Seven years after Arthur Kent and Peter Arnett reported live from Baghdad with American jets dropping bombs overhead, after Israeli cities were hit with Scud missiles, after thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed, the threat of American military action in Iraq looms large once again.

But this time, Iraq has not invaded a neighboring state. This time, there is no broad-based international coalition backing the American effort; France, China and Russia have all opposed bombing Iraq, with Boris Yeltsin suggesting such action could lead to a Third World War. This time, there is no clear objective behind a military attack; even President Clinton has acknowledged that after a military offensive, Iraq would maintain some chemical weapons and the capacity to produce more, and Saddam Hussein would almost surely remain in power. And this time, popular opinion on an attack is divided, as was made clear in an Ohio "town meeting" last week where top defense officials were unexpectedly shouted down by ardent protesters.

Fortunately, an agreement brokered this weekend by Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, may avert armed conflict for the time being, pending U.S. agreement. The deal would allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraqi sites for an undetermined time--a key concession by Iraq. It appears to be a deal Clinton can and should accept.

Having shown American military might and hinted at our willingness to use it, the actual use of force would at this point seem both unnecessary and inhumane--in addition to likely being ineffective. A limited bombing strike would not get rid of Hussein. According to a U.S. military estimate reported in the New York Times last week, a four-day limited strike would cost 1,500 Iraqi deaths. It would further raise anti-U.S. sentiment among the people of the Middle East. And it would alienate a number of our allies.

Still, Clinton must be wary to accept a compromise too readily, or history may look back on today's leaders as appeasers of a dangerous tyrant. Hussein has violated United Nations resolutions and the cease-fire agreement of the Persian Gulf War. He has built weapons stockpiles and furnished his palaces while millions suffer from malnutrition brought on by economic sanctions. He has brutally crushed rebel movements and ethnic and religious dissidents.

In short, believing Hussein will live up to a compromise, or that he will not continue to be a regional and global menace in the future, is foolish. The best thing about this brush with war--if that is what the posturing and strategizing of the past few weeks turns out to be--may be the attention that has been refocused on the dangers posed by Baghdad.

Only a serious long-term strategy for bringing democracy to Iraq and for ousting Saddam Hussein from power can serve the interests of America, of the Iraqi people and of world peace. If and when the current crisis subsides, it is to this dilemma we should turn our attention.