Editorial

Last November, the British Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, told the House of Commons it was possible that come spring, British troops could have handed over their control of the four provinces in the South where they operate. At the time she was speaking, two of those provinces had already been transferred to Iraqi local authorities.

At the beginning of last week, Prime Minister Tony Blair, told his interviewer on BBC Radio 4's programme Today that Britain would soon be withdrawing 1,600 of its 7,000 troops. Indicating that he did not wish to be understood as caving in to pressure, he followed this up by saying that "if we're needed" the British presence would be increased. Mindful that this caveat would not go down well, he added that he did not anticipate this would happen.

Assuming he was not in a sulk with the United States, it is reasonable to assume that he did not spring this on the White House - and that, in turn, the White House did not insist with Mr Blair that he re-think his decision. It may as safely be assumed, however, that this development could have been a source of embarrassment for the American President, who has reinforced the American presence in Iraq by some 20,000 troops in the teeth of opposition from the new Congress, which the Democrats now control.

It is improbable that while Mr Blair remains in office the number of British troops will be severely cut back. The current situation in Basra, for example, hardly allows such a step to be taken. It is unlikely that Mr Blair will scarper before it improves. His successor, however, may not feel bound to retain a British presence in Iraq if, for example, an increase in internal factionalism (what some like to describe as a civil war) makes it impossible for them to hold the line between the warring parties.

The problem for Mr Blair is that the current scenario in the Labour Party is such that he can only just about impose his leadership on it. The stark truth is that it is his leadership that currently highlights the party's lack of leadership as friend and foe place themselves in position to benefit from a new leader. For all his political talents, it becomes clearer every day that Mr Blair has too little capital left to invest in new initiatives and solutions. He cannot, his critics within and without the party argue, be the answer when he is himself the question.

Nor can he say, as he has said so often before, that he will not abandon Iraq. In a very real sense he has run out of time, to such an extent that it is now increasingly likely an inquiry into the war will be held - even if this will not happen any time soon; and certainly not before Mr Blair gives up the job.

The critical point about Britain starting to beat a retreat in Iraq is the startling fact that although the security of Baghdad remains the centre-point of success or failure (hence the decision taken by Mr Bush to shore up the American presence there) it is in the southern region that Iran is in a position to make trouble in terms of weapons supply to the enemy within. By withdrawing her troops at this stage, Britain may be giving heart to Iranian intervention in Iraq at just the time when that country's stand on nuclear enrichment is coming under increasing scrutiny from the West - and Israel is preparing for war if that is what it takes to prevent Iran becoming a nuclear power.

The third millennium is in grave trouble.