I think it's good.
First, I think Hans Blix will come before the security counsel on Valentines day and say something along the lines of "The Iraqis are being more cooperative, but they have not yet given us the evidence we require. We need more time."
I think the US and UK will call for a new resolution, a war resolution.
I think the French/Germans/Russians will block that resolution. Maybe they will come up with some resolution about increasing the number of inspectors with 300%, maybe they will come up with some idea of UN peace keepers on the ground in Iraq. The US and UK will veto that one.
Then I think the US will go to war on Iraq. I think some other nations like UK, Canada, Turkey (maybe other nations like Italy, Spain or Hungary, Poland will join too in a more passive role) will join that war. Partly because it is a just cause, partly because of US diplomatic pressure.
This would mean nothing less than the death of the UN, and the return of 18-19th century geo-politics. Which is good since the whole UN idea is totally screwed anyway.
The French part in all this is really interesting. Right now France is attempting a role in power play that is well beyond its actual size.
There is only one superpower right now, but the French are trying to play hardball anyway. It will come back in their face. While a war-reluctant public opinion in Europe may think France is doing something noble and good, public opinion is a fragile ground to build your policy on.
For example, something that has been quietly overlooked by European media lately is exactly what the French oil interests in Iraq look like. It seems really popular to say that the US is going to war with Iraq over oil, but what about the french?
In 2001 French trade with Iraq was worth $1.5 billion, more than any other European nation, and trailing only behind Egypt and Russia. That number has grown in 2002. The French oil giant TotalFinaElf has the largest position in Iraq, with exclusive negotiating rights to develop Majnoon, a field on the Iranian border with estimated reserves of 10 billion barrels, and Bin Umar, with an estimated production potential of 440,000 barrels a day.
(note, when researching this post, I came across this quote:
"At Peugeot, a spokeswoman said the company delivered 500 cars to Iraq in the first half of the year under the oil-for-food program, about the number it delivered annually before the Gulf War." ...wtf has cars got do do with oil for food? I think this speaks volumes about the efficency of the sanctions.)
Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia) along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraq’s true potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions. Deep oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert region, for instance, could yield large additional oil resources (possibly another 100 billion barrels), but have not been explored.
Right now French and Russian companies are sitting on the concession rights for this oil. Is it then so strange that the French want to see the current Iraqi government remain in place? After all, if the Americans come in and throw Saddam and his thugs out, these hard bought oil rights will be worth nothing.
Is it really that surprising to see France and Russia agreeing on a policy that will call for more inspectors, even UN peace keepers, but will allow the current regime to remain in place? Is it really that surprising that the two nations most strongly opposing the current sanctions against Iraq are France and Russia? (In addition, Iraq has a pre-91 debt of $8 billion to Russia for previous arms deliveries).
The French position is not motivated by some idealistic concerns for the Iraqi population, it is not motivadet by some desire for peace. Good old fashioned greed is motivating the French policy.
