It would be good if the advent of armed attacks on Iraq could result, not just in the removal from power of Saddam Hussein and all his evil works, but in a fuller exploration of the issues which are at stake. Yesterday we accepted the inevitability of the attack on Iraq, for within the parameters in which international relations work, and following through the internal logic of this conflict, there really was no other outcome likely. Saddam had been warned that further obstruction would lead to attacks. When those obstructions occurred, the leaders of Britain and the United States had no other choice but to follow through with their threats.

That said and done, it is clear that the action does not enjoy full support internationally or even within Britain and the United States. Our adjoining columns provide some indication of the depth of feeling which exists in Scotland and those opinions do credit to the warmth of heart of those who wrote them. Yet many of our correspondents, and the people who telephoned The Herald yesterday to register an opinion, are instinctive opponents of murderous despots. President Pinochet, for instance, would not fare well at their hands. They also recognise the horrors perpetrated by Saddam, including the gassing of defenceless Kurdish women and children, and yet there is opposition to the current attacks on Iraq. These views need to be taken into consideration. There is an instinctive resentment of the US, but there is nothing new in that. There is indignation at double standards and in many cases

this is undeniable. There is also the opinion that we have no right to take such action against another state.

''Right'', in the sense of permission from the United Nations for action, is a long and convoluted argument. ''Right'', in the sense of a moral imperative, is quite another matter. Yes, we are up to our ears in double standards, obfuscations, and dubious arguments, but those who deny any ''locus standi'' or right to interfere against manifest evil which poses threats to the innocent and which has put those threats into action in the past, are on dodgy ground. That is the morality of those who pass by on the other side of the road; of those who denied the reality of the Holocaust and of those who thought they could appease Hitler.

Yet it is only right to acknowledge the flaws and dangers in the present situation. The stated aim of the action is to force compliance with UN resolutions and to lessen Saddam's military ability. But what happens on Monday when the attacks are over and Saddam is still in power? What if (as is very likely) the attacks, while successful up to a point, have not removed the core of Saddam's military potential, if for no other reason than the inability of the weapons inspectors to do their work properly in Iraq for at least 12 months?

In the Commons yesterday Mr Blair insisted that the sanctions would remain. We have argued in the past that sanctions should be lifted. This would allow trade to resume, removing Saddam's ability to blame others for the suffering of his people, but it would also allow the opening up of Iraq which would provide the best opportunity for light to enter the political and moral darkness of Iraq and for opposition to the despot to flourish.

It is unlikely that this course will be followed and it is clear, therefore, that President Clinton, who faces continued attack from Republicans whose political sense has atrophied beyond belief, and Mr Blair must face continued opposition. The ranting yesterday from the Duma and the Kremlin was contemptible and the position of some of our European allies owes much to the pragmatism of future trade with Iraq. The active anti-

Saddam coalition is, indeed, small. President Chirac was correct to say that bombing would not solve the crisis but he does not say what will. That is the real problem. There are too many who are keen on the rancid status quo because it suits their own interests.