WASHINGTON, 1 August — The Senate yesterday opened the first serious public debate over the merits and consequences of a US military attack on Iraq, amid strong signs that if one does come in President’s Bush’s first term, it will be in the early part of next year or not at all.

Stressing his belief that no decision on a military operation had been taken by the White House, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he would be astonished if “there’s any such attempt...between now and the first of the year.”

The words of Biden, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which is holding the hearings, suggest that the Bush administration has told key congressional leaders and close allies like Britain that there will be no “October surprise” over Iraq, that is to say an attack just before the midterm elections on Nov. 7.

If so, then 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.

Thereafter, the hot Iraq summer rules out any large-scale ground operation until late autumn or winter of 2003/2004. But at that moment the presidential election primary season would be in full swing, making it politically difficult for Bush to move.

In the meantime the White House says it will send top administration officials to testify to 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 warned again that Saddam Hussein could once more be close to developing a nuclear device.

What Biden calls the start of a “national dialogue” on Iraq is part of the dawning realization here that a campaign to topple Saddam may have far-reaching and very uncomfortable consequences. Writing in the New York Times yesterday, 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. Saddam himself could use germ or chemical weapons to try and provoke a regional war, while an invasion could have a major impact on the US 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, moreover are shared by many on Capitol Hill, Republicans as well as Democrats — not to mention US allies in the region and beyond.

Even within the Pentagon debate rages not just over the shape of an attack but over whether an attack should be launched at all. Some senior uniformed officials believe the current policy of containment has worked reasonably well and should continue. (The Independent)