Let the UN test Saddam's intentions before sending in the bombers

There can be little doubt about the cynical intentions of the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, in offering to renew talks about readmitting UN arms inspectors. The timing of the move, the vague nature of the proposals and the conditions first attached all suggest a troublemaking motive. But his tactics have had one not entirely negative effect. They have helped to clarify the debate about waging war on Iraq.

Out of a muddle of warnings, threats and hypothetical scenarios, a clear division has emerged between those who believe that the chief problem is Iraq's refusal to submit itself to international arms inspections and those who regard it as the Iraqi leader himself. For the first group, the overriding objective is to get UN inspectors back into Iraq on the terms the UN Security Council originally stipulated: that they could go anywhere and search anything. If Iraq agrees to this, the current quarrel should essentially be over.

The second group, however, has now placed on record more starkly than at any time before that getting inspectors back is either secondary or immaterial to their goal. Their belief is that the danger from Iraq and its weapons will be eliminated only when the current regime changes. In effect, they have given up on the whole United Nations process and see the removal of Saddam Hussein and – it is to be assumed – the Ba'ath party structure that supports him as the only solution. The question then becomes how to go about this: is Iraq simply to be isolated until the regime withers by itself or is outside force to be used? And if force is to be applied, will it be the scalpel or the bludgeon?

European governments, almost without exception, have called for the talking to resume on the grounds that arms inspections are the first step towards disarming Iraq. Arab governments have tended to agree, while stressing that the Palestinian issue is more pressing than tackling Iraq. The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has sent Saddam Hussein a letter to "explore" his position. The US Administration, however, has placed "regime change" at the top of its agenda and sees Baghdad's offer of talks as playing for time.

The most belligerent calls for war are still confined to Washington's "war party" – the hawks of the Pentagon and Mr John Bolton of the State Department. President Bush, for all his huffing and puffing about the evil of Saddam Hussein, insists that he is "a patient man" and that no decision has yet been taken about the use of military power. We can only hope that this is true, though this is hardly the dominant message emanating from Washington's mighty PR machine.

From there, we are hearing that a pre-emptive strike would be justified by the scale of the threat posed by Iraq. We are also told that, in the wake of 11 September, Iraq presents a unique security threat to the United States, which is entirely within its rights to remove it. Without specific and compelling evidence to this effect, however, it is hard to believe that Iraq presents any greater threat to the US, or to any other country, than a great many other countries we could name.

Saddam Hussein's overtures may be cynical manoeuvres, but they should not be dismissed without the "exploration" that Kofi Annan has proposed. The prospect that bombs could start to fall while talks are still being broached is inimical to millions more than the 3,000 British churchmen and women who signed yesterday's petition, and makes a mockery of justice.