BRITAIN: Mr Tony Blair has prepared the British parliament for the possibility of war with a rallying cry for US policy, stopping just short of a commitment to "regime change" in Iraq.
Opening yesterday's emergency Westminster debate, the Prime Minister declared Saddam Hussein's programme of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) "active, detailed and growing" and said the international community had reached the point of decision over UN authority flouted by a murderous dictator.
Mr Blair made few concessions to doubters on his own side, assuring them that the UK-US purpose was to see the implementation of UN resolutions, while refusing to say whether Britain would back the US in any military offensive not specifically authorised by the Security Council.
Reportedly anxious ministers, such as Mrs Margaret Beckett, appeared reassured by Mr Blair's insistence that his purpose was "disarmament".
However, anti-war MPs noted Mr Blair kept all options open, at one point telling the House: "Of course, there is no doubt that Iraq, the region and the whole world would be better off without Saddam."
Mr Blair again argued for a new UN resolution spelling out the consequences of continued Iraqi non-compliance, charging that last week's offer to allow the unconditional return of weapons inspectors had only been made under threat of war.
Mr Blair averted the risk of immediate cabinet resignations on Monday by his avowed determination to exhaust the processes of the United Nations, leaving leading sceptics like Ms Clare Short and Mr Robin Cook able to support the current strategy and postpone any decision about their own positions.
But Mr Blair's statement yesterday carried the very clear hint of a "point of decision" still to come for his cabinet and his party.
With the Conservative leader, Mr Iain Duncan Smith, in full support of the Prime Minister, telling him "Now surely is the time to act", it fell to the Liberal Democrats leader, Mr Charles Kennedy, to effectively lead the "opposition" and voice cross-party concerns about the risks of American unilateralism.
Mr Blair told Mr Kennedy there was no prospect of a proper programme of weapons inspections unless Saddam Hussein knew the alternative was the use of force. However, he also said the US was right to be doubtful about Saddam's intention to comply with UN requirements, as he was himself.
While condemning the Iraqi regime as "grotesque", Mr Kennedy pressed Mr Blair for assurance that the supremacy of the UN would be upheld; that he would resist calls from Washington for precipitate action; and that the "decapitation strategy" favoured by the US Defence Secretary, Mr Donald Rumsfeld, did not reflect the mindset of the British government.
But Mr Blair compounded the unease and dismay of many on the Labour benches with the assertion that it was "an article of faith" for him that the US relationship be preserved, and that Britain should be ready and able to partner the United States in these matters.
The veteran anti-war campaigner and Labour MP, Mr George Galloway, captured the mood of backbench disquiet when he suggested that Labour MPs should be more comfortable in the company of Mr Nelson Mandela than that of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush.
The British people, he said, had seen and heard President Bush and thought they were right in estimating that he was "not a man we would want to have at the wheel of the car as we drive along the edge of a cliff."
Mr Blair's statement to MPs came just hours after publication of the British government's dossier of "evidence" against Saddam Hussein, disclosing an MI6 assessment that the Iraqi leader is capable of deploying a chemical or biological bomb within 45 minutes, and has drawn up military plans for the use of such weapons.
It also said that he had tried to acquire from Africa uranium and other material and technology for the production of nuclear weapons; and that he had illegally retained a significant number of longer-range missiles, including 20 al-Hussein Scud missiles capable of carrying chemical or biological warheads over a 650km range.
The Speaker rejected a bid by the "Father" of the House of Commons, Mr Tam Dalyell, to have a vote on a substantive motion at the end of last night's debate, leaving those determined to register opposition to the government the only option of voting against the "technical" adjournment motion.