TONY Blair's struggle to justify joining the US in the war against Iraq is looking increasingly desperate.

From asserting that weapons of mass destruction could be launched in 45 minutes, to secure House of Commons support, he has now changed his emphasis to the historical track record of Iraq.

Saddam used WMDs in the war against Iran 20 years ago, and at Halabja against the Kurds, and frustrated the will of the United Nations for 12 years.

From this, he expressed total confidence to the House of Commons Liaison Committee that "evidence of WMD programmes would be found".

That's a long way from Iraqi WMDs posing a threat to this country on which the legal basis of Britain's participation in the war was based.

You have to ask under what circumstances Iraq would be most likely to throw its whole arsenal, including WMDs, into battle?

What would pose the most extreme threat to Saddam Hussein, if it wasn't the destruction of his state and attempts on his life?

Yet, throughout the weeks of the invasion of Iraq, there wasn't a single incident of chemical or biological agents being used by Iraq.

It may be the case that US threats in 1990 that a 'disproportionate response' would be made if WMDs were used against Allied troops proved a sufficient deterrent.

The Iraqis used no chemical or biological weapons when they were driven out of Kuwait. In other words, deterrence rendered the possession of WMDs a waste of time. Saddam's Iraq, after all, was hardly in the same league as the Soviet Union.

Blair's greatest disservice was his abandonment of the UN Security Council in favour of another US military adventure.

He told the Commons Liaison Committee his reason for going with America was that he wanted the US to act as part of the international community, not alone.

What he succeeded in doing was to give the US a claim to legitimacy that was denied it by the UN Security Council. Such dissembling contortions of logic explain why he isn't trusted any more.

PETER NIELSEN,

Worcester.