Beware of bombast, Mr Duncan Smith. Many Tories oppose a war on Iraq

It would be intriguing to know how many MPs would change their votes if a division on Iraq were to be a secret ballot

There is something about a sunny 3 September, for anyone over the age of 70, that evokes a stirring of the heart. Memories are of the consequences and failures of appeasement, and the subsequent radio broadcast by Neville Chamberlain announcing the declaration of war on Germany 63 years ago today. So it is hardly surprising that for the past few days President Bush and his advisers have been evoking of the spirit of Churchill standing alone against Iraq while an indifferent Europe, and the rest of the world, look on with unease and apprehension.

On the face of it, therefore, it seems appropriate for the Tory leader, Iain Duncan Smith to enter the fray and make clear to the Prime Minister that, if he thinks there is a case for supporting the US in any pre-emptive strike against Iraq, he will have the support of the official opposition. But whether the Tory leader's intervention and pledge of support is welcomed in Downing Street is entirely another matter. That the Tory party has always been seen to be, and is, pro-American, pro-Republican and pro-Bush is not, of course in doubt. But Mr Duncan Smith's outward profession of support and encouragement for Mr Blair to throw unqualified support behind a pre-emptive strike will be seen by some to be stirring up internal trouble against the Prime Minister within the already fractious ranks of the Labour Party.

No one can doubt the Tory leader's commitment to the war against terror. From the moment he became party leader, just a day after 11 September, Mr Duncan Smith threw himself wholeheartedly into supporting Mr Blair's stance of standing "shoulder to shoulder" with the US. This was without equivocation or qualification. It was instinctive, heartfelt and genuine. To do anything else would have been inconceivable.

The Tories had already established close links, under William Hague, with the Republican leadership during Mr Bush's bid for the presidency. In those days, Mr Duncan Smith was shadow defence secretary and had established personal links with the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. With Mr Duncan Smith's reputation as a former soldier, as well as the Tory party's traditional relationship with like-minded Republicans, there has been a bond of trust which makes support for Mr Bush and his more hawkish members of the US administration a simple article of faith.

So if the charge is made against Mr Duncan Smith that his weekend intervention is simply designed to cause embarrassment for the Prime Minister by exploiting differences within the Labour Party, it is one which can be utterly rejected. This is not to say, however, that the Tory leader is necessarily helping himself in the eyes of the wider public. He will retort that on an issue in which he believes deeply, the survival of the democratic world in the face of a fearsome enemy who might strike against us, considerations of popularity or public opinion simply do not enter into the calculations.

According to the Tory leader, the fundamental question is whether Saddam Hussein has the means, mentality and motive to pose a direct threat to Britain's national security. He says that anyone who believes that Iraq lacks the ability to strike or denies that this capability is growing is deliberately ignoring the evidence or wilfully misconstruing it. Mr Duncan Smith believes that intervention in Iraq is not just a matter of doing the right thing by the United States. He is convinced that it is about doing the right thing for Britain, and says that the case for British involvement can be made on its own merits.

But, by this argument, Mr Duncan Smith is in danger of directly accusing over 70 per cent of the nation of being appeasers. The latest ICM poll shows a massive majority of British people against joining a war – at least without United Nations approval. The same poll indicates that more than half the British people believe that President Bush is the third biggest threat to world peace after Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

The poll will cause the greatest concern to Mr Blair, who is already perceived as Mr Bush's poodle, but the implications should not be lost on Mr Duncan Smith. With such overwhelming opposition to unilateral action, without at the very least the cover of the United Nations, it must be abundantly clear to the Tory leader that Tory voters are as unhappy at the prospect of a pre-emptive strike as are Labour voters.

In past conflicts such as the Gulf War in 1991, where poll findings have shown overwhelming support for the UK joining the US in military action, Tory voters have usually provided the basis for such support. Mr Duncan Smith must therefore face the prospect that he will face as much flak from his own supporters as Mr Blair can expect from Labour voters.

True, Mr Duncan Smith can rely on a united Tory Shadow Cabinet. But while his backbenches have so far been largely quiescent, he can expect some respected siren voices to recognise that Tory voters are distinctly queasy. At present they are in a minority, but they will have no hesitation in making themselves heard if they know that they are representative of the broad mass of Tory voters.

Douglas Hogg, the Foreign Office minister during the Gulf War, is already known to be deeply uneasy about such a conflict. Opposition leaders find it difficult, even when they are genuinely opposed to a particular aspect of Government foreign policy, to express their opposition without appearing to be unpatriotic. But it is equally unfortunate when there is such overwhelming opposition among the general public to this potential conflict and when there is no official opposition to give voice to public opinion.

Mr Duncan Smith already needs to worry about the threat to many of his backbenchers who face challenges from Liberal Democrats. If Tory voters feel that there is no voice being given by their representatives to their misgivings, then it will be the Liberal Democrats who stand to profit in the longer term.

Of course it is entirely possible that if Mr Blair were to publish the so-called dossier of information detailing the alleged threat posed by Saddam, this might provide the basis for changing public opinion. But the suspicion grows daily that such information that is available to the Government, if published, will fail to provide the conclusive evidence of such a threat. Mr Duncan Smith is convinced that Saddam is already in a position to build up an arsenal of nuclear weapons but, like Mr Blair, he seems woefully short of evidence to support his case.

Democracy is short-changed when government and opposition are both apparently perceived as poodles and puppets of the United States. If it is clear that the whole country is united on a particular course of international action, then it may be appropriate for all political parties to stand together.

Many are rightly calling for the recall of Parliament to debate the issues on a specific motion before any action is taken. Of course, party whips can influence votes in the division lobbies. It would be intriguing to know just how many MPs would change their votes if the division were to be a secret ballot. I suspect that secretly, many Tory MPs – and certainly Tory voters –are as unhappy with the bellicosity of their leader as Labour MPs are with Mr Blair's.

mrbrown@pimlico.freeserve.co.uk