"We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein refused to account for his weapons of mass destruction, consistently violated UN resolutions and in a post-9/11 world no American president could afford to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt"

The quote from Peter King provides a succinct validation for the United States' decision to invade Iraq in 2003, touching on a number of bottom lines that were central to the political discourse at the time.

To start with, the declaration "Saddam Hussein declined to account for his weapons of mass destruction" alludes to the core argument made by the United States and its allies that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). It was argued that Saddam's regime either was actively producing these weapons or was hiding their presence from international inspectors. This alleged possession of WMDs was framed as a direct risk to worldwide security, especially in the increased context following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Second of all, King points out Saddam Hussein's constant violations of UN resolutions. Throughout the 1990s and into the early 2000s, Iraq went through numerous UN resolutions that required transparency and disarmament. The Iraqi federal government's failure to totally abide by these resolutions contributed to the global community's disappointment and raised suspicions about Saddam's intents and capabilities.

The referral to a "post-9/ 11 world" highlights the substantially transformed security landscape in the United States and beyond. The attacks on September 11, 2001, instilled a deep sense of vulnerability and urgency in American diplomacy, resulting in a more aggressive stance against perceived hazards. This context rationalized a diplomacy teaching that focused on preemptive actions to neutralize hazards before they could manifest.

Finally, King's assertion that "no American president could afford to offer Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt" suggests a political and moral necessary driving the decision. In the wake of 9/11, the idea of care or indecision was deemed possibly disastrous, validating swift and decisive action against threatening regimes.

In essence, Peter King's quote encapsulates the reason for military intervention in Iraq, rooted in issues over WMDs, global law compliance, and the strategic need viewed in an era marked by heightened security concerns.