Blair under renewed pressure over US plans to oust Saddam

The disclosure of American plans for a massive military assault on Iraq was this weekend putting further pressure on Tony Blair's unquestioning support for the Bush administration – already severely stretched by disagreements over Yasser Arafat, the new International Criminal Court (ICC) and a string of protectionist trade moves from Washington.

The blueprint, calling for a force of some 250,000 men to carry out a three-pronged offensive to oust Saddam Hussein, has yet to be approved by George Bush. But he has already reportedly been briefed on them in two White House meetings with General Tommy Franks, who as the head of US Central Command, would be in military charge of the operation.

The leak to The New York Times – this sort of document never surfaces by accident – seems to be a clear attempt to raise the stakes after a new round of talks in Geneva between Iraq and the United Nations failed to produce agreement on the return of UN weapons inspectors to the country for the first time since December 1998.

It also signifies that the Bush administration no longer believes – if it ever did – that Iraq's internal opposition, including the Kurds, could do the job itself with a little help from the CIA and US special forces. The hawks who dominate the policy debate in Washington insist that Iraq's suspected nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes must be the next priority target in the "war against terrorism". They have never hidden their view that President Saddam is using the inspections issue as a pretext for delay, and that even if some tortuous agreement were secured for them to go back, he would never permit them to see anything worth seeing.

Mr Blair is probably the only European leader who comes close to agreeing with the hawks. But even he believes the inspectors should be given a chance. He is also under fierce domestic pressure to secure some form of UN mandate for an operation in which Britain would be expected by the US to take part. The alternative would be the most serious backbench rebellion of his five years in power.

Around 150 Labour MPs have already signed a Commons motion opposing action against Iraq without a UN mandate. Although Downing Street believes it can overcome this opposition, the GB-Iraq society is organising a meeting next week between Labour MPs and the former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, at which he will say that there is no evidence President Saddam has secured weapons of mass destruction.

"We are hoping to double the number who have signed the Commons motion," said Stuart Halford, secretary of the society. To do so would require the entire Labour backbench to line up against an attack on Iraq.

America's determination to foist "regime change" on both Iraqis and Palestinians, its visceral hostility to the ICC and its controversial protectionist measures on agriculture and steel, are making the Prime Minister's balancing act harder by the day as he attempts to be a "bridge" between Europe and the US.

Mr Blair's discomfort with Washington's stance on trade and the ICC in particular is palpable. But in every case, Britain soft-pedals its criticism, faithful to the time-honoured "special relationship" argument that Britain has more chance of being listened to by the administration if it keeps disagreements private and does not get involved in a public slanging match.

But this approach is increasingly hard to sell to more vocal critics of the US within the European Union, where Mr Blair aspires to be a driving force. It is also somewhat at odds with his own Foreign Office. Only last week Jack Straw acknowledged that the world would have to deal with Mr Arafat if he is re-elected as Palestinian leader, telling colleagues that "we have to deal with many leaders who are not trustworthy".

The Foreign Secretary's order to Mike O'Brien, the new junior Foreign Office minister, to meet the Palestinian leader reflects a similar realism – that a British government official could not credibly visit the Middle East without meeting the man whom Palestinians have elected as their leader.