What is to be done about Iraq?

Click here for more Evening Standard columnists

Tariq Aziz, Vice President of Iraq, warned this weekend that an Anglo-American attack on Iraq - which he said he expected - would have very "grave" consequences. He said that America was trying to get rid of Saddam under the pretext of the war on terrorism and that Baghdad had learned of western plans to hit 300 targets with 1,000 missiles. He warned that the Arab world "will not tolerate that" and it would be "unjust and sheer aggression".

Mr Aziz has earned himself the distinction of being one of the most dishonest and distrusted men in diplomatic life, after long years of lying to UN inspectors about the Iraq's covert illegal programmes to create weapons of mass destruction - biological, chemical and nuclear. But he is right that an attack on Iraq would be very dangerous for the coalition against terrorism put together by President Bush and Tony Blair.

Nonetheless, such an attack will have to happen if the anthrax assaults in the United States are shown to have Saddam Hussein's fingerprints on them. And even if these attacks prove to be home- grown, they have focused the attention of the world on the menace of biological warfare and the inherent menace of allowing rogue states such as Iraq to be in possession of them. But how to deprive Saddam of his chemical and biological armoury? That is the question. There has been a fierce policy debate over Iraq within the Bush administration since it came to office in January, let alone since 11 September.

The anthrax scare is beginning to paralyse America. More and more offices and people have been infected, including several post offices, the Congress and the CIA. Thirteen people are so far infected. The US Government is considering closing the whole postal service.

There is some speculation that the attacks could be the work of Right-wing American extremists. But the FBI is said to be leaning towards the theory that they are another assault by Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden is known to have sought weapons of mass destruction.

There are more and more other reports of Iraqi intelligence liaison with Al Qaeda. It is known that Mohammed Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague earlier this year. That man has since been expelled from Prague. There are rumours that he gave Atta anthrax spores. There is no firm evidence yet. If this does not come to light, however, the dilemma for the US and British governments will be even more dangerous than hitherto. The unease which many New Labour supporters feel about bombing Afghanistan would become horror if it was extended to Iraq.

But the stakes are fantastically high. Biological weapons are often known as the "poor man's atomic bomb". An aircraft loaded with anthrax could kill from 130,000 to a million people.

Iraq certainly has both the means and the madness to be involved. It has been producing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction since the early 1970s. After its defeat in the Gulf War, Iraq was forced to allow aggressive UN inspections to find these weapons. Sanctions were to be lifted only when the inspectors certified that Iraq was clean.

Saddam refused to cooperate and Tariq Aziz, then his foreign minister, tried to lead a dance around the inspectors. But, using methods worthy of both Sherlock Holmes and Indiana Jones, the inspectors did find a massive amount of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons material. In 1998, Saddam threw the inspectors out. As a result sanctions have continued. Saddam has skilfully thrown the blame for the consequent suffering of the civilian population, particularly children, on the West. This is nonsense - the UN created a specific programme to allow imports for the vulnerable - Saddam has not used it properly, preferring weapons and propaganda to relieving his people.

There is active debate in Washington about the need to destroy Saddam. The attraction is obvious; Iraq is clearly a terrorist state with an odious leader who has the most malign intent against the US. President Bush has appointed a former director of the CIA, James Woolsey, to examine the evidence. Woolsey is on record as believing that amongst states, Iraq is the most likely partner of Al Qaeda. "Saddam has a festering sense of revenge for his humiliation in the Gulf War."

But we have to remember that Osama bin Laden would like us to believe that Iraq is involved, so that Iraq is then attacked and the war against terrorism can be portrayed more easily as a war against Islam which would destroy the fragile coalition and could spin out of control. It is a game of double jeopardy.

There are three ways of attacking Saddam. The first - and apparently the most appealing to western governments these days - is bombing. This will not work. Saddam survived heavy air attack during the Gulf War, and since. He survived.

Another alternative is to step up covert activities. President Bush has unleashed the CIA on Bin Laden - they now have a licence to kill. That licence may already extend to Saddam - and certainly would if he were shown to be involved in the attacks. The trouble with covert attacks is that no one knows they are happening, so they win no political mileage - unless they succeed overwhelmingly and this can be trumpeted.

A third route would be to commit American support to the INC (Iraqi National Congress), the main grouping of exiled opposition leaders to Saddam. Despite the divisions which always afflict exile groups, and the inevitable penetration by Saddam's agents, they insist they can capture Iraq - with a little help from their friends.

But that help would need to be substantial. The US would have to offer at the very least airlift capacity, and provide air cover once they had established (as they say they could) an enclave in southern Iraq. This would be a huge operation. Support for the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs would seem minor in comparison.

None of these alternative methods of attack is attractive or foolproof.

Probably any active policy will embody all three options. The chances of success are uncertain. The risks of further alienating the Islamic world (and other parts) are indeed grave.

But if real evidence surfaces of Iraqi involvement with Bin Laden, President Bush will have no alternative. He has stated "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists". There is no doubt that Iraq is with the terrorists in spirit, if not in specific deed. Nor is there any dispute that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and the will to use them. Afghanistan will seem a sideshow if Washington finds Saddam's paws in the powder.

William Shawcross is on the board of the International Crisis Group and is the author of Deliver Us From Evil - Warlords, Peacekeepers and a World of Endless Conflict.