Designed to keep hawks and doves happy

In the space of a few words yesterday, Tony Blair managed to please both President George Bush and Clare Short. The Secretary of State for International Development nodded vigorously when Mr Blair reassured the Commons that "our purpose is disarmament". She wasn't nodding after he added: "One way or another it must be acceded to."

The Prime Minister is adopting a twin-track strategy. He has persuaded President Bush to go an extra mile down the United Nations road. "He is under close management," boasted one Blair aide. At the same time, Mr Blair believes that military options must be considered now in case the UN fails to resolve the crisis.

He believes the military ball must be in play to put pressure on both Saddam Hussein and the UN. Mr Blair told Labour's national executive committee (NEC) yesterday that President Saddam only offered to readmit weapons inspectors because he judged the military threat was real. Similarly, the Prime Minister believes the UN would never get tough with President Saddam without America's threats to use force. The strategy is a classic piece of Blairism: send different messages to different audiences in an attempt to keep everyone happy and put off the crucial decisions until the last possible moment.

Yesterday Mr Blair's message was directed more at Labour MPs – and next week's Labour Party conference – than his buddy in Washington. So he was less keen to talk of "regime change" in Iraq; the goal was disarmament through the UN. It was a typically assured performance. But Mr Blair still left many questions unanswered – not least what happens if the UN option fails. His vision of a post-Saddam Iraq was hazy in the extreme.

Can Mr Blair turn round Labour Party and public opinion? The 30 hardline anti-war Labour MPs will never support military action. But the Prime Minister admits privately that some "serious people" occupy the crucial middle ground between the "usual suspects" and the Blair loyalists. As they watched yesterday's Commons debate, Blair aides were optimistic that the "centre of gravity" in the Parliamentary Labour Party was now moving towards his position.

But we have not reached the fork in the road yet; some MPs are keeping their options open. Similarly, Monday's meeting of the Cabinet was not quite the unadulterated triumph portrayed by Downing Street. Blair allies insist that the Cabinet "doves", led by Ms Short and Robin Cook, are prepared to support military action as a last resort if the UN route is blocked. But as one cabinet minister put it: "We are not at the point of no return."

The Cabinet will expect another full-scale discussion before Mr Blair commits British forces, and will probably get one. But the Prime Minister is dismissive of Mr Cook's demand for a full-scale Commons vote on military action. A vote on a substantive motion would be held only after a war had begun; Mr Blair has no intention of advertising the start of hostilities.

Mr Blair's next hurdle is the Labour conference. The depth of concern on Iraq was illustrated when it dominated yesterday's NEC meeting.

Scores of anti-war motions have been tabled to the Blackpool conference by constituency parties. There will be plenty of noise, but Mr Blair should come through. The trade unions will not support a hardline anti-war motion in Monday's debate and Mr Blair will be able to live with constituency demands for UN backing while he is still travelling down that road.

Mr Blair will be studying the volatile opinion polls closely to see whether yesterday's much-vaunted dossier starts to win over the doubters among the voters. The strong public support for UN-backed action could be a problem if that route is blocked.

Although Mr Blair is winning his various battles, there are plenty more ahead and the question remains: would he really be leading the international charge against President Saddam now if George Bush had not gained his wafer-thin victory over Al Gore?