Is Iraq next? The U.S. accuses Saddam Hussein of developing nuclear and biological weapons. Some say he should be the next target in the war on terror. (International).

If ever there was a time for the United States to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, this might well be it. That, at least, is how an increasing number of U.S. officials and policy analysts see it. Their rationale: Hussein's dangerous, we've been looking for an excuse to get rid of him for years, and the new global war on terrorism is as good a reason as any.

President George W. Bush's condemnation of Iraq as part of an "axis of evil" has brought the country back into the international spotlight. Many experts point to Iraq's past efforts to develop nuclear and biological weapons, and argue that the war on terrorism provides new impetus for a move against Iraq. And now, senior U.S. government officials say there is consensus within the Bush administration that Hussein must be overthrown, and plans to do so are being drawn up.

"With respect to Iraq, it has long been, for several years now, a policy of the United States government that regime change would be in the best interests of the region, the best interests of the Iraqi people," says Secretary of State Colin Powell.

The problem of Iraq, a Middle Eastern nation of 23 million, has been festering for more than a decade. In 1990, Iraqi troops invaded neighboring Kuwait, occupying it until an American-led military coalition drove them out in the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq was soundly defeated, but the coalition left Hussein in power. Since then, Iraq has suffered under United Nations economic sanctions that limit the amount of oil it can sell and what it can buy; and by U.S.-imposed "no-fly zones" that prohibit Iraqi flights over areas where some of Hussein's opponents live.

CRIPPLED NATION OR MAJOR THREAT?

The sanctions will remain until Iraq allows UN weapons inspectors to verify that it is no longer building weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, chemical, or biological--something Iraq has consistently refused to do. The last UN weapons-inspection team was expelled from Iraq in 1998.

Today, expert opinion on the extent of Iraq's threat varies. Some authorities maintain that the Gulf War and subsequent sanctions have largely destroyed the country's capacity to build major weapons. Others disagree, noting the history of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs. Tim McCarthy was a member of the UN weapons-inspection team ejected three years ago. "Even while we were there, the Iraqis were trying to do things they shouldn't have, so one can only imagine what they're doing while nobody's looking," says McCarthy now an analyst at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

"If we're after evil, he's evil," says Graham Allison, director of the Belfer Center at Harvard University, referring to Hussein. "The only argument against getting rid of Saddam is nobody knows how to do it, or the cost of doing it."

To accomplish that objective, American policy makers seem to be considering three main options. For one, the U.S. could work with its allies and the UN to put diplomatic pressure on Iraq, with the goal of getting weapons inspectors back into the country. But if arms inspections didn't work before, some wonder, why try that tactic again?

DOES TOUGH TALK MEAN INVASION?

Others advocate toppling Hussein by supporting his enemies--the Kurds in the north, the Shiites in the south, or the exiled Iraqi National Congress, a group that operates out of London. This support could range from financial aid to military training, to airstrikes intended to reduce the threat of Iraq's military without directly involving American troops--similar to the approach initially used in Afghanistan.

Or, the U.S. could pursue a more aggressive solution: invading Iraq. Support for military action has been growing in many camps since Sept. 11. "The clock is ticking," says Muhammed Jassem al-Saqer, a member of Kuwait's Parliament. "The later you move, the more dangerous he becomes."

American officials may be talking tough on Iraq, but it is unclear whether that will translate into military action anytime soon. Iraq still has a formidable military and very little organized opposition. "Iraq is not Afghanistan; it's not a walkover," says Phyllis Bennis, an Iraq expert at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. Defeating Iraq is possible, but could come at a high cost in American lives. Besides, China, Russia, and several European allies have warned the U.S. not to strike Iraq without a United Nations mandate.

"There may be times when we have to act alone," says Powell. "We can't have our national interest constrained by the views of the coalition."

With reporting by MICHAEL GORDON, DAVID E. SANGER, PATRICK E. TYLER, SERGE SCHMEMANN, and STEVEN ERLANGER of the Times.