Resolution 1441 was adopted unanimously by the United Nation’s Security Council on 8 November 2002 with regard to Iraq’s programmes on weapons of mass destruction. However, the real American aim behind it is to systematically prepare the grounds for leading a coalition of countries to invade Iraq and precipitate "regime change."

Firstly, the demands placed on it by UN Security Council Resolution 1441 are severe; within the scope of weapons inspection, Iraq has to submit a detailed declaration on all aspects of its programmes on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Secondly, Resolution 1441 is no less harsh than earlier Resolution 678 and 687 of 1991, which were stringent and tough in terms of their comprehensive nature and embellished with strong language. The difference was Resolution 678 was not unanimously adopted. The important feature of 1441 is that, perhaps for the first time, it introduces the concept of "material breach," which is defined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as "the violation of a provision essential to the object or purpose of the treaty". In the context of 1441, "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq shall constitute a further material breach" (Para 4). 1441 also authorizes the inspectors to "investigate any Iraqi citizen, inside or outside Iraq.”

It appears that the future of the present Iraqi regime is dependent on the contents of the 2400 page document, including the portion on the crucial nuclear issue, and the report of Chief Inspector Hans Blix. Speculation is rife as to why US is keenly interested to change the regime in Iraq. The main US interest, clearly, lies in Iraq’s oil resources and its control, directly or indirectly, over world oil supply. This control would translate itself into power, particularly with respect to the US vis-à-vis the Arab world.

This is a critical moment for India which has strategic interests in Iraq-developing its oil fields, recovering its old debts and gaining a share in the massive reconstruction of an Iraq free from sanctions. This is notwithstanding any definitive role New Delhi might wish to assume in the coming days in the event of a standoff in the Persian Gulf. Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s comment during the Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit that "others should not impose their will on the Iraqi people" has set in motion speculation among the world community regarding Indian position. This, despite the clearly contextual nature of the comment that was made when one of Saddam Hussein’s special envoy was visiting New Delhi. Diplomats point out that while opposing the unilateral use of force against Iraq, Vajpayee urged Baghdad to implement a new UN resolution.

While the Bush administration is stepping up its preparations for a war against Iraq, it is pertinent for India decide whether it should oppose US invasion or not. New Delhi needs to reckon the historical relationship with Iraq under Saddam Hussein that underlines a pro-India stand as far as Kashmir is concerned. Secondly, India also needs to remember that during the oil crisis of 1970s, Sadaam Hussein had shipped crude oil to India at reasonable prices. That apart, Iraq considers India as an influential power in the region and a traditional friend. It is, therefore, crucial for India to charter a definite Iraq policy in response to the crisis brewing in the region keeping its own interests in mind.

More importantly, New Delhi and Washington need to initiate a substantive dialogue on India’s interest in the Arab world and its importance in the global power structure. The task is challenging considering the need to balance India’s relation with Iraq on the one hand and its relation with the US on the other.