LONDON: Tony Blair has been held up to the light by the Iraq crisis in a way few prime ministers have ever experienced. With increasing intensity, his every word, his every facial expression, verbal nuance and gesture are scrutinised for signs of doubt or loss of nerve. Mr Blair has put forward many arguments in favour of his stance — perhaps too many.

But none has done the trick.

Partly in consequence a more human side to the all-vanquishing Teflon Tony of the first term has emerged. Mr Blair has become at once a more human and more fallible figure, a man set free from focus groups and ready to follow the logic of his convictions. You may not like what you now see; or, indeed, agree with what he says. But at least it is clear where he stands.

Another new sight has been that of the once supremely sure- footed politician making unforced errors. Mr Blair’s initial reluctance to take Iraq before the UK parliament and his misreading of the public mood are two such. A little more humility, early on, would not have gone amiss. Another Blair miscalculation concerns the nature of the US leadership. Mr Blair had not met George Bush before the president took office. He had perhaps a poor inkling of what the dawning age of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle entailed. He knows better now; we all do. And that is part of today’s problem.

For his present policy, as well as his mistakes, Mr Blair is paying a heavy price at home and abroad. For his pains, hot and furious criticism has been heaped upon his head. It is possible that the damage will be lasting, possible that his standing is permanently impaired. But there is one thing Mr Blair cannot be accused of: he may be wrong on Iraq, badly wrong, but he has never been less than honest.

As the UN security council speeds towards possible train- wreck, this is worth bearing in mind. Can the same be honestly said of the other main players? France’s Jacques Chirac has made much of Iraq as a matter of principle. But his motives are murky. Is this, at bottom, about international order or is it really about bearding the Americans and glorifying France? His vow to veto a second UN resolution “whatever happens” is a mistake. France should be actively helping Mr Blair forge an acceptable compromise policy, not posturing for effect in a game of European one-upmanship.

Similar questions about sincerity and motives apply in spades to Mr Bush and his advisers, in whom Mr Blair invests far too much trust. The US president’s arrogant claim to need nobody’s permission to attack Iraq (or anybody else) is deeply damaging to the system of collective UN security. So, too, is US undermining of the inspectors. Most objectionable, perhaps, is the cynical manner in which the US is trying to buy UN votes from poorer, weaker countries. This discredits and besmirches that same UN process that Mr Blair is trying, through persuasion not purse strings, to turn his way.

It remains unclear exactly what the final draft of the resolution will say. In our view, much more time for inspections is required; talk of ultimatums is premature. Mr Blair has already given ground on these issues; he must give some more, even if US hawks object. He should also pay careful attention to his legal advisers; a veto, unreasonable or not, is still a veto. If in the end the resolution falls, he should accept that result, shift Britain’s emphasis back to intensified, coercive inspections, and strongly advise Mr Bush to do likewise. This would help reunify the UN, the EU, Tony Blair’s Labour party and the UK. It is smart politics. It is honourable. And above all, it is honest.—Dawn/The Guardian News Service.t