Our war leaders need to agree on how to keep France out of the Middle East

Many Europeans will be far less interested in peace than in punishing the Americans and the British for their successes in Iraq

Tony Blair is in a fascinating position. He has an historic opportunity to shape events, for it is impossible to overstate the affection and respect which he has earned in Washington. That could be the basis of a strong partnership which would create substance out of the symbolism of the Belfast summit. It could never be an equal relationship; the disparity in power is too great. But it would give Britain an influence which it could not otherwise attain.

There is only one problem. In order to grasp this opportunity, Tony Blair will have to defy many of his own supporters, much of the Foreign Office and most of those who run the European Union. He has achieved his current position by resolute support for a country which they distrust and enthusiastic participation in a war which they abhor – as well as by believing in the good faith of a President whom they despise. As ever, Mr Blair's first instinct will be to use force of personality to bring everyone together. This will not work. The divisions are too great to be charmed away. There is an inescapable choice, between right and wrong. Mr Bush's critics are wrong.

Not since the days when the left venerated Stalin has so much nonsense been written about a country and its government. It is an article of faith among the Anglo-European left that this is a dunce President manipulated by ideological fanatics who want to make the world safe for large US corporations and for Ariel Sharon.

In reality, this is a highly intelligent President who runs one of the strongest Cabinets in American history. He encourages debate around the Cabinet table, enjoying the clash of divergent voices, though constantly interrupting to focus the discussion on the issues which he regards as important. Once he has heard the arguments, he takes the decisions.

As for big business, of course he is in favour of it. He also understands the global environment in which business best flourishes: one of free trade and steadily increasing prosperity in which more and more people have access to democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

While no government is perfect, the Bush administration is pre-eminently a force for good. It is obviously possible to pick nits, such as the decision to protect the US steel industry. In private, most of the President's own supporters would concede that this was an intellectual embarrassment borne of political necessity. The hope is that the World Trade Organisation will eventually force the policy to be abandoned, but preferably not until after the 2004 elections.

Apropos of Israel and Mr Sharon, most of Mr Bush's leftist critics merely recycle each other's caricatures. They refuse to acknowledge a basic truth. This President has talked far more about a Palestinian state than any of his predecessors, and he is not a deceitful man. He says what he means and means what he says. When he claims to be in favour of a Palestinian state, he does so for one simple reason. It is true.

Moreover, there have been helpful developments. The appointment of Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian Prime Minister has opened the way for negotiations. The Americans were not prepared to talk to Yasser Arafat, still less to pressurise the Israelis into doing so. Indeed, one of the few points of disagreement between the White House and Tony Blair is our PM's willingness to telephone Mr Arafat from time to time. The Americans believe that anything which enhances Mr Arafat's status is an obstacle to an agreement.

Over the weekend, Condoleezza Rice visited Moscow en route to Belfast; the Middle East was on her agenda. On Friday, a high-level US delegation visited our Foreign Office to co-ordinate tactics on Israel/Palestine, but here, there could be a difficulty. For decades, British diplomats have been insisting on the need for a Palestinian state without ever believing that it would happen. The cause of Palestine has become a mere rhetorical device for belabouring the Americans and the Israelis.

On that point, the Americans were firm with the British during Friday's discussions. They reminded London that Israel is not an American glove-puppet. It is an independent, democratic state whose politicians are subject to public opinion; hence Mr Sharon's victory and the Israeli Labour Party's defeat. There would be absolutely no point in the British delivering public lectures to Mr Sharon, let alone ultimatums. If that sort of pressure were put upon him, he would merely go into reverse. The job of persuading Israel to co-operate is one for the Americans, in private.

It may be that the FO will follow that advice, especially if Tony Blair instructs it to. But that still leaves the problem of Europe. Along with Russia, the UN and the US, the EU is part of the Quartet Group, which is supposed to oversee the Middle Eastern peace process. The Quartet Group has two disadvantages. First, it is a means by which professional diplomats try to recapture Middle East policy-making from the politicians. Some diplomats – in the State Department as well as the Foreign Office – would rather control the policy than see the politicians make a success of it. Secondly, it gives Europe responsibilities which it is incapable of discharging.

The Middle East peace process will only work if there is a tacit acceptance of American leadership by the rest of the Quartet Group. Were that to happen, however, the consequence would be a further enhancement of US prestige and geopolitical predominance. Despite all the sceptics and so-called Middle East experts, the Americans would have proved that it was possible to win a war against an Arab regime and then to bring the Israelis and Palestinians to a successful negotiation.

Jacques Chirac could not imagine a more hateful outcome, and he will not be alone. Many Europeans will be far less interested in peace than in seizing a chance to strike back at US unilateralism and to punish the Americans – plus the British – for their military successes in Iraq. France will no doubt lead this anti-American coalition of the EU willing.

It may be that Tony Blair is already aware of this new French threat. Rupert Murdoch recently asked the PM if there was anything more The Sun could do to help over the war. "Yes," came the answer: "Step up the attacks on the French." The Sun needed little encouragement from Premier or proprietor, but however often it refights the Battle of Agincourt, M. Chirac's capacity for obstruction will not be diminished.

Unless, however – and this is no forlorn hope – some documents emerged from the Baghdad archives with interesting details about the long friendship between Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein. If that were to happen, the Iraq war would have made another contribution to peace.