Blair's unwavering support for US President George W. Bush in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq by British and US troops on March 20 last year capitalised on the much-vaunted transatlantic "special relationship".

But that support has cost Blair politically at home, and the euphoria of his Labour government's landslide re-election in 2001 now seems to belong to a different world.

While Labour still outpaces the main opposition Conservatives in the opinion polls, Blair's own popularity has sagged.

One poll in February indicated that 51 percent of Britons believe he should resign amid mounting scepticism about his reasons for taking the nation into war.

"Nowadays, one can see him as a lame duck politician, rather than someone who is on top on the wave and who is going to stay indefinitely," said analyst William Hopkinson of the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

"I don't think he's in immediate jeopardy, but I think the war and a variety of things associated with it, for example the handling of intelligence, has weakened his position," Hopkinson told AFP.

Blair has always insisted that it was right to commit 40,000 military personnel -- including almost a quarter of all British land forces -- to the US-led invasion.

To a far greater extent than Bush, he justified his decision on Saddam Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, arguing that these posed a real threat to the West -- especially if they fell into terrorist hands.

But with no such weapons having been found in the aftermath of Saddam's downfall, Blair has been obliged to order an inquiry into how the intelligence services could apparently have been so wrong.

Last week, in a detailed defence of his Iraq policy, Blair said the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington in 2001 had come as a "revelation" to him.

He said the attacks persuaded him of the need to act against rogue states, given the threat represented by global terrorism.

Some political analysts wonder if the fallout of the Iraq war will linger so long as to impact on his chances for a third term in Downing Street, as elections in 2005 or 2006 loom.

"My judgement is that Blair will want to lead the election campaign if he can, but it is some time away and it may get sicker before then," said Hopkinson.

Blair can claim success in dealing with the global proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, after Libya in December announced that it was abandoning the development of such weapons.

Britain has also played a leading role with France and Germany in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions -- overcoming London's diplomatic spat with Paris and Berlin in the weeks before the war.

On the other hand, questions have been raised about the failure of British firms to win more reconstruction contracts, despite Blair's loyalty to Bush throughout the conflict.

Attempts by Blair to pull public attention back towards vote-winning domestic issues have been frustrated by his Iraq critics, including Clare Short, who quit as his international development secretary over the war.

Last month Short controversially claimed that Britain spied on United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in the run-up to war. (Blair responded by saying British security services always act within the law.)

Short, like others, wants the government to go public with the advice it got just a few days before the war from its chief legal adviser, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.

She has alleged that he was "leant on" to change his advice on the legality of the war in the face of concerns from British military commanders that it could be unlawful.

Hopkinson said: "I think Blair will suffer in the next election for having gone to war. It will be a disadvantage."

WAR.WIRE