The Bush administration certainly should be skeptical of Iraq’s offer to allow United Nations weapons inspectors back into the county, especially – given Baghdad’s sleight-of-hand routine during the post-Gulf War inspections – the part about doing so without conditions. The Bush administration should not, however, be dismissive.

Of course the offer is insincere. It is a ploy designed to delay action by the U.N. by exploiting apparent rifts within the Security Council: whether Iraq should be held to existing and already violated U.N. resolutions or whether a new and tougher resolution is needed; whether a new resolution merely should demand compliance or whether it should spell out the consequences of failure to comply.

It is a ploy that will succeed only if allowed to. It will not succeed if the U.N. bases its response on the premise that “without conditions” is a phrase that can and must be taken literally.

“Without conditions” means that the “immediate discussions” Iraq promises on the logistics for weapons inspectors to start work take place immediately. It means that the discussions be limited to pure logistics – lodging, meals, transportation, communications – and that the progress of making those travel arrangements not be impeded by any Security Council debate on the resolutions issue. The two teams of inspectors – one for biological and chemical weapons, and long-range missiles, the other for nuclear weapons – already are formed, the team leaders say all they need is for the purely logistical arrangements to be made. Anything less than a full effort by Iraq to make those arrangements is a condition, a reneging on the offer.

The White House should score this offer as a victory. It is the result, as Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, of a U.N. speech by President Bush that “galvanized the international community,” that prompted demands from many nations, including Arab nations, that Iraq readmit the inspectors. The White House is correct in saying the goal is not just inspections, but disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and full compliance with the 16 U.N. resolutions Iraq already has violated. Mr. Annan, however, also is correct is saying the inspections are “an indispensable first step.”

In addition to keeping the international community galvanized, there is another reason – a matter of logistics, actually – that the United States should accept Iraq’s offer and demand a literal interpretation of its terms. That reason is the war on terrorism. As the arrest of a Sept. 11 planner in Pakistan and the breakup of an al-Qaida cell in suburban Buffalo this week showed, this war is hardly begun, much less won. Winning it will require the full attention of U.S. intelligence, security and military resources. This is the war that matters most to Americans and a second front against Iraq would be an ill-timed distraction.

The 1999 Security Council resolution on weapons inspections helps prevent this distraction. It outlines a program that is quite specific and time-consuming: the inspectors have 60 days to develop a work plan, followed by six months to report back to the council with preliminary conclusions about the development of prohibited weapons, followed by more rounds of planning, investigating and reporting. If the inspectors are as fussy, nosy and demanding as they should be, this process could drag on for years – years during which Iraq would be too busy hiding its weapons of mass destruction to further develop them. The focus of U.S. attention could be the defeat of al-Qaida, which is where it belongs.