Tony Blair has left little doubt that Washington will not be left to actalone against Iraq, but he has a prior battle within the Labour Party,writes Frank Millar, London Editor
This would seem a potentially perilous moment in Tony Blair's premiership. Many, of course, will consider that question quite beside the point. For these are dangerous times for humankind.
That critical caveat allowed, however, we are certainly witnessing the British prime minister embarked on his most hazardous journey.
Like many before him, Mr Blair sometimes mocks journalistic attempts to describe the crises which come with high office: often ostensibly failing to recognise his "most difficult" week, his "longest" day, or his "darkest" night.
Yet these and many more familiars will be invoked in the coming weeks as Britain and the United States finally determine what to do about an Iraqi regime they are agreed represents a "real and unique threat" to the Middle East and the wider world.
For Mr Blair knows that his own Parliamentary Labour Party doesn't have the stomach for this fight. He has heard Lord Healey, a onetime defence minister, predict that backing for an American-led assault against Saddam Hussein could cost him the Labour leadership. And he has certainly read the findings of the latest ICM poll showing a staggering 71 per cent of Britons against war on Iraq without UN approval, with almost two out of five surveyed describing Mr Blair as the "poodle" of President Bush.
Labour MPs have been queuing up to sign a Commons motion voicing their deep unease about proposed military action, and barely a day goes by without the "Father" of the Commons, Mr Tam Dalyell, demanding the recall of parliament before any decision is made to commit British troops.
Indeed, the nightmare scenario is offered that Mr Blair might ultimately commit to an invasion of Iraq dependent on the Conservatives for a Commons majority.
Yet, in the face of this threatened tidal wave of internal Labour revolt, Mr Blair yesterday presented himself as a model of calm authority, determination and purpose.
The characterisation of President Bush as a man rushing recklessly to complete his father's unfinished business was a "parody" of the man with whom the prime minister did business. Nor did Mr Blair seem remotely fazed by that characterisation of himself as the president's lapdog. He would never support action simply out of "blind loyalty" to the United States: "This country's interests are engaged here. I think it is in our British national interest to confront this issue now."
The issue is continuing Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions on weapons inspections now plainly stretching the 10-year-old policy of "containment" to breaking point. Promising to bring forward the long-awaited dossier of evidence, Mr Blair repeated that Iraq was continuing to develop chemical and biological weapons and would acquire a nuclear capability if it could.
Mr Blair did not attempt to link Iraq to the September 11th attacks on Washington and New York. However, its development of weapons of mass destruction posed a direct threat to the British interest just as last year's terrorist attacks did, even though they took place thousands of miles away.
And now, as then, Mr Blair made clear his determination to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with America: "This isn't just an issue for the US, it is an issue for Britain, it is an issue for the wider world. America shouldn't have to face this issue alone, we should face it together."
Returning to a key theme of his party conference speech last October, Mr Blair again attacked "anti-Americanism" as "wrong, misguided and dangerous". The Americans were right in raising this issue: "And the reason our place is beside them in addressing it is not because of some misplaced allegiance or because of blind loyalty - it's because it's the right thing to do." And if September 11th had taught them anything, Mr Blair confided, "it teaches us the importance of not waiting for the threat to materialise, but when we can see the signs of that threat in front of us, dealing with it".
Mr Blair maintained that the "how?" of dealing with it remained an open question. However, this nod towards Washington's preference for "pre-emption" was accompanied by the strongest indication yet that "regime change" might yet become a declared goal of British foreign policy.
Pressed specifically on this key question, Mr Blair replied: "Either the (Iraqi) regime starts to function in an entirely different way, and there has not been much sign of that, or the regime has to change. That's the choice."
Nor did Mr Blair offer any hostage to Labour's anti-war party by committing himself to seek a fresh UN mandate before any military action. The important thing, he said, was that "the UN has to be the route for dealing with this issue rather than the means of avoiding it".
Of course it was "better to do this with the broadest possible basis of international support", the prime minister insisted.
"But it does have to be done, and we have to make sure there are not people who are simply going to turn a blind eye to this."
As for growing public opposition to war, Mr Blair expressed steely confidence that people would really only make up their minds "when we get to the point of actually proposing a specific mission".
A dark and difficult road lies ahead. President Bush has not yet committed to war. But Mr Blair has left little doubt that, if it comes to it, Washington will not be left to act alone. And his prior battle with the Labour Party is now joined.