WASHINGTON acknowledged for the first time yesterday that Tony Blair’s political troubles could force the US to go into battle alone against Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, speaking shortly after a telephone conversation with Geoff Hoon, his British counterpart, said American officials were talking daily to the UK about the possibility that President Bush may lose the battlefield support of his closest ally.

His statement caused immediate confusion in Downing Street and later provoked a round of backtracking from the Pentagon, which hastily issued a “clarification” saying that Mr Rumsfeld continued to expect full military support from Britain.

”I have no doubt of the full support of the United Kingdom for the international community’s efforts to disarm Iraq. In the event that a decision to use force is made, we have every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom,” it said.

Officials in Washington said Mr Rumsfeld had been trying to help the Government by demonstrating that the US was not taking Britain’s involvement for granted, and that he was aware of the political pressures Mr Blair was under. But he had gone too far. “He over-reached,” said one official.

Earlier, referring to Mr Blair’s constitutional obligations, which Mr Bush does not face, Mr Rumsfeld said: “Their situation is distinctive to their country. They have a government that deals with a parliament. What will ultimately be decided is unclear as to their role. Until we know the resolution we won’t know what their role will be.”

Mr Rumsfeld was speaking a day after President Chirac of France vowed to veto the UN war resolution that Mr Blair desperately needs to send troops into battle without splitting his party and the country.

The notoriously outspoken Defence Secretary said that if Mr Blair were unable to commit British troops to battle, there were “work-around” scenarios that would allow the US to proceed. Officials in Washington said a series of non-combat tasks was being drawn up that British Armed Forces could perform in Iraq after a war. Under such a “division of labour”, British troops could hold oil fields, take a lead in reconstruction and humanitarian work, and oversee areas that were too dangerous for aid agencies to enter. Such roles would be much harder for Labour MPs hostile to war to oppose. There are currently around 46,000 British troops in the Gulf region.

A leading anti-war MP, Graham Allen, described Mr Rumsfeld’s words as a “heaven-sent opportunity” to help Mr Blair. “He has been franker with the British people than the Government,” he said. “The cat is out of the bag. They can do it without us and given Tony Blair the chance to get out of the hole if he wishes.”

Downing Street last night insisted that Mr Rumsfeld’s comments “changed nothing” and denied that there had been any talks — “daily or otherwise” — about Britain not playing its full part in the war.

“Donald Rumsfeld has got that wrong, we will be actively engaged if we have to be,” said a spokesman. “We continue to work for a second resolution.”

Mr Rumsfeld also told a press conference at the Pentagon that America would not pay for the reconstruction of a post-Saddam Iraq — a statement that will do nothing to swing the UN Security Council behind a war resolution. He said the massive rebuilding programme would probably be funded by the “tens of billions” of dollars held under the UN’s oil-for-food programme, revenue from Iraq’s oil reserves and foreign donors.

Earlier, British officials prepared the ground for going to war without a UN mandate by threatening to ignore a promised French veto.

Explore World News

• World Agenda

• Iraq News

• US & Americas News

• Europe News

• Middle East News

• Asia News

• Africa News

• Ireland News

Times Recommends

• Rio Tinto four held as China prepares case
• Diplomats must keep heads down and trousers up
• When in Rome should one make like Berlusconi?