British Prime Minister braces himself for likelihood of war at home and abroad

BRITAIN: If Tony Blair follows the US into war, it would represent the greatest risk of his political life, writes Frank Millar…

BRITAIN: If Tony Blair follows the US into war, it would represent the greatest risk of his political life, writes Frank Millar, London Editor

It has been both a personally sad and politically difficult week for the British Prime Minister. Certainly his family will be more than usually hoping for privacy and space as Mr Blair comforts his wife, Cheri, following the loss of their baby. Over the next few weeks too, it seems, Mr Blair must brace himself for the likelihood of war - quite literally in the international theatre, and, in consequence, on the political home front.

The as-yet "phoney war" over Iraq has been in full cry, and so far it is Mr Blair's opponents who have been making the running. The next Archbishop of Canterbury and other leading churchmen signed a piercing Pax Christi petition denouncing the world's superpowers - presumably America and Britain - for using war and the threat of it as an instrument of foreign policy making.

"Father" of the Commons Mr Tam Dalyell has been haunting Mr Blair with his need for a fresh UN mandate for any strike against Saddam Hussein, as well as with his "moral obligation" to consult parliament before any decision is made to commit British forces.

READ MORE

Number 10 counters that no decisions have been made, none are imminent and, of course, Mr Blair will consult MPs if and when the need arises. Like many others, on the right as well as the left, Mr Dalyell sees evasion here - a refusal to spell out the how and when of consultation which probably betokens a decision made at least in principle.

However the Prime Minister must be alarmed by the expressions of concern and counsels of caution now extending far beyond Labour's "usual suspects". Lord Bramall, former chief of the defence staff, warns Britain may find herself embroiled in a protracted Middle East conflict.

Lord Hurd, a respected former Conservative foreign secretary, likewise presses the need for fresh UN authority, warning Washington narrows its options by defining "regime change" in Iraq as its objective. Former Labour foreign office minister Mr Tony Lloyd warns of impending outcry on the Labour benches and voters' revenge to come at the ballot box, amid evidence of unease, too, within the Blair cabinet.

There are always former ministers and military experts to warn against any proposed action. Certainly the most obviously believable of the recent batch seems to have come from still-loyal ministers frustrated to find Mr Blair already catching political flak at a point when President Bush has still to make much of a fist of defining his goal and the means of achieving it.

It is difficult on the other hand to believe, as some suggest, that Mr Blair is already signed-up to the Bush doctrine of pre-emption while still to be convinced the US President has a credible diplomatic or war strategy.

No doubt Downing Street wants to see the UN weapons inspection route fully explored and exhausted, not least as part of the blame allocation game. Likewise, Mr Blair almost certainly shares the instinct of his party, and would like to see America give higher priority to resolving the Israeli/Palestinian crisis.

Number 10, after all, thinks the Northern Ireland peace process its very own template for conflict resolution around the world. Washington's view, however, seems to be that to make that a prior condition for any assault on Saddam would be simply to invite him to escalate the situation in the Middle East.

Moreover, while surely the case that Mr Blair would wish for greater European enthusiasm, we should not forget that he leapt ahead of Europe when he committed to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with America after September 11th, apparently suspecting the Europeans would "talk the talk" while declining to "walk the walk".

Beyond parliament, of course, Mr Blair has to reckon on a British public presently against participation in any US-led war.

On the evidence of the past week, there seems little doubt that Tony Blair's decision to follow President Bush into war would represent the greatest risk of his political life. But the bigger surprise would still be if he ducked it and left President Bush alone.