Opposition grows to raid on Iraq

Opposition is growing on both sides of the Atlantic against an attack on Iraq, with sections of both the Labour Party and the United States Republican Party rejecting air strikes.

Left-wing Labour MPs will attempt to rally opposition on Labour's backbenches to a military attack on Iraq in a meeting at the House of Commons tomorrow after failing to secure assurances from George Robertson, the Secretary of State for Defence, against the use of force.

At the other end of the political spectrum, Trent Lott, Republican majority leader in the US Senate, said last night that America should consider alternatives to military force in Iraq. He appeared to signal a shift in thinking among senior Republicans, and reflected growing doubt that air strikes would sufficiently weaken the Iraqi regime. "I do think that there are a number of things that can be done between just pure diplomacy and a military action," he said.

A newly mobilised Emergency Committee on Iraq will hold the first major rally against war in the Gulf at the House of Commons on Thursday night with MPs, churchmen and former servicemen due to speak. The event has been organised by Labour MPs Tam Dalyell and George Galloway, who claim to have hundreds of letters of support.

Among those due to speak are playwright Harold Pinter, historian Antonia Fraser and theatrical producer Thelma Holt. There have also been messages of support from actors Alan Rickman and Vanessa Redgrave.

British ministers last night dismissed the Westminster rebellion as a handful of MPs. Cabinet sources said they believed they had the vast majority of the party behind them.

"It is the only way of getting him [Saddam] to move. He has made more offers today. We want to avoid the need for action, but we will take if it necessary," said a senior Cabinet source.

Mr Robertson faced opposition from some left-wing MPs in the Commons. Diane Abbott (Hackney N and Stoke Newington) claimed there was no unanimity in the UN for a military strike and still less support in the Arab world.

So far, the tally in favour of eventual military action reads: the United States, Britain, Germany (maybe), Kuwait and Bahrain, in extremis.

Saudi Arabia has already indicated its unhappiness over British and American plans, and its bases will not be used for air strikes on Iraq.

Middle East anxiety was underlined by King Hussein of Jordan at a meeting in Downing Street with Tony Blair yesterday. King Hussein later told journalists: "I don't think I would support action that would affect the people of Iraq ... The people have suffered enough."

The US Defense Secretary, William Cohen, reinforced Washington's belligerent stance against Iraq yesterday, warning that time was running out for a diplomatic solution. Speaking from Kuwait, he told reporters: "The window of opportunity is not getting wider, it is getting narrower."

It was also announced that the US is sending up to 3,000 extra ground troops to Kuwait to bolster its defences. They will join 1,500 army troops. Eight RAF Tornado bombers also arrived in Kuwait yesterday.

The US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, told a conference in Washington that the United States had the authority, responsibility, means and will to launch "substantial military action" against Iraq, should diplomacy fail. The new volley of threats, however, could not disguise that the US administration has not managed to recruit significant support for military action against Iraq.

There is clear reluctance on the part of President Clinton, if not of some of his advisers, to take the United States into a war for which the American public has little appetite and which could prove a diplomatic liability.

Last week, a group of Republicans in Congress argued that any military operation should include the removal of the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein; otherwise, they said, it would be ineffectual. Within hours, however, Mr Clinton had quoted chapter and verse on why US policy did not, and would not, include that option.