PLAN TO BOMB IRAQ MAY BE PREMATURE

The U.S.-Iraq situation is serious and deserves the full attention of our government as it wrestles with a rogue nation whose actions underscore its potential for international disaster. However, the stakes are far too high to rush headlong into war, and the Clinton administration's hawkish public relations campaign is a long way from achieving a solution in this instance.

The issue is whether or not Saddam Hussein is continuing to develop the most sinister of weapons, bombs that spread deadly chemicals or biological agents designed to kill humans without discrimination. Since the 1991 Gulf War, the United Nations has had inspection teams in Iraq looking for these weapons -- but with little success.

Now Iraq has boldly declared that the inspection teams are no longer welcome, and the presidential palaces suspected of hiding the weapons are strictly off limits.

The U.S. response: Unless Saddam relents, military action will be initiated to force Iraq to submit to the terms of the U.N. agreement that ended the Gulf War. Remember, however, that the Gulf War started because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, not because of dickering over weapons inspections.

The mood in Washington seems to be bolstered in part because of the diversion provided by talk of bombing Iraq. The Clinton administration would welcome anything that detracts from the massive media attention to allegations of improper sexual conduct in the White House. How unfortunate it would be if action against Iraq were founded on this shallow excuse.

But the situation goes beyond a diversion. As George Will observed in his column Thursday, the U.S. endured decades of Cold War and managed to avoid a direct confrontation with the Soviet Union. Moreover, what happens after the bombing? There seem to be few answers for those who question the effectiveness of all-out military action in stemming Iraq's capability to produce dangerous weapons.

There are talking points that the Clinton administration appears to be ignoring. If Saddam's objection to the U.N. inspections is the American members of the inspection team, why not remove the Americans and let the inspections continue? Another possibility is that Saddam's cooperation could be bought, so to speak, by allowing an increase in the sales of Iraqi oil. But Clinton's advisers continue to reject both these ideas.

Let's hope American stubbornness in the face of the potential drastic consequences of another Gulf War is more than a schoolboy drawing a line in the sand with his toe.