Their lines breached, U.S. and British leaders rushed in new diplomatic reserves on Tuesday in an effort to save a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution that would authorize a war against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

The fissures were created on Monday when Russia and France announced that they would use their ultimate power in the council -- the veto -- to derail the effort by the United States, Britain and Spain to push through a resolution that gives Saddam a March 17 deadline to disarm.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair remained at the forefront of the public effort to convince a skeptical public.

"When we passed Resolution 1441 and called upon Iraq to disarm and to cooperate fully with the inspectors, then everybody, including France and Russia, accepted there was no full cooperation," Blair said in a Monday evening television appearance. "If we agreed on that position, then we have to follow it through. But I hope we won't talk about vetoes in any set of circumstances or in all sets of circumstances, but rather we will try to find the common ground that allows us a way through here.

"My concern is that if countries talk about using a veto in all sets of circumstances, the message that sends to Saddam is: 'You are off the hook,' and I think that would be very unfortunate."

British envoy offers compromise

The heavy behind-the-scenes diplomatic activity was being carried out by Britain's U.N. ambassador, Jeremy Greenstock (photo). "We are busting a gut to see if we can get greater consensus in the council," Greenstock said on Tuesday.

Both the United States and Britain are trying to rescue their proposed resolution that would authorize war anytime after March 17 unless Iraq proves before then that it has disarmed.

During a closed-door council meeting late Monday, Greenstock suggested a two-phase approach to the draft resolution, diplomats told The Associated Press. Under the proposal, Saddam would have 10 days to prove that Iraq had taken a "strategic decision" to disarm, which could be done with a series of tests or "benchmarks," council diplomats said. If Iraq makes that decision, a second phase would begin with more time to verify Iraq's full disarmament, the diplomats said.

"There is a two-stage process," Greenstock said. "One is to be convinced that Iraq is cooperating, the other is to disarm Iraq completely."

Under the new plan, Security Council ambassadors said Greenstock had made clear that the timeline would be the end of March -- meaning that Iraq could gain around two weeks if the resolution were passed this week.

Six others propose new approach

Britian was not the only Security Council member seeking a compromise. Six others countries on the panel proposed a 45-day reprieve for Iraq. U.S. officials said they were willing to listen to the informal proposal but envisioned a far shorter deadline of seven to 10 days from the resolution's passage.

But even as Greenstock and the others worked toward a consensus on Tuesday, France and Russia stressed their continued opposition.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said his country had not changed its mind on vetoing any resolution authorizing a war. Speaking in Tehran, Iran, Ivanov said that for the sake of global peace, the world should form an alliance against a war in Iraq.

France said Tuesday that it was "open to dialogue" but would not budge on its fundamental position. France cannot cross a "red line" by allowing any resolution that contains an ultimatum or the automatic use of force against Baghdad, Foreign Ministry spokesman Francois Rivasseau said.

In response to the British effort to seek a compromise, Rivasseau said: "It's a new development, and the future will tell us if it is a significant development. We've indicated we are open to dialogue."

The United States, Britain and Spain introduced the draft resolution after the U.N. chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, issued his third report on the latest effort to the Security Council on Friday. Blix gave the council a mixed report. He said Iraq's move to begin destroying its al Samoud 2 missiles constituted "a substantial measure of disarmament" but criticized the rate at which Iraq had handed over documents on prohibited chemical and biological systems.

Tuesday was target date for vote

Under the original plan, the Bush administration wanted to have a vote on the proposal as early as Tuesday. But it changed its mind in face of the two veto threats. Instead, council members agreed to hold another open meeting on the Iraq crisis on Tuesday and Wednesday at the request of the Non-Aligned Movement, which represents about 115 mainly developing countries. Diplomats said it would likely delay a vote until Thursday at the earliest.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said on Tuesday that the United States would put a text to a vote some time this week. But another senior administration official told the Associated Press on condition of anonymity that State Department officials were trying to persuade the White House it might be better to delay the vote and avert a veto.

Additional time for inspectors sought

The opposition expressed by Russia, France and Germany is aimed at gaining more time for the U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq. The Russians, for instance, have said reports to the Security Council show that Iraq is cooperating and that progress toward its disarmament is being made.

Other members of the Security Council also have doubts about the draft resolution. To win passage, the resolution would need to receive nine yes votes from the 15 members on the council without any vetoes. Only four countries -- the United States, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria -- support it. French diplomats said on Tuesday that 10 other members oppose the resolution or would abstain in a vote. Those countries include Germany, which said in mid-January that it would oppose any resolution authorizing a war.

The diplomatic crisis has put Blair under particularly heavy pressure at home.

On Tuesday, more than 40 members of Parliament called for himr to resign because of his pro-war position, the Independent newspaper reported on Wednesday.

The statement was issued after his international development secretary, Clare Short, said over the weekend that she would resign if there was no second U.N. resolution for an invasion. In addition, more than 120 Labour parliamentarians recently voted against the government over war against Iraq, and more are expected to join the revolt if there is no support from the United Nations.

The prime minister is losing voter support as well. The Times of London published a poll on Tuesday in which 62 percent of respondents said the governments of the United States and Britain had not presented a convincing case for going to war against Iraq. That total was 57 percent last month.

U.S. weighs alternatives

The United States is also prepared to wage a war without British support, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said on Tuesday. At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked whether the United States would invade Iraq without British help -- or with a reduced British role. He said that those matters were under almost daily discussion and that he had just talked to his British counterpart, Geoff Hoon. "What will ultimately be decided is unclear as to their role; that is to say, their role in the event a decision is made to use force," Rumsfeld said.

On Wednesday, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder will travel to London for talks with Blair.