JAMES BAKER, the man also known as the Bush family’s consigliere, is preparing the ground for the White House to change course on Iraq after mid-term congressional elections in November.

The report of the Iraq Study Group, led by Mr Baker, is expected to propose significant changes to American strategy, including negotiating with Iran and Syria or even pulling US troops out of harm’s way to bases beyond Iraq’s borders.

The report will not be published until after votes have been counted, when President Bush will know if the Republicans have lost control of one or both Houses of Congress.

Even then there is considerable doubt whether an Administration that has invested so much American blood and treasure on the war will accept the advice from the bi-partisan ten-member commission.

“There will probably be some things in our report that the Administration might not like,” Mr Baker said last week. The former Secretary of State under the first President Bush — and the Bush family’s most trusted confidant — became co-chairman of the panel in March with strong backing from the White House at a time when officials might have hoped that he would endorse existing policy.

But support for the President’s position, usually characterised as “stay the course”, has become increasingly strained.

Cracks are showing not only in Mr Bush’s Republican base, but also in the US and UK military — with General Sir Richard Dannatt’s interview last week prompting some alarmed calls to the British Embassy from the White House.

John Warner, the respected Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was the first to hint at a growing impatience with policy. Speaking on his return from Iraq this month, he suggested that it was drifting sideways and said that the US should “in two or three months” consider a “change of course”. This was swiftly endorsed by other Republicans such as Senator Olympia Snowe.

Mr Baker said: “I think it’s fair to say our commission believes there are alternatives between the stated alternatives — the ones that are out there in the political debate — of stay the course and cut and run.”

According to leaks that are beginning to dribble out of the commission, it has focused on two options: negotiating a settlement with current foes or phased withdrawal.

Britain is understood to be cautiously sympathetic to a new approach. Sir David Manning, the British Ambassador in Washington, briefed the commission in May and members also met Dominic Asquith, the British Ambassador to Iraq, when they visited Baghdad — one of 150 separate pieces of testimony that it has received.

British forces have already withdrawn from two of the four provinces in southern Iraq under their command — Muthanna and Dhi Qar. Plans are under way to hand over security to Iraqi forces in a third, Maysan, by the end of the year. This would leave the British force concentrated in Basra province, the main area of southern Iraq.

London, which has normal diplomatic ties with Damascus and Tehran, is also in favour of Washington engaging more fully with the regimes to help to ease the situation in Iraq.

Last week Mr Bush used a press conference to emphasise that he was at least open to fresh thinking, saying: “My attitude is: don’t do what you’re doing if it’s not working — change.”

But this week the White House has been reining back. Tony Snow, the press secretary, has emphasised that Mr Baker is operating in an advisory role and no one should expect the President to just “rubberstamp what an independent commission recommends on Iraq”.

Such unease is only increased by comparisons being drawn between the Baker panel and the commission of “wise men” asked by President Johnson to come up with new ideas about the Vietnam war. They told him that the war could not be won quickly enough for public opinion and that the US should begin to disengage. Five days later Johnson announced a restriction on bombing in North Vietnam and withdrew from the re-election race.

Mr Bush — who is limited to two terms — cannot seek re-election in 2008 but would, nonetheless, find some of the leaked recommendations from the Baker panel a bitter pill to swallow. The options bear a remarkable resemblance to the much-derided policies advocated at different times by John Kerry, his opponent in the 2004 presidential contest. Some right-wing writers are already making pre-emptive strikes against the Bakercommission, with one describing the report as proposing “cut, pause, talk to the neighbours, and run”.

British officials are confident that Mr Baker will not recommend an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or the partition of the country, two options favoured by some Democrats. He may, however, set a timetable for US withdrawal and increase pressure on the Iraqi authorities to take on greater responsibilities. Indeed, Tony Blair used a press conference yesterday to say that he would be “absolutely astonished” if the report set out plans to “get out of Iraq come what may”.

Much of what happens next will depend on the outcome of the congressional elections. If the Republicans lose control of one — or even both — Houses then the White House may have to modify its Iraq policy.

“Baker is not going to do or say anything that will embarrass the President or allow others to make political capital out of his report,” said one British insider. An American member or the commission said that nothing would be settled before the elections. “Believe nothing that you hear . . . It is a political game going on in advance of things (elections).”

WHAT NEXT?

Under consideration by the Iraq study group:

Stability first

Redeploy and contain

Stay the course

Other possible options:

Cut and run

Withdraw troops entirely: risks heavy casualties and loss of face

Partition

Large pockets of Shias would remain in central regions

Times Recommends

• Should Knox’s trial even have reached the courtroom?
• 'Was it real?' The US bailout nightmare
• Iranian opposition plays the long game