AS hectic diplomacy on Iraq continues with both the decided parties trying to garner support of the wavering UN Security Council members on the Iraq resolution, there is a growing feeling in official circles that the US is just “testing waters” and may not opt for the UNSC route.

“At this stage it appears Washington is still undecided on whether or not to take the UN Security Council (UNSC) route to militarily attack Iraqis,” said a senior government official recently.

US Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca’s visit here last month to solicit Pakistan’s support for a second US-sponsored resolution authorising military action against Iraq also contributed to such an assessment in the official circles.

An overriding view after Rocca’s meetings in Islamabad was that Washington was merely “testing waters” for its second resolution against Iraq.

Officials privy to Rocca’s talks with the government and top leadership concluded that the US was unlikely to table the resolution unless it can guarantee support of nine UNSC members required for its adoption.

“Bush administration wants to ensure successful passage of the resolution; it does not want a vetoed or a rejected resolution,” is how one official summed it up.

Another Pakistani diplomat who agreed with this assessment pointed that so far there had been no arm-twisting by the US. He said: “Washington does not appear to be using all its political, diplomatic and economic clout to put pressure on the smaller UNSC member states to support its proposed resolution on Iraq.”

Another view within the establishment is that Washington may in the end decide to bypass the UNSC and go with “the coalition of the willing”. They point out that already some 17 countries have pledged military and logistic support to the US.

Supporting this view, an official said: “It is quite possible, after all this is what the Americans did in Kosovo.”

However, an Islamabad-based analyst discounted this argument, saying that it had little relevance to the situation. “Iraq is not Kosovo or Bosnia, there is no butchering going on there,” he added.

Some quarters in the establishment read the current US posturing as “strategic deception” to launch a military attack on Iraq with the coalition of the willing. At the same time they believe the US could also choose to disarm Saddam through other means.

Referring to reports of infiltration of US Special Forces personnel in Iraq, they do not rule out the possibility of a regime change through Saddam’s capture or assassination.

“The US may decide to preserve the role of the Security Council for better times,” said one official who believed it seemed very unlikely that Washington would be able to bag nine votes.

In the midst of all this politicking in support of or against a second US-sponsored resolution, Pakistan remains decided on abstention. “Despite the pressure from the Bush administration, the Pakistan government has taken a decision not to support the resolution.

However, unwilling to position itself in complete opposition to the US, the government has decided to abstain from voting,” well placed official sources said.

Significantly, Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Jamali, in his ‘no war against Iraq’ pronouncement in parliament on Monday and in his national address to the nation the following day did not once refer to abstention.

Apparently, it was on insistence of some quarters not to use the word abstention and focus on “national interest” and “national dignity”.