'Wrestling with jelly' on Iraq

Blair has "made his mind up" on Iraq action

By Andrew Marr BBC political editor

No-one who heard Tony Blair talk to a thousand Texans at the weekend could be in any doubt: if President Bush decides to go to war to topple Saddam Hussein, he will have the prime minister, and Britain, alongside him.

Mr Blair's language could hardly have been less equivocal - he would not be a fair weather friend or an unreliable one.

Politicians and diplomats... find it hard to imagine any action until well into next year

Saddam's regime was despicable and a danger to the world; one way or another, weapons of mass destruction would be dealt with.

Nor, in any material way, did Mr Blair change his tune when confronting sceptical Labour MPs - as well as a few sceptical Liberal Democrats and Tories - in the Commons.

There is a steely determination in the prime minister on the subject you would have to have wooden ears and glass eyes to miss.

Yet Number 10 is undeniably concerned about how to manage political and public opinion.

Not 'precipitate'

The spin on the Texas speech emphasised the demand that UN weapons inspectors must be allowed into Iraq - "any time, any place" - and that any action would be measured and not "precipitate".

There is a huge agenda of political, diplomatic and military preparation to be accomplished before any move against Baghdad

That could be misheard as a gentle backtrack, while the Middle East continues to flame.

It is nothing of the kind. Neither the US nor the British administrations expect Saddam to accept their UN inspectorate demands; indeed they would be briefly disconcerted if he did.

And no-one expects "precipitate" action. There is a huge agenda of political, diplomatic and military preparation to be accomplished before any move against Baghdad is possible.

It includes trying to bring the Arab world to some kind of acceptance of the justice of such action.

It would mean working hard particularly with Turkey. With its Kurdish population Turkey would be both essential to an attack, and very worried about it.

Basic questions

It means finding some plausible successor to Saddam, a problem over which the State Department and the Pentagon are now squabbling.

Should it be the Iraqi opposition politicians in London and Washington or can they find some dissident general?

Action would mean finding a suitable replacement for Saddam

It means answering basic questions about whether Iraq would be allowed to partly disintegrate.

And, if not, how to dissuade the Iranians from occupying southern areas, or the Kurds trying to establish an independent Kurdish state in the north.

And all that's before the military problems - where would Western ground troops start from; how would Saddam be prevented from using missiles against Tel Aviv, and so on.

Politicians and diplomats studying all this, while admitting that there is a real Saddam threat, find it hard to imagine any action until well into next year.

Precipitate? Not a chance.

'Sweetly reasonable'

For those Labour MPs determined to oppose any action, that poses a serious problem.

For the time being they are wrestling with jelly, or heckling Mr Blair's sweetly reasonably words.

Labour MPs determined to oppose any action... know they're against it, but they don't quite know what "it" is

They know they're against it, but they don't quite know what "it" is.

The dissidents' main organisation, Labour Against the War, is distributing its detailed rebuttal of the argument that the Iraqi regime presents an imminent threat.

They say there is no evidence of Iraq's attempt to rebuild weapons of mass destruction since the inspectors left in December 1998, and the US should drop its explicit policy of changing the regime.

The government keeps promising its evidence soon.

Meanwhile, although Mr Blair won't quite say that "regime change" - a polite expression for ousting Saddam - is now his official policy, it certainly sounds that way.

How would they stop Kurds establishing an independent state?

The Tory strategy is to back him every inch of the way, loudly, in the hope of flushing out the maximum number of Labour dissidents.

Their ideal would be to split Labour opinion so badly that any war against Iraq would be one in which Mr Blair had to rely on opposition votes.

There is no sign of that yet. The opposition is sceptical, questioning and restive, so far, rather than openly defiant.

Nor has it spread far beyond the usual left-wing and ex-ministerial suspects.

But if it does there is no sign either that Mr Blair will flinch. He made his mind up a long time ago.