Mr Bush has divided Baghdad's enemies more than Saddam ever could

If international diplomacy is a game of poker, President George Bush has played a strong hand incredibly badly. Driven by an American public incensed by the appalling attacks on the twin towers, he has edged towards an entirely unrelated war against Iraq. It was always going to be difficult to find allies for such a venture, but he has ended up with the US and Europe publicly squabbling over the war. Not only that, but in the last few weeks serious divisions have opened up in the US over the wisdom of an invasion.

Indeed, Mr Bush has played his cards so badly that Saddam Hussein has not had to bluff his weak hand at all. The Iraqi dictator has ended up with the US and Europe just where he wants them.

This is quite an achievement, even for a man as poorly qualified for the presidency as George Bush. He has squandered much of the international goodwill accorded his country last September, and managed to break up such consensus as was available over Iraq with his ill-judged rhetoric.

It was all so unnecessary. That President Saddam is a threat – to his people, to his neighbours, to Israel – has broad international agreement. He is in flagrant breach of United Nations resolutions designed to contain those threats. Adding to the charge sheet is simply not necessary.

It is plausible that President Saddam's regime sponsors international terrorism, but the evidence is limited. What is more, that charge risks confusing action against Iraq with the post-11 September "war on terror". In the Arab world, it lights up unhelpful notions of a war on Islam.

Equally, Iraq poses a theoretical threat to US territory with long-range missiles, but no evidence is available for this. While it might have seemed to make sense domestically to claim that Iraq constituted a threat to the US, it looks crass elsewhere.

If Mr Bush had focused on enforcing UN resolutions, he could have held an international coalition together. In this, he could learn something from his friend and ally-beyond-the-call-of-duty, Tony Blair. Mr Blair's style is to say: "We all agree Saddam is a problem; now, what shall we do about it?"

The obvious first step is to try to get UN inspectors back into Iraq to monitor the situation. A deal seemed close earlier this year, but President Saddam avoided responsibility for its failure. Now the Bush administration has made his task easier, by saying UN inspection is pointless because he would conceal things. Of course he would, but the inspectors are needed as a manifest of good faith. If the UN has done all it can to verify President Saddam's compliance with its resolutions and still finds itself thwarted, a consensus for further action is preserved.

Mr Blair and Mr Bush could have played good cop, bad cop. The Americans could have said they did not think the inspectors would be allowed to do their job, and could have reserved their rights. Instead, they dismissed the whole idea.

Now Mr Bush finds himself isolated in the world, facing dire warnings from experienced Republican statesmen at home and having forced his First Friend, Mr Blair, into an increasingly awkward position with his own party. That position was exploited with ruthless hypocrisy by the Conservatives yesterday.

As an object lesson in how not to win friends and influence people, Mr Bush's recent performance could hardly be bettered. It might verge on the comic if the consequences were not likely to be so tragic.