The text, which could be presented to the UN Security Council as early as today, represents concessions by France, the US and Britain, but its centre of gravity is closest to French views.

In a week when Tony Blair delivered his sharpest ever criticism of the US’s conduct of the War on Terror, this reflects a realignment of loyalties and some weakening of US influence, which may extend beyond this crisis.

Talks between the US, Britain and France, all Security Council members, yesterday morning thrashed out agreement on the sequence of next moves, but left big gaps in their content.

In the first step of the plan, a Security Council resolution would call for a “cessation of hostilities” from Israel and Hezbollah — a piece of jargon that means both sides must stop the violence, but not that they have agreed a formal, permanent ceasefire.

They hope that a second resolution could secure a permanent ceasefire and authorise a new international force to enter southern Lebanon.

“Both America and France have moved,” a British official said. “America has recognised you can’t just put in an international force to carry on what Israel is doing [trying to annihilate Hezbollah]. But France now recognises Israel’s security concerns about allowing Hezbollah to come back in.” For instance, by rearming. The plan represents a big shift by the US towards the French position of accepting that the violence must stop and a formal agreement must be in place before an international force goes in. Britain, which had been close to the US on this point, also shifted. But it does also take in key US (and Israeli) concerns: that the Syrian border must be monitored to stop Hezbollah rearming.

However, the gaps are obvious. Israel said yesterday that it would keep up its assault until an international force went in; that does not fit with the “consensus” on the sequence.

Nor is the mandate of the new force clear, except that it will be more “robust” than Unifil, the much-derided UN presence now in southern Lebanon.

Exactly how combative the force will be depends on France, which will likely lead it. The new weight France carries in shaping policy has been evident this week — even if that stems partly from the dubious merit of past responsibility for a country that has been in crisis ever since. France administered Lebanon as a protectorate from 1920 to 1943.

But some of France’s new influence represents the loss of US authority, as Iraqi violence makes a mockery of US hopes in the region.

Mr Blair, speaking in the US on Tuesday, argued that the West should focus on values as much as force in fighting terrorism, and should pour energy into the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. This is a criticism of US policy in all but name.

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?