IT was the tale of two Tonys last night. On Tyneside, Tony Blair mounted a strong defence of his stance on Iraq. In York, Tony Benn launched a scathing attack on America's motives. Although diametrically opposed, the men argued their cause with equal passion.

Mr Blair is often accused of being all style and no substance. But on Newsnight last night, he was a conviction politician, arguing as much from the heart as from the head.

The Prime Minister admitted that the Iraqi dictator posed no direct threat to Britain. Instead, reaffirming his internationalist credentials established during his principled stand on Kosovo, he stressed his belief that we had a duty to intervene.

Mr Blair is convinced of the case against Saddam. Now he must convince the country.

He has a long way to go, judging both by our phone poll result and by the warm reception afforded to Britain's leading "dove". Tony Benn has a far easier job than the Prime Minister: we all want peace.

Mr Benn did his case no favours by handing Saddam a propaganda platform at his meeting with the brutal Iraqi dictator this week. But that blunder has done nothing to dent the peace movement. Coachloads of people from York are to attend next week's anti-war rally in London.

It seems increasingly unlikely that public disapproval will stop this war, however. As more Yorkshire troops and airmen head for the Gulf, the momentum towards conflict looks unstoppable.

If the UN approves a war, the public mood may change. But we still return to the same doubts. Why has Saddam suddenly become a threat? Other than to bolster American confidence shattered by September 11, what is the reason for confronting him now? Where is the evidence of Iraq's links with al Qaida? If Saddam were removed, what sort of regime would take his place?

Until there are compelling answers to these questions, there will only be one winner of the battle of the Tonys.

Updated: 11:08 Friday, February 07, 2003