Saddam is a tyrant. But he's shown no signs of being a suicidal tyrant

The build-up to war is intensifying. So, too, is the opposition to war. At least that is how it seems. A Blair press conference; Bush and Blair in Camp David; Blair heading for Moscow; Bush preparing to address the United Nations: all this activity reported minute by minute, hour by hour; headline by headline pointing to imminent war, the preamble almost as dramatic as war itself.

When George Bush heads for his ranch, or Tony Blair has a game of tennis, the dissenters fill the fleeting news vacuum. One day a poll suggests that a majority of voters in Britain opposes war. The next morning a survey indicates that a majority of Labour MPs is also opposed. This week's TUC conference will debate a resolution expressing "unambiguous" opposition to war. Cabinet ministers are uneasy, keeping their heads down for now.

This is potentially explosive politics. There are echoes of the last days of Margaret Thatcher, when increasingly alarmed ministers would ask each other: "What the hell is she up to?" Some Labour MPs, scattered around the country, are hearing the concerns of their constituents and asking each other whether The Prime Minister knows precisely what he is up to. On the surface, it would seem a massive, almost reckless, gamble, a seemingly inexplicable stance for a normally ultra-cautious political leader. He strides on apparently oblivious to the domestic dangers, content to lord it with President Bush at Camp David as he becomes isolated at home.

This is how it seems this weekend as we try to make sense of the never-ending coverage. Yet I wonder how much has really changed in recent weeks, how much momentum there has really been. The dissenting voices are loud, but their concerns are still full of qualifications, as they were earlier in the year. The dissenters are still in the dark. They do not know enough to form a definitive judgement. All that has changed is that there are more polls, more surveys, being conducted now compared with a few weeks ago.

Let us listen again to the cacophony of opposing voices. The poll of Labour MPs on Friday's Today programme suggested that a majority of backbenchers is "currently" against war. But no one is proposing to go to war "currently". A war, if it happens, is almost certainly some months away.

The TUC conference resolution does declare "unambiguous" opposition to any military action, but only under circumstances that will not arise. The resolution opposes action without the support of the United Nations Security Council and seeks evidence that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction. There may well be support of sorts from the UN Security Council. Evidence of a limited kind about weapons of mass destruction will also be produced. I suspect that the tone of many speakers at the TUC conference will not be dramatically confrontational. Most of them will say: "We need to know more, much more, before supporting this one."

The calls for Parliament to be recalled are also something of a red herring. They add to the momentum, the sense of an unmanageable political crisis brewing. But these calls are fuelled partly by a justified sense of constitutional outrage that the latest Prime Ministerial thoughts are passed on to journalists in Sedgefield rather than to MPs. I returned home the other day to find, with great excitement, that I had received 25 emails, quite a bonanza. To my slight disappointment, nearly all of them were from the Labour MP Graham Allen, exploring ways in which Parliament could be recalled whether Mr Blair liked it or not. Mr Allen is an assiduous and admirably tireless constitutional reformer. He also has questions he wants to raise about Iraq. Who can blame him when there are so many unanswered questions? But will he oppose the use of force if some of his questions are addressed? I doubt it. Last week, I spoke to several Labour MPs who have been billed as dissenters, including Mr Allen. This is what he told me: "I remain to be convinced, but it is in Parliament that the Prime Minister should be making the case." Quite a few of the doubters were more bothered about Parliament being recalled, a different issue from outright opposition.

As for the other side of the apparent drama, Mr Blair's press conference last Tuesday supposedly changed everything. It did not change anything at all. The only new element was the pledge to bring forward the publication of the dossier exposing Saddam's accumulation of lethal weapons. Do not get too excited about this dossier. I have spoken to people who have seen it – and they are not getting too excited. The Saddam Dossier is the most over-hyped publication since the last Harry Potter, largely consisting of material already available. Apart from that pledge, the Prime Minister said nothing that he had not said many times before.

It might well be that Mr Blair never has to expand greatly on his existing position. Here, again, the current sense of momentum is deceptive. In my view, it is likely that there will be no war. Faced with the prospect of an onslaught from the world's only superpower, Saddam might blink and give the weapons inspectors unfettered access. He is a tyrant, but he has shown no sign of being a suicidal tyrant. If he were to cave in on the issue of weapons inspectors, the US and Britain would lose their justification for war. It is possible that a part of President Bush would be relieved. Do not underestimate the influence of Bush Snr, James Baker and others all urging caution on a president who was elected precariously and who, on the domestic front, faces an economic downturn. A risky war would not necessarily be the best way of securing a second term.

That is to leap ahead to a possible optimistic outcome, in which war is avoided. For now, there is still a gaping hole that has not been filled during the summer. The qualified, tentative position of the dissenters has not changed in recent weeks, but nor has the reluctance of Tony Blair and George Bush to give more detailed answers. The mood of the dissenters would change quickly if their qualifications were addressed. Why are they focusing now on Saddam when there are signs of a more immediate danger in a resurgent al-Qa'ida militancy? What connection is there to the "war against terrorism" proclaimed as the priority a year ago? Are there not even greater dangers of destabilising the region and fuelling anti-American militancy by forcibly removing a regime? One of the elements that has not changed over the summer is this: the world's two war leaders have still to make the case for war.