The US and Britain will attack Iraq in nine days if it refuses to disarm, whether or not the UN Security Council passes a new resolution paving the way to war, British newspapers predicted Saturday.

Washington and London on Friday proposed an amended draft resolution that would force the Council to declare by March 17 that Iraq has fully complied with UN disarmament demands and, if not, to authorize military force.

"There is no doubt that whatever happens to the resolution, America will be ready to go to war the week after next -- with British troops alongside," said The Times.

In an editorial, the right-of-centre daily added: "Those smaller nations who do not hold permanent seats on the Security Council should consider this (new resolution) a reasonable compromise and support it." The right-wing Daily Telegraph reported that the US and Britain wanted a vote on the new resolution on Tuesday, and urged the Security Council to support it.

The right-wing, pro-war Sun, Britain's biggest selling tabloid, described as "wishy washy" chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix's key report to the UN Friday, but focused on his statement that Iraq had not provided "immediate" cooperation on disarmament as demanded by UN Resolution 1441.

"That alone is enough to to justify military action," the tabloid said.

But the fiercely anti-war left-wing Daily Mirror said nothing in Blix's "balanced" report justified an immediate invasion.

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein "hardly poses any terrifying threat to the world or his neighbours while Dr Blix's team are at work," the tabloid said, adding that was not good enough for the "warmongers of the White House".

"They want blood, and (US President) George W. Bush is not too bothered whose. By supporting him, (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair is equally guilty." The left-wing Guardian daily said in an editorial that US Secretary of State Colin Powell "if he were as objective as Mr Blix and not politically committed to war, would surely also admit that this report, like its predecessors, provides no basis or justification for a resort to military force at this time." The paper said that the British-backed ultimatum of March 17 had only deepened the divide in the Security Council between the pro-war and the pro-wait camps, describing an exchange between Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin as the sharpest to date.

In a front-page article, the right-wing Daily Express accused France and Germany of "betraying" Britain.

It cited a Washington Times report that a French company had sold spare parts to Iraq for French-made warplanes and helicopters, adding that this had happened as recently as January according to US intelligence.

Meanwhile, Germany had said that its chemical warfare troops would not cross the border into Iraq to aid coalition forces, the Express reported.

The Independent daily considered that Blix had delivered a "mixed assessment" of Iraq's compliance with UN demands, "giving ammunition to both sides in the polarised Security Council".

The paper said in an editorial that Blix's characterisation as "partial but accelerating" of Iraq's compliance with the will of the UN was "the most persuasive argument against the rush to war".

"The right and brave course would be for a majority of the council to stand up to American bullying and blandishments and say that we are not yet at that desperate point where the price of delay exceeds the price of war."

The Financial Times business daily called for a "realistic cut-off date" -- weeks, not days or months -- to be set in dealing with Iraq.

"When it is reached the council must judge whether Iraq is disarming. Until then there can be scant justification for forcing a vote -- and less still for the US-UK alliance to invade Iraq," the paper said - Sapa-AFP