Votes, vetoes and going it alone - what options are still open?

The drama of the moment found no echo in the voice of the man at the centre of the world's attention. As he presented his latest report to the Security Council on Friday, Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, was as matter-of-fact as ever.

He described a situation in Iraq that was at once promising and disappointing. He said that Iraq was finally showing signs of disarming – if only in response to "outside pressure", by which he meant the 300,000 troops near his borders – for example, by dismantling some missiles. A few more scientists had been presented for interview. And Iraq appeared to be trying to account for missing biological and chemical agents. But he by no means gave Iraq full marks. It had failed to give the immediate co-operation demanded of it under UN Resolution 1441.

If the inspections process were to go on, he noted, it would not need years to complete, but nor would it take weeks. He would require months – months the US has no intention of giving him.

Does the Blix report give a green light for war?

No. Mr Blix reminds anyone within earshot that it is not for him to decide between war and peace. His job is simply to present the facts as they stand. He made a good case for a red light – letting the inspections continue. Yet he also said recent Iraqi steps to show compliance cannot be said to constitute "immediate" co-operation. That could be seen as reason enough for military punishment.

Is Mr Blix satisfied with the rate of disarmament?

Certainly not. He was frustrated by the 12,000-page declaration submitted by Iraq in December, which contained almost nothing of value. And while he may not buy every assertion that Washington and London make about Iraq's weapons cache, he has repeatedly challenged Iraq to provide proof for its claim that it has already destroyed unaccounted for materials. If that is true, he says, show me the records.

Britain and the US want to give Iraq a 17 March deadline to comply or face war. Will they win nine votes in the Security Council?

It will be extremely difficult. Only four votes are in the bag so far – from the UK, the US, Spain and Bulgaria – but the resolution needs five more from among six wavering non-permanent members. Among them Mexico and Chile both repeated on Friday they prefer a peaceful solution; Pakistan, Cameroon, Guinea and Angola may be more amenable. Washington will be exerting maximum behind-scenes-pressure on all these governments this weekend. A superpower knows how to twist arms, and secret bargains are certain to be done.

Or will it be vetoed?

The issue of a veto only comes into play if the nine votes materialise. Anything less and the resolution will be doomed and no one will have to use their veto power. The casting of a veto is very rare event in the Security Council, and none of the permanent five members would take such a drastic step lightly. It could spell years of damaged relations with the US. By trying so hard for the magic nine votes, Britain and America are gambling that no one finally will dare use their veto. But it is a big gamble.

Where will a veto come from: France, Russia, China?

All nervous eyes are on France, which has made its opposition to a new resolution as clear as it possibly could and has openly made the veto threat. The amendment offered by the UK and the US on Friday, giving Iraq a 17 March deadline, seems unlikely to impress Paris. The Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, seemed to suggest during a visit to London last week that Moscow would neither vote in favour nor abstain, suggesting that it too would veto. But if France backed away from a veto, most diplomats think Russia would, too. China is not thought likely to veto alone.

What happens if it is vetoed?

Then the game will be all over at the Security Council. Washington will declare that it is pressing ahead with war without UN approval and hostilities could begin within days – even before the end of this week. This will leave Mr Blair in the lurch domestically. He will try at once to paint any veto cast by another permanent member as unreasonable. And the occurrence of a veto will mean that at least nine countries will have supported the resolution. That will be a majority – a fact that Blair will play up for all his worth.

Does the French-German-Russian alliance have proposals of its own?

There has been no counter-resolution from this camp. It argues that Resolution 1441 of last November still stands and sets no end-date for the inspections. However, France and Germany last month circulated a so-called "non-paper" at the UN calling for a doubling of inspectors and other measures to make the inspections more effective. Russia soon gave its name to the paper and China also expressed its approval. But Mr Blix on Friday pointedly said that doubling the inspectors would not help. Instead he asked for better intelligence from governments on where his inspectors should look.

What does Iraq have to do to beat the 17 March deadline? A good question – and answering it may prove extremely vexing. Britain says its goal is the full disarmament of Iraq while America has called also for regime change. This is where the two governments divide. You can put your money on this: if the new resolution is passed and Saddam takes important steps to demonstrate he is disarming by 17 March, furious arguments will once again erupt between America and the rest on whether he has indeed disarmed fully or is just playing more games.

Is there any chance Iraq will comply?

Few expect Saddam to give up power and flee Baghdad, however imminent the threat of war. Nor will it be easy for him miraculously to produce all the chemical and biological weapons that Washington believes he has without revealing himself instantly as one of history's most heinous liars. But he is sure to deliver something at the 11th hour to try once more to divide the council – something he has excelled at.

What will Mr Blair do if the US decides to attack without a resolution?

This is a question the Prime Minister has avoided answering, because he has appeared extraordinarily confident all along that the Security Council can be won round. No one doubts, however, that if the US goes to war, British troops will be fighting alongside them. But the political consequences for Mr Blair of embroiling himself in a conflict without UN backing will be incalculable.