LONDON — A rough rule of the Iraqi war has been this: Events that are damaging to President Bush prove close to devastating for Tony Blair, the British prime minister. The outcry over weapons of mass destruction that could not be found was more intense in Britain than in America, and now the gruesome photographs from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison have prompted new talk of Blair's possible departure.
The reasons for Blair's particular vulnerability are threefold. Britain, unlike America, was not attacked by terrorists before it went to war in Iraq, so scrutiny of the motives for war is more searching. Blair works in a European environment, where skepticism over Iraq is de rigueur. And while the Bush administration came late to human rights as a justification for the war, Blair embraced it early, so the prisoner abuse has embarrassed him acutely.
The future of Iraq and that of Blair have become inseparable. Blair needs to demonstrate quick progress there to quiet the clamor within his Labor Party and rebuff the taunt of the Conservative Party leader, Michael Howard, that he has "lost his grip." Gordon Brown, Blair's adroit chancellor of the exchequer, is waiting in the wings.
The British strategy, as outlined by two officials close to Blair, is vigorous. The government wants a new U.N. Security Council resolution by early June that will give power to Iraqis, set out the country's political future and define the role of the U.S.-led international military force there.
A genuine transfer of power, a strong U.N. presence in Iraq and a formal end to the period of occupation are the core British aims and the sooner the better. Blair does not want discussions of the final outcome going down to the wire before the planned June 30 handover to an Iraqi interim government, the makeup of which has yet to be decided. Uncertainty would only feed instability.
"The photos from Abu Ghraib were as bad as you can get in terms of making those who defended America uneasy and those who hate America feel they were right," said one of the two officials close to Blair, both of whom spoke on condition they not be named. "What is imperative now is that Iraqi sovereignty be real and not a shell."
This objective may provoke tensions with the United States. Several Iraqi ministries have already seen their powers curtailed by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority. A circumscribed role for the new Iraqi government, including limits on passing laws, has been outlined in Washington, although that position seems to be evolving.
So can Blair secure the sweeping Iraqi transition he wants in exchange for his loyalty to President Bush? The next few weeks will be a critical test of his influence.
Every week, it seems, Blair, tries to fend off the charge that his unwavering support for Bush has made Britain look servile without advancing its interests. "I have to accept responsibility for the situation I am in," Blair said last week. That situation is the most difficult he has faced in seven years as prime minister. As he knows, the quick fix might be to put some distance between himself and Bush.
That, however, will not happen. "It would be absolute madness to disassociate ourselves from Bush," said the official who discussed the prison photos. "The whole point about an alliance is that you support people in difficult times as well as easy. We are committed to the political process in Iraq."
Those who have watched Blair during visits to the White House or in weekly phone conversations with Bush insist that the charge that he is too pliant is baseless. If U.S. forces stepped back from a fight to the finish against insurgents in Fallujah, Blair's advice played a role, they say. If there is a "road map" toward peace in the Middle East, however murky and bumpy, thank Blair. If the United Nations and its envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, are at the center of efforts to salvage Iraq, be mindful of Blair's hand.
Of course, the problem with the argument that Blair's influence has been real is that its upshot often looks paltry. Iraq is in disarray, Arab hostility to the West at a high pitch, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as far from resolution as ever.
For a politician who embarked on his leadership with a radical idea that Britain could remake the European Union in its image and at the same time preserve its special relationship with the United States, this state of affairs is troubling. For his embrace of trans-Atlantic ties at the expense of European ones has cost him support within the European Union while appearing to deliver few benefits. "Blair has been frustrated," said Jonathan Eyal, a strategic analyst.
Blair's most difficult task now may lie in sorting out what authority, if any, Iraq's new interim government should have over the mainly U.S. and British troops in Iraq. If sovereignty is to be real, as Blair insists it should be, operations undertaken by the forces must have the government's consent. On the other hand, the ability to maneuver quickly and freely is essential to the troops' effectiveness.
With an election looming in the United States, some European powers are not particularly inclined to do Bush any favors in the Security Council negotiations. One or two may even view Blair's current difficulties with a certain relish and be reluctant to offer any gifts.
But the prime minister has a powerful incentive to steer Iraq through its treacherous transition: his own political survival. His strong relationship with Brown, built over more than two decades, is well known. But so, too, is Brown's determination to become prime minister one day.
Brown established one strong credential in recent years: Britain's successful economy, which, along with the absence of a strong opposition, had shored up Blair and the Labor Party. The chancellor has now added another credential: He is relatively untainted by Iraq. Could there be a change at the top? "There are bound to be tensions between them," the first official said. "But this has been a long marriage."