Update: And maybe it will.

Update 20021023: Both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have published editorials saying that we've waited long enough, done enough negotiating, and made enough concessions. Both say we should ask for a vote, now, on the current resolution, with no further changes. The WSJ:

The U.S. should put a blunt, forceful declaration in front of the Security Council, and see if its members really want to veto it.

Such an ultimatum will at least force France and Russia to declare whose side they're really on. As it stands now they can have it both ways, pretending that they are friends of the U.S., while working behind the scenes to protect Saddam by strangling any weapons inspections in delay and diplomatic excuses.

Wapo:

France and Russia aspire to use their places on the Security Council, granted a half-century ago, to wield influence they otherwise would not have at the opening of the 21st century. Yet now they risk destroying the very institution that serves them, along with any hope that the United Nations will play a meaningful role in a war on terrorism likely to dominate global affairs for years to come. They already have succeeded in slowing and tempering the Bush administration's campaign on Iraq; now they must decide whether they are ultimately to stand with the United States or Saddam Hussein. The Bush administration should put its resolution to a vote. If it fails, it should be clear that responsibility for the failure of multilateralism lies not with the hawks of Washington but with the naysayers of Paris and Moscow.

Quite right, too. In a sense, this will turn out to be a diplomatic victory for the US. As a result of this exercise in futility, all future claims that somehow we ought to get the UN involved will be silenced, since it's now been proven conclusively that the members of the UN are entirely motivated by sordid considerations. We need to make sure that it's well known that the primary reason for France's opposition had nothing to do with considerations of multilateralism, nor of any kind of abstract principle. It was motivated mainly by France's financial interest in Iraq. As the WSJ points out:

What explains this curious double-game? Less high moral principle, we suspect, than old-fashioned cash. The Russian oil giant Lukoil has contracts with Iraq's current government, and Russia's government has $8 billion in Iraqi debt it wants repaid. The French communications company Alcatel and auto makers Renault and Peugeot have also done good business in Iraq in recent years. And French oil company TotalFinaElf has exclusive rights to develop the Bin Umar and Manjoon oil fields. Perhaps these companies fear that a post-Saddam Iraq government might not look kindly on those who supported its former oppressors.

And for that reason, once we've won and taken control, we absolutely should unconditionally repudiate all debts owed to both Russia and France, and repudiate every economic agreement made by them with the existing government. Because of their behavior in this episode, they must suffer the maximum financial pain so as to serve as a deterrent to future behavior of this kind by them and anyone else. This will in part be a war of object lessons, and we'll need to make object lessons of both nations due to their behavior in this.

The message must be clear: we will not be stopped or impeded, and everyone who tries to get in our way will suffer deeply for it. Once that becomes clear, "international cooperation" will suddenly appear out of nowhere, like mushrooms on a pile of horseshit after a rainstorm.