The United States and its key ally in Iraq, the United Kingdom, have reached a crucial juncture in their occupation of that country and how to extricate themselves from it.
Both Britain and America, and specifically their political leaderships, are staring into an abyss. Decisions taken between now and June 30th, the designated date for the handover of sovereignty to an Iraqi government, will have a major impact on the political longevity of President Bush and Mr Blair. Both leaders need to get their armies and their political agendas out of Iraq. Whatever Iraqi government emerges on July 1st will be an interim regime whose democratic legitimacy will at best be flawed. And to what extent the United Nations is to be made responsible for cleaning up a mess not of its making is also a crucial question in need of clarification over the next four-and-a-half weeks.
The US and Britain last night circulated a draft resolution to other members of the UN Security Council meeting in private. The aim of the resolution is three-fold: firstly, to help set up an interim Iraqi government and confer upon it a degree of sovereignty that commands allegiance from the broad mass of the Iraqi people, and, secondly, to indicate to Iraqis a timescale for an end of the US-led military occupation of their country. Finally, the resolution would, if passed by the Security Council, confer a degree of legitimacy which the US-led occupation of Iraq lacks. And behind it all, and of increasing, though selfish, importance, particularly to Mr Bush, who faces re-election in November, is the need for him and Mr Blair to convince the people of Britain and America that this mess is not a quagmire without end.
As part of the choreography now taking place, the UN envoy to Iraq, Mr Lakhdar Brahimi, is due to name, within days, an Iraqi president, two vice-presidents, a prime minister and 26 ministers. Under the terms of the draft resolution, this interim government would "assume the responsibility and authority for governing a sovereign Iraq". What this means in reality will need to be teased out prior to June 30th because the resolution also allows for US, British and other troops to remain in Iraq for at least another year. But to whom would they report? What civil power would have ultimate control over them: the Pentagon or the interim Iraqi government? And if not the Iraqis, what practical meaning has their sovereignty?
No doubt Mr Bush, in particular, hopes that the 12 month review date will lodge itself in the minds of his electorate as a withdrawal date. Mr Bush is also likely to seek to portray continuing US military involvement in Iraq as being at the "invitation" of the interim government. For June 30th to work, the Iraqi people need to see that foreign military occupation is finite and they alone have the opportunity to decide their future. The best that can be hoped for is that the Iraq that emerges from the present bloody mess is an Iraq that is stable, at peace with itself and a standard bearer for other countries in the region. It is a tall order indeed.