Even as Coalition troops surround Baghdad, President George W. Bush and Prime Minster Tony Blair are meeting in Belfast to discuss the post-war reconstruction of Iraq, and peace negotiations involving both Northern Ireland and the Middle East.

We hope Bush listens closely to Blair. The New Labour leader has been the ultimate stand-up ally on Iraq, risking his government and his political life to support action to topple Saddam Hussein. It's appropriate that Congress is considering a special medal of honor for Blair. Just as importantly, Blair has been the real voice of the Coalition, consistently and passionately articulating the case for military action, not as a departure from the principles of international law and the practice of collective security, but as their best guarantees in the long run. We consider ourselves, along with other Democrats who have supported the use of military force, as "Blair Democrats" who have not let our profound disagreements with the Bush Administration's unilateralist habits obscure our broader responsibilities for facing what Blair has called "the dominant security threat of our time -- which is the combination of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of unstable, repressive states and terrorist groups."

It is clear that Blair has two particular objectives in mind during the discussions in Belfast. The first is to press for U.N. involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq, and the second is to secure a commitment of U.S. action to make progress on a Middle East settlement.

Both these objectives are laudable, though both must be approached with great caution.

U.N. involvement in post-war Iraq will obviously help legitimize a transition government that may otherwise simply look like a military occupation. The United Nations can also help make sure that other countries bear the financial burden of building a peaceful, democratic Iraq. But it will take much time and care to ensure that U.N. involvement does not mean the United Nations is in charge of the country, and does not compromise political and security measures that Coalition forces will inevitably need to take to keep Iraq peaceful and whole.

Likewise, the Bush Administration does need a push to abandon its passive attitude towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially now that the United States has re-established the credibility of its defense commitments in the region. It should send a clear message to the Palestinian Authority and its new prime minister -- and to the Europeans who help finance them -- that the time has come to take aggressive steps to suppress anti-Israeli terror from every quarter. If they do so, the United States would then urge Israel to modify its settlement policy and entertain negotiations.

No one should dictate U.S. policy towards post-war Iraq, the Middle East, or for that matter, Northern Ireland. But Tony Blair has richly earned the right to speak, and the right to be heard. Certainly President Bush, who has shown a serious unwillingness to listen to his critics at home and abroad throughout his Administration, should listen carefully to any advice he hears from this proven ally.