Caught between American leaders' increasingly stern talk on Iraq and doubts at home about the wisdom of going to war, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Saturday he didn't yet know how best to ensure Saddam Hussein does not maintain weapons of mass destruction. The prime minister insisted the world would not stand by while the Iraqi leader violated U.N. resolutions on the weapons, but said he had not decided whether military action was the way to stop him.

"Doing nothing about Iraq's breach of these U.N. resolutions is not an option," Blair told reporters flying with him to Mozambique, Britain's national news agency Press Association reported. "That's the only decision that's been taken so far. What we do about that is an open question."

Concern is growing among the British public and Blair's own Labor Party about participating in any U.S. offensive aimed at toppling Saddam, just as the Bush administration appears to be toughening its rhetoric on the subject.

A gap between the close allies appeared to open a week ago, when Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Britain's policy was to press for the reintroduction of U.N. weapons inspections before considering military action.

That didn't jibe with Vice President Cheney's assertion that inspections would be counterproductive, although Washington has been sending mixed signals about inspectors' possible return.

Asked if he was concerned that many countries had expressed opposition to an attack on Iraq, Blair urged reporters to "wait and see what happens."

"I point you back, there is a track record we have," he said. "In Kosovo and Afghanistan, we acted in both in a calm and measured and sensible way and ... with the broadest possible international support."

"There are lots of reasonable questions. All these questions will be answered when the answers are there," he said.

Germany has been one of the most outspoken nations in Europe against and U.S. military action on Iraq. The German defense minister underlined his country's stance this week, saying its forces deployed in Kuwait to help the U.S.-led war on terror would be withdrawn if the Unites States unilaterally attacks Iraq without a U.N. mandate.

An attack on Iraq without a mandate from the U.N. Security Council would be "hard to justify in international law," the minister, Peter Struck, told the Berliner Zeitung daily.

Germany sent six armored vehicles and 52 soldiers from a unit specialized in chemical and nuclear warfare to Kuwait after the launch of the war on terrorism.

Britain's Blair has cast himself as one of Bush's closest international allies since the Sept. 11 terror attacks, but he is likely to face stiff opposition at home if he joins an American invasion of Iraq.

Lord Healey, a former Labor Party deputy leader, warned that doing so could cost Blair his position as party leader — and thus his job as prime minister.

"I don't think he could survive overwhelming public and party opposition to British support for an American attack," Healey told the British Broadcasting Corp. "And I think if we didn't support an attack it is very unlikely Bush would carry it out."

Straw said war could still be avoided.

"If Saddam Hussein readmits the weapons inspectors without restriction and without condition and having done that they are then able properly to do their job — these are very big ifs — then plainly the case for military action then recedes," he told British Broadcasting Corp. radio from Helsingoer, Denmark, where he was attending a meeting of European Union foreign ministers.

The foreign minister said that if and when war appears more likely, Parliament will have the chance to debate British involvement.

PHOTO CAPTION

British Prime Minister Tony Blair speaks, during a joint press conference with President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique, right, in Maputo, Saturday, Aug. 31, 2002. Blair is visiting the region for two days before attending the World Summit in Johannesburg.(AP Photo/Stefan Rousse