Senate told Bush has ruled out attack on Iraq this year

The Senate opened the first serious public debate over the merits and consequences of an American attack on Iraq, amid strong signs yesterday that if one does come in President's George Bush's first term it will be in the early part of next year or not at all.

Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, stressing his belief that no decision on a military operation had been taken by the White House, said he would be astonished if "there's any such attempt ... between now and the first of the year". Mr Biden, head of the Senate foreign relations committee, which is holding the hearings, seemed to suggest that the Bush administration has told key congressional leaders and close allies including Britain that there will be no "October surprise" over Iraq, that is, an attack just before the mid-term elections on 7 November.

If so, the generally accepted window for a military move has now shrunk to the first three or four months of next year, exactly the same point in the presidential election cycle for this George Bush as when his father launched Operation Desert Storm in January 1991.

After that, the hot Iraq summer rules out large-scale ground operation until late autumn or winter of 2003-04. But at that time the presidential election primary season would be in full swing, making it politically difficult for Mr Bush to move. In the meantime the White House says it will send senior administration officials to testify to Mr Biden's committee only after the summer congressional recess, which starts this weekend.

Yesterday's session was reserved for expert witnesses, led by Richard Butler, the former chief United Nations arms inspector, who said President Saddam Hussein could once more be close to developing a nuclear device.

What Mr Biden calls the start of a "national dialogue" on Iraq is part of the dawning realisation here that a military campaign may have far reaching and very uncomfortable consequences. Writing in The New York Times yesterday, Mr Biden and Richard Lugar of Indiana, the senior Republican on the committee, drew the comparison with Afghanistan where, they said, the US had not followed up its successful war with an adequate commitment to security and reconstruction.

President Saddam could use germ or chemical weapons to try to provoke a regional war, while an invasion could damage the American economy. "Given Iraq's strategic location, its large oil reserves and the suffering of the Iraqi people, we cannot afford to replace a despot with chaos," they wrote.

Those misgivings are shared by many on Capitol Hill, Republicans as well as Democrats – not to mention US allies in the region and beyond.

Today King Abdullah of Jordan will become the latest Arab visitor to Washington to warn against an attack on Iraq that could open a "Pandora's box" of problems. In keeping with most EU leaders, the King believes progress towards resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is much more urgent.

Even within the Pentagon debate rages not just over the shape of an attack, of which a host of blueprints have been leaked to the US press, but over whether an attack should be launched at all. Some senior uniformed officials believe the present policy of containment has worked reasonably well and should continue.

But, in public at least, the administration is as fixated as ever with the removal of Saddam Hussein. Though Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, repeated that no decision had been taken on whether to use force, he warned this week that more than air power alone would be needed to destroy Iraq's suspected stocks of chemical and biological weapons.