Big assumption, isn’t it? Sure nobody says they want war, but for many it’s like saying they don’t want to take that last slice of cheesecake. Sort of a, “No we don’t want it, but we’ll do it anyway. Somebody has to.” They don’t want it, but they can’t help but take it.
Continued inspections are the most obvious, though we must realistically assume that the Iraqis would continue to resist UN (and in particular American) efforts.
Unlikely. It will not do anything to change the Bush Administration’s opinion; they’ve stated as much. If another country would take the lead on this issue with some real force behind it (but not behind Bush), say China or Russia… Well, it’d be nice to think that we’d back off a bit, but I expect we’d probably just say they were doing it for their own interests and go to war with Iraq anyway.
Possible, but not likely to change the course events are leading to, given the current situation.
I don’t think we can disarm any country that doesn’t want to be disarmed. (Nor do I think it’s really necessary to do so until there is a reasonable threat, which I don’t see in this case, but that’s another question altogether.) If we invade, there is the possibility of changing the social strata in such a way that disarmament will happen. Then again, the country could devolve into factional fighting and become a bloody mess without ever achieving disarmament. Maybe the biological and chemical weapons will not be found but used. Predicting the precise future anywhere (let alone the Middle East) is rarely a simple matter.