Leading article: Send the bombers to Iraq, but lift sanctions as well

THE TRAGEDY of modern Iraq has reached another moment of false catharsis. Like all tragedies its dominant theme is that of two sides who fail to understand one another. Saddam Hussein, by no means a simple or stupid villain, has again miscalculated the West's reaction to his posturing. Meanwhile, the West has again misunderstood the reaction of the Arab peoples to its shows of force against him. If the missiles begin to rain down on Iraq - and we are now in the transition from "if" to "when" - Iraqi nationalism will be strengthened, however misguided it is. Anti- Western sentiment in the wider Arab world will provide more raw material in the form of ideology and martyrs for the extremists and terrorists.

It is possible that Iraq's military leaders, realising that an attack really is imminent, will try to topple Saddam. Possible, but unlikely. Unlikelier still that they would succeed. Several attempts have been made in recent years, and none have come close, as far as we know. Unlikely, too, is the idea that a "surgical strike" from the air could weaken Saddam's capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. The very reason we have reached this present crisis is because the UN inspectors do not know where the weapon-making installations are - or were before they were moved. Furthermore, air strikes are likely to kill civilians, and Saddam is not above trying to ensure that they do.

Yet what is the alternative? The rule of international law may be a concept that is infused with Western cultural assumptions, but it is not an anti- Arab conspiracy. It is a truth of universal application that a ruthless dictator with a proven desire to make and use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, is a danger to his own people, his neighbours, and the world. It is the moral duty of the United Nations and all its members to try to contain that danger. It is Britain's moral responsibility, too, despite the Foreign Secretary's dispiriting attempt this week to claim that he never used the phrase "ethical foreign policy". The fact that many of the consequences of military action are likely to be negative, or at best neutral, is not, in the end, an argument against it. UN resolutions have to be backed up, ultimately, by the threat of force, which in turn must prove itself to be real.

However reluctantly, then, the forces of the United States should strike Iraqi military targets if Saddam does not agree in the next few days to abide by his agreement with Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general. The governments of Europe should support this action, and it is notable that France has not, this time round, voiced its usual objections. The Americans have prepared the ground for this confrontation more carefully than in February, with what Newsweek called President Clinton's "rope-a-dope diplomacy", making absolutely sure that Saddam put himself in the wrong, and also ensuring a lead role for the UN with at least tacit acquiescence from other Arab governments.

But missiles and bombs are unlikely to provide any lasting purging of international frustrations with our inability to remove Saddam. In the long run, he is more likely to be undermined if the root causes of Iraqi and Arab grievance against the West are tackled, which means that the sanctions on Iraq should go.

It may seem quite bizarre to propose the lifting of sanctions at the same time as advocating the use of military force, but that strategy offers the best hope in the long term of weakening Saddam's hold on power. Sanctions have not worked. Their effect has been to provide the Iraqi leader with spurious propaganda - he is allowed to sell oil for food and medicine and yet chooses not to do so - and to keep his people poor and dependent on the state.

Give the Iraqi people the carrot of trade and Saddam the stick of air strikes.