Iraq could force Blair into political twilight zone

It is a question that leaves foreigners flummoxed: How can a man who has presided over two landslide election victories and a consistently strong economy be politically doomed? That, however, is the fate of Tony Blair after seven years as British prime minister.

Even his closest allies wonder whether he might stand down this summer. They ask themselves: How could things have gone so badly wrong? By "things," they invariably mean Iraq.

It is hard to overstate the effect the photographs of physical and sexual abuse in Abu Ghraib prison have had on UK politics. Paradoxically, pictures in a British newspaper purporting to show British soldiers torturing Iraqis have turned out to be fakes.

And yet Blair finds himself guilty by association with a Bush administration that – not to put too fine a point on it – is reviled by many here. If he's to survive, Blair must deal with a series of hurdles.

On June 10, elections will be held in the United Kingdom for local councils, members of the European Parliament and London's mayor. Such is the gloom among the ruling Labour Party that it could come in third in many areas, behind a rejuvenated Conservative Party that is belatedly beginning to distance itself from the Iraqi war (after being at least as enthusiastic as Blair on the eve of the invasion) and behind the Liberal Democrats, which back in 2002 took a calculated risk in opposing the military action.

Blair's allies are already putting the results down to traditional "midterm blues."

They have a point. Most of Labour's parliamentarians elected since 1997 have not known political setbacks before.

The British media are seemingly predisposed to hyperbole. Yet a pattern is emerging in opinion polls that suggests Blair is becoming more of a liability than an asset.

These polls show that his party would benefit by being led by his most likely successor, the chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown.

Then comes the hand-over in Iraq on June 30. Blair is desperately hoping that the transfer of sovereignty will lead to both a lessening of the violence on the ground and of the political pressure back home.

Neither is likely. Each incident – each bombing, each US attack on a town and each new photographic revelation of abuse – prompts Britons to reassess the original decision to go to war.

– Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service