chief acknowledged that the language in his organization's resolution does not clearly define the key phrase, "material breach." That's the point at which Iraq would be found not to be cooperating -- and also the point at which the United States has promised to use military force to disarm the Persian Gulf state.

Annan said the United States is "seen to have a lower threshold" for determining what constitutes a material breach, something that he warned could be interpreted as "a flimsy or hasty attempt to go to war." Concern that the United States would be quick to attack was among the reasons it took so long for the Security Council to approve a resolution, he said.

Rumsfeld has indicated that a possible worst-case scenario would be for Iraq to appear to comply with the resolution while failing to do so -- leaving the United States with no basis for pursuing a military option. (Risks for U.S. policy)

The United States accuses the Baghdad government of possessing weapons of mass destruction -- biological, nuclear or chemical -- in violation of a cease-fire it signed after losing the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Friday to approve the weapons-inspection resolution and gave Iraq a week to accept it.