As the issue of Iraq comes to a head, the United Nations faces a grave challenge. The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are deeply divided; many governments -- British, Japanese, Spanish, Turkish -- are at odds with their own people; and the divisions have hardened since U.S. President George W. Bush made his dramatic address to the General Assembly in September. Three different perspectives exist on the challenge posed to the U.N.:

* The first perspective is the U.S. warning of irrelevance if the U.N. fails to enforce its resolutions on recalcitrant outlaws. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, removed the cobwebs from the strategic big picture. For Washington the issues could hardly be more serious. Iraq is ruled by a "rogue regime" that has vigorously pursued the clandestine acquisition of weapons of mass destruction; used biochemical weapons against its own citizens and neighboring Iran; engaged in some of the most horrific human rights atrocities; attacked Iran and invaded and annexed Kuwait; and defied the U.N. for 12 long years.

Can one of the world's most dangerous regimes be permitted to remain in power until it succeeds in acquiring the world's most dangerous weapons? The concurrent crisis with North Korea proves the wisdom of dealing with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein now, before he gains his hands on nuclear or other equally powerful weapons -- for it will be next to impossible to defang him after he has usable weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems. The typically foggy lens of multilateralism has been confronted by the moral clarity claimed by an administration that, distinguishing good from evil, is determined to promote one and destroy the other.