A period of comparative peace in Iraq has ended in recent days with two car bombings aimed at Shia civilians and the destruction of the dome of the Golden Mosque at Samarra, one of the holiest sites for the Shia branch of Islam. As an act of sacrilege, this attack surely puts the furious row over cartoons in a Danish newspaper into realistic context. Neither the symbolism nor the timing of this outrage is anything less than calculated. It is plainly devised to destabilise negotiations in Baghdad that could produce a government in which all of the communities in Iraq can have confidence. It was designed to be a political explosion.

It has inevitably had an impact. Professional extremists such as the ultra-radical Moqtada al-Sadr predictably screamed for revenge and whipped up their followers. Some Sunni mosques have been attacked and a number of people killed. It would not be surprising on past form if further attempts to provoke the Shia population were witnessed in the next few weeks. From almost the moment that Saddam Hussein was toppled from power, it has been predicted that Iraq was “on the verge of civil war”. So it is said today.

Yet despite a sadistic campaign of terrorism, that outright civil conflict has failed to materialise. That it has not is of immense credit to the maturity of Iraq’s politicians and the restraint shown by many mainstream religious leaders. This was demonstrated once more yesterday as Cabinet members — Shia and Sunni — led by the Prime Minister, Ibrahim Jaafari, rushed to microphones to condemn the assault on the Golden Mosque, urge calm and declare three days of national mourning. Their calls were reinforced by a similarly statesmanlike message from the Shia Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani who, almost for the first time, allowed himself to be seen on television.

With luck, this moderation will not only be effective but also will encourage Iraq’s political parties to reach an understanding upon a government. This bargaining is more simple, and more complicated, than it might seem. It is more simple because, with the exception of firebrands like al-Sadr, there is widespread recognition of the desirability of a broad coalition. This is by itself a massive advance from a year ago when the Sunnis did not want to assume a minority share of power. It is more complicated because the task of finding universally acceptable individuals to serve in key ministries such as the Interior, Defence, Education and Oil involves protracted haggling.

This is hardly uncommon in a democracy. While Britain is used to the “removal van” idea of a transfer of office, with political leaders replacing each other in a matter of hours, many other European states take several weeks to shift from a general election to swearing in a fresh collection of ministers.

Iraq is not, though, at a stage where it can afford the luxury of lethargy. A government should be established by the middle of next month. It could then consider amendments to the constitution to reassure Sunnis further. If that were to take place, and it is not an impractical possibility, then the overwhelming bulk of Iraqis would be willingly bound into a democratic, federal and pluralist political order. This is a plausible prospect that many critics have long dismissed as impossible. It would not, alas, eliminate overnight tragedies such as car bombings or the desecration of a shrine. It would, however, allow the fanatics to be marginalised and, in time, to be defeated.