After meeting Vladimir Putin last year, President Bush assured the American people that he had looked into the Russian leader’s eyes and established that “he was a good man.” Whether Putin, who has expressed reservations about invading Iraq, retains that status is uncertain. It is clear that this president has extraordinary confidence in his ability as an ophthalmologist of the soul. Discerning obvious good and evil in the world, he moves single-mindedly with little tolerance for dissent.

When political leaders of the left are motivated by confident, singular visions, media portray them as mindless apostles of political correctness, demagogues and utopians. When such a style emanates from the right, it becomes moral courage and political conviction. I believe that neither left nor right is well served by this mindset, but its dangers grow if the march toward war continues.

Though this administration repeatedly invokes self-defense to rally a cautious citizenry, the evident contradictions in its case – and occasional administration outbursts – belie that rationale. The real case against Iraq rides on the administration’s obsessive quest for “regime change.” Every state in that vital region must not only respect borders but also promise never to become a threat to U.S. cultural, economic or military interests.

For many months now, this administration seems to have been in search of a motive to justify attack on Iraq. Early on the administration asserted clear Iraqi connections to Sept. 11, but soon had to back off. Then it floated the anthrax attacks, but most analysts now attribute these to domestic agents. More recently, President Bush has resurrected the al-Qaida connection, but, as The Washington Post comments, even U.S. intelligence officials discount such reports. The administration’s further contention, that an al-Qaida official sought medical treatment in Iraq would, even if true, hardly constitute a role in sustaining terrorism even remotely equal to the Saudis’ part.

Iraq’s possession of some weapons of mass destruction is likely, and their continued development possible – especially given the level of threat it faces and the ruthlessness of its leader. Nonetheless, how Iraq’s situation differs now materially from many previous years or from many other equally ruthless states is never satisfactorily explained. Iraq’s Arab neighbors fear a U.S. attack on Iraq more than an Iraqi attack on them. One Israeli military analyst even comments: “There is no such thing as a long-range Iraqi missile with an effective biological warhead. No one has found an Iraqi biological warhead. The chances of Iraq having succeeded in developing operative warheads without tests are zero.”

In any case, Saddam Hussein, a ruthless, secular tyrant interested in preserving his own power, is unlikely either to unleash biological weapons or pass them to suicidal terrorists. As Middle Eastern expert Stephen Zunes points out, if Osama had such weapons, Saddam might be his first target. And Saddam is surely smart enough to know that any chemical or biological attack on U.S. interests will easily be attributed to him – with his certain annihilation to follow.

Attacking Iraq offers few certain benefits and poses open-ended risks. Even the bombing of the weak Taliban network yielded much less than many now suggest. The New York Times reported in June: “Classified investigations of the Qaeda threat now under way at the FBI and CIA have concluded that the war in Afghanistan failed to diminish the threat to the United States. … Instead, the war might have complicated counterterrorism efforts by dispersing potential attackers across a wider geographic area.”

An attack on a far stronger Iraq both licenses and might catalyze war between Pakistan and India, Saddam’s use of his remaining arsenal against U.S. forces or Israel, a possible Israeli nuclear strike, and dangerous responses by other Arab nations facing new domestic unrest in the wake of an intensified U.S. presence. Terrorism on U.S. soil, as even the CIA acknowledges, becomes more likely if the United States threatens Saddam’s survival.

Defenders of pre-emptive strikes against Iraq are right about one thing: Simply opposing this war is not enough. But there are better preventive strategies than war. In the ’70s and ’80s, grass-roots mobilizations – often collaborating across borders – encouraged democracy in formerly totalitarian societies, limited the testing and development of nuclear weaponry, enabled mutual security pacts, and forced more generous international economic policies. Contrary to views now widely held, activism both in the developed West and in many “Third World” states did inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons to many nations once expected to gain them.

It is time to enforce U.N. Resolution 687 – in full. That resolution requires establishment throughout the Middle East of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction, which would eliminate not only Iraqi weapons but also nuclear and chemical stores likely held by Israel, Syria and Egypt. Yet for these hopes to bear fruit, this administration must be forced to acknowledge that it is not the sole source of world order and virtue.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers wishing to contact him may e-mail messages to jbuell@acadia.net.