US: A post-election crisis leading to civil war or the break-up of Iraq would be seen as a total failure of US strategy, writes Conor O'Clery in New York.
The Iraqi and Palestinian elections, the swearing in of a new Secretary of State, the spike in American casualties in Iraq, and President Bush's trip to Europe next month have all combined to create a sense that American foreign policy is approaching a watershed.
The outcome of the Iraqi elections will shape the Bush administration's foreign policy for the rest of his four-year term, analysts say.
A post-election crisis leading to civil war or the break-up of Iraq would be seen as a total failure of US strategy.
So, too, would be a turnout of less than 50 per cent, according to some observers in Washington. Already a majority of Americans polled by the Wall Street Journal - 50 per cent to 39 per cent - believe the elections do not have legitimacy because violence will keep voters away, and 45-38 per cent believe that Iraq cannot maintain a stable democratic government.
At the formal swearing in of Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice yesterday, Mr Bush said: "This history is changing the world, because the advent of democracy in Iraq will serve as a powerful example to reformers throughout the entire Middle East."
Dr Rice is to hit the ground running in an effort to rally US allies, setting off next week for Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Turkey, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg, with a side visit to meet Israeli and Palestinian leaders.
Mr Bush, who is to visit Europe shortly afterwards, caused such alarm around the world with his inauguration speech promising to pursue the "ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world" that he called a press conference at short notice on Wednesday to clear the air.
"I don't think foreign policy is an either/or proposition," said Mr Bush, who told the world in his first term: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." He said the US could achieve practical objectives by co-operating with non-democratic nations, citing US-China co-operation over North Korea.
Questions over Dr Rice's judgment have been raised by her apparent failure as national security adviser to warn the President that his inauguration speech might backfire the way it did. Inside the administration itself there appears to be a debate between "realists" and "neo-conservatives", with the outcome still in doubt, according to some commentators.
At the centre of the debate is Iran. Vice President Dick Cheney said last week that "Iran is right at the top of the list" among the world's "potential trouble spots". Asked in a television interview why not get Israel to attack Iranian nuclear sites, Mr Cheney replied, "Israelis might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards."
This was seen as provocative in Europe - and not least in Tehran - and Mr Cheney later toned down the implied threat, saying it would be best "if we could deal with it diplomatically".
From talk of seeing the mission through in Iraq, the debate in the US has begun to swing towards ways of reducing the US military presence after the elections. In an interview with the New York Times yesterday, Mr Bush said he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government made such a request.
However, he expected Iraq's first democratically elected government to ask American forces to remain as helpers, not as occupiers, and he believed the new Iraqi leadership would want "coalition troops at least until Iraqis are able to fight".
His remarks came against the background of a call by Senator Edward Kennedy for a phased withdrawal from Iraq, the most senior member of Congress to take such a stand. The Massachusetts senator argued that the US military presence had become part of the problem, not part of the solution, and a partial withdrawal should begin immediately.
Some 23 House of Representative Democrats have also tabled a resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal following the death of 37 US troops in a single day on Tuesday.
Mr Bush has given such high priority to the election he has talked regularly on the telephone with interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi about what he calls that "grand moment in Iraqi history".
In his interview with the New York Times, President Bush said he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq's first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers.
He acknowledged that the US is currently viewed as an occupier in Iraq, but did not endorse Senator Kennedy's view that the huge American presence fed the insurgency.
"I think two of the great ironies of history will be that there will be a Palestinian state and a democratic Iraq showing the way forward for people desperately wanting to be free," Mr Bush said.
In the foreign policy debate observers have noted that two senior neo-conservative figures are leaving the administration, John Bolton at the State Department and Douglas Feith at the Pentagon. Dr Rice has promoted Nick Burns, a foreign policy career official favoured by the John Kerry campaign, a move that diplomats have interpreted as a sign of a "realist" approach.
As the Pentagon's chief policy official, Mr Feith has been a lightning rod for criticisms over Iraq policy and was accused by Democrats of hyping ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
He was also responsible for creating the now defunct Office of Strategic Influence, which proposed providing false news stories to foreign media to influence world opinion.