"The key to making the inspections work is the Iraqi government making the crucial decision that because of the international pressure Iraq has to disarm itself"

Douglas Feith highlights the pivotal role of the Iraqi government's internal decision-making in achieving the goals of weapons inspections. International pressure, whether through diplomatic means, economic sanctions, or the threat of military intervention, creates an external environment in which Iraq is compelled to consider its own interests in relation to the demands of the world community. Feith asserts that the effectiveness of inspection regimes, designed to uncover, verify, and ultimately eliminate weapons of mass destruction, is contingent not primarily on the technical proficiency of inspectors or the robustness of the protocols they use, but on the willingness of the Iraqi leadership to genuinely comply.

This perspective recognizes that, while international bodies can set rules, send teams, and monitor compliance, real disarmament must be executed by the government holding the weapons. Inspections can only identify violations if access and information are granted; they rely on transparency and cooperation. If the government is determined to conceal or obfuscate, inspections become an elaborate game of cat-and-mouse, undermining the entire process. Feith’s point is that the transition from confrontation to compliance is essentially a political breakthrough rather than a procedural accomplishment. For the inspections to "work", Baghdad must, under international scrutiny and consequences, make a deliberate, strategic calculation that retaining prohibited armaments is more damaging to regime survival than relinquishing them.

Implicit in Feith’s statement is a critique of the notion that external enforcement alone secures disarmament. Unless the regime internalizes the necessity of disarmament, recognizing that the costs of noncompliance far outweigh the perceived benefits of maintaining hidden arsenals, the inspections will remain performative rather than transformative. This underscores the importance of diplomatic and strategic pressure as levers to induce critical policy decisions within sovereign states. Ultimately, the success or failure of disarmament efforts hinges on the interplay between external compulsion and domestic resolve, with sustainable outcomes possible only when both align toward genuine compliance.