Tensions in EU-US relations set to rise as new administration refines policies

The Middle East is emerging as one of the most important issues in contemporary international affairs. Complete impasse and a possible drift to war in Arab-Israeli relations; spill-over links from that conflict to the US confrontation with Iraq and Iran; and fears about oil-price volatility which put renewed emphasis on the Gulf in the early days of the new Bush administration: these all contribute to rising its profile.

Events this week underline this new priority of Middle East affairs. They point up increasing tension between European and United States policies.

Thus reaction in Europe and the Arab states towards the latest US-UK attacks on Iraqi radar installations around Baghdad were nearly all hostile.

The Anglo-American action was taken to protect planes and pilots policing the no-fly zones they imposed on Iraq after the 1990-1991 Gulf War, in order to safeguard Kurds in northern Iraq and Shia Muslims in the south. France, which has been most critical of the raids, found itself host to hundreds of Kurdish refugees from the region. This weekend Tony Blair meets George W. Bush to talk about US-UK relations.

Tonight the new US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, arrives in Israel to learn more about Israeli-Palestinian relations and assess where the Bush administration stands on them. He could hardly arrive at a more confused time, as Ariel Sharon tries to forge a grand coalition with a bitterly split Labour Party.

Mr Powell's diplomatic task was not made easier by the Baghdad raids. There has been much talk in Washington of a struggle within the new administration between the traditional conservative group led by the Secretary of State and the National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice, and a more hawkish group of neo-conservatives led by the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Vice-President, Dick Cheney.

On this reading, the Baghdad raid's timing was as much a neoconservative warning to the competing policy group in Washington as to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. The Rumsfeld-Cheney axis wants to preserve and prolong US domination and is much more willing to use military power for that objective than the conservative group, which would respond in a more case-by-case, cautious fashion only to direct threats to US interests.

Analysts such as Charles Kupchan from the Council of Foreign Relations, and Lawrence Kaplan (writing in the New Republic) are convinced this rivalry goes beyond traditional turf wars between the major departments.

Already there are significantly different emphases between them on whether the administration will negotiate the introduction of a national missile defence (NMD) system with its NATO allies and strategic antagonists such as Russia and China; Powell says they will and Rumsfeld is much more unilateralist, saying at most that they will be informed. There is similar variation in their attitudes to the new European Rapid Reaction Force, which the former group is apt to see as a threat to US power.

NMD is intended to protect the US from attacks by "rogue states" such as Iraq and Iran, where the EU has favoured trade and diplomatic engagement in an attempt to swing its domestic conflict between liberals and fundamentalists. NMD would reinforce the "dual containment" doctrine laid down by the Clinton administration against both of these states, in order to prohibit either from becoming excessively powerful, thus threatening US security in the region.

It very much remains to be seen how the new administration's overall Middle East policy evolves; and it would be a mistake to underestimate its unity of purpose on Iraq. But across the three main issues involved there is significant tension with European policy.

It will be very interesting to see whether Blair adopts a compliant attitude with Bush on Iraq and NMD, or is prepared to voice European concerns, using his much-repeated bridge metaphor of UK-US relations as a means of encouraging a more equal EU-US dialogue.

Hard realist observers say British policy towards the US is hopelessly misled by the assumption of a continuing special relationship. Whatever about that, it is clear the UK cannot be an effective bridge if it is not at the heart of the EU, in the euro zone. Either way, crucial choices face Blair after the forthcoming election everyone now assumes he will win.

Powell is likely to find that US credibility as an intermediary in the Arab-Israeli conflict has been even further eroded by the latest Baghdad raids, coming on top of the perception that the Clinton administration had fatally compromised it by leaning so much in Israel's direction. A more incremental policy is expected, in which the US and EU would encourage interim deals by whatever government Sharon puts together.

The EU is likely to assert itself as an active player in these circumstances. Traditionally the division of labour between US security concerns and the EU's substantial involvement in funding the Palestinian Authority was matched with a consensus that the leading US diplomatic role should be maintained. This held through Clinton's final efforts to reach an agreement; it will not be feasible after it has collapsed.

Middle East policy will strengthen the EU's foreign policy apparatus, requiring its members to pool their varying policies. There are intriguing indications that Israel might welcome such an initiative.

Ireland will be involved in these developments by virtue of our membership of the UN Security Council over the next two years. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen, has been in Moscow and Paris this week discussing them and will meet Mr Powell and Ms Rice in Washington next week. The Government's statement on the Baghdad raids put it firmly in the European camp.