I haven't seen much in the media about the administration's apparent strategy with the "new" resolution. According to the questions raised at Rice's press conference, it has only one new operative clause: the SC "decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441." There's nothing in it about war or military force. Bush will argue that failure to vote for or vetoing this resolution is the same as a post-hoc veto of 1441, which he already claims provides sufficient basis for invasion. If it gets 9 votes, it will be interpreted as a vote for war. If it doesn't, it will be interpreted as evidence that too many Security Council members have given Iraq "contradictory signals," and that the U.S. must act to resolve the "diplomatic chaos." Bob Novak will go berserk on cable TV about the decadent, vascillating Europeans, telling Saddam he has to disarm and then telling him he doesn't.
You probably won't see much in the media comparing this "final opportunity" language with the statement Blix gave to Die Zeit a few days ago: “Even if Iraq would cooperate immediately, actively and unconditionally with us, we would need several months,” (as reported deep down in a CNN story about Bush's desire to liberate Iraq).
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/....un/index.html
If a new resolution failed to pass, the real story would the surprising degree of resistence to the U.S. Consider that the U.S. is going to write a check to Turkey this month for $15 billion, including a $6 billion outright gift. $15 billion is five times the annual GDP of Security Council member Guinea. Camaroon has trouble feeding its people on with a GDP of $26 billion (30% unemployment, 48% poverty). These amounts merely hint about how the weaker member countries can benefit from following orders; not what they'll suffer if they don't. The US diplomats presently working over officials in these countries don't have to paint much of a picture. (TIME will report that the perks and threats were secondary to them being overwhelmed by the sheer persuasive force of the President with "a square jaw and moral certainty").
Even if it doesn't pass, the war will come anyway because Bush is already "all-in." Aside from whatever happens with the "new" resolution, another scenario is that Iraq shoots down a plane or fires on some US military target. Any spark like this could be used as a pretext for invasion in order to defend our forces from aggression by the undeterrable maniac.