The message is clear. Brown is an ally,

but no longer an unconditional ally

Bush will have seen this coming,

but the reality of the change will only deepen

his isolation in the dog days of the BushCon,

which is gasping for air as it sinks in Iraq

Brown used his first summit with Bush to hold out

the prospect of withdrawing British troops

from a combat role in the one remaining

zone of Iraq they control

The contrast between Brown talking about

reducing the role of British troops,

and bush discussing the "surge", was apparent

Brown's policy will be to try and put a small amount of distance between himself and Bush and hope that Bush doesn't do anything crazy.

He really doesn't have anything to say on the war whatsoever, he's just hoping that the Democrats will come to power and sort it out for him.

It's utterly craven. The Iraq war is a live issue in the US and Brown could have a very big influence.

Even talk of a UK withdrawal would supercharge the debates already happening in Congress.

Yet Brown won't do anything controversial, he'll just sit and wait and hope.

I have no doubt that Brown is trying to establish a minimum of distance between himself and Bush/Cheney.

Unfortunately, the likelihood that the Democrats will come to power and sort it out for him is not great.

They may come to power, but 'sort it out'? Were, for example, Ms Clinton to come to power, the risk of a US attack on Iran, given the nature of her relationship with the war parties in the Israeli government and their supporters in the United States, seems no less great than under the present regime.

The majority of the people in the United States - and in particular those who regard themselves as sympathisers of the Democratic party - are as little in favour of such an adventure as they are of the one in which 'their' government is engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the national leadership of the Democratic party, and not least Ms Clinton herself, is far more beholden to those who finance her campaigns than to the people they claim to represent.

AIPAC [America-Israel Public Affairs Committee] determines Middle East policy for the Democrats.

Creep Cheney Has the Last Word

Cheney is still the biggest player of all in the policy debate. Bush still talks to him last before making up his mind on important policy decisions.

The vice president doesn't always win, but he often does. And unless there is a diplomatic breakthrough he may win again, over Iran.

If Bush does decide to bomb as a way of halting Tehran's nuclear programme, Brown will be faced with possibly the hardest choice of all. US bombers would need British bases in Diego Garcia and in Britain itself.

To deny the help would represent a breach in the alliance. Having lieutenants make nuanced speeches in Washington is one thing; saying no to the White House on a matter of war and peace is quite another.

How far will Brown go?

There is a definite shift in tone from No 10 on the 'special relationship', but the real crunch will come if the US decides to go to war with Iran.

"In the 20th century a country's might was too often measured in what they could destroy. In the 21st century, strength should be measured by what we can build together," Douglas Alexander, the trade and development secretary, said last night.

Who could he have been talking about? Could it be the world's sole military superpower? In case there was any doubt, Alexander provided a geographical clue, delivering the speech in Washington.

It is the second time in a month that a British minister has come to the American capital and delivered a speech with a startling degree of edge to it.

Margaret Beckett used what was to be her last major address to issue a call for multilateral disarmament and movement towards a world without nuclear weapons - not an objective the Bush administration shares.

Beckett was part of the old guard, but she made the speech with Gordon Brown's backing and with the hope of getting into the new boss's good books so that she could keep her job.

Alexander's speech is just the latest of a series of Brown moves intended to stake out an independent foreign policy decoupled from Washington.

The appointment of Mark Malloch Brown as minister of state at the foreign and commonwealth office could not have been clearer.

At the UN, Malloch Brown was seen by the US as an American nemesis - so much so that the American ambassador at the time, John Bolton, tried to get rid of him.

The message is clear. Britain is an ally, but no longer an unconditional ally. Bush will have seen this coming, but the reality of the change will only deepen his isolation in the dog days of the administration, which is gasping for air as it sinks in Iraq.

The British withdrawal from Basra is unlikely to be much accelerated but it will continue regardless of what happens in Baghdad.

Like a good guest, Brown has gone out of his way to accentuate what binds Britain to the US, so the prime minister has talked a lot about Darfur rather than Iraq.

We should not forget that close military and intelligence ties lie at the foundation of the 'special relationship'.

Only last week, Britain agreed to allow the US to upgrade the Menwith Hill airbase in Yorkshire as part of America's proposed missile defence system.

It is in also Britain's interest to keep the US on side because America is needed not just for the "global war on terror", but in other battles; notably, the fight against climate change.

Bush is the front man; Cheney directs him

Cheney will be relatively unconcerned. He never even trusted Blair, seeing him as an ally of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice in the endless policy struggle in Washington.

What he thinks of Brown is unknown but in Creep's eyes Brown is a pinko Socialist, verging on a commie bastard..

He prefers American allies to stick to their supporting role and not voice policy preferences of their own, however meekly.

His former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, may have been convicted, but Cheney has proven his strength once more by getting Bush to commute the prison term.

And Cheney is still the biggest player of all in the policy debate. Bush still talks to him last before making up his mind on important policy decisions.

The vice president doesn't always win, but he often does. And unless there is a diplomatic breakthrough he may win again, over Iran.

If Bush does decide to bomb as a way of halting Tehran's nuclear programme, Brown will be faced with possibly the hardest choice of all. US bombers would need British bases in Diego Garcia and in Britain itself.

To deny the help would represent a breach in the alliance. Having lieutenants make nuanced speeches in Washington is one thing; saying no to the White House on a matter of war and peace is quite another.

Julian Borger @ CIF