Is America a force for good in the world? Is the Pope a Catholic? Yes to both, I say, and I’d lay a thousand to one that you do too. We hold these truths to be self-evident. In Britain, however, I am in a minority on America.

When Prime Minister Blair dropped into the Vatican last weekend for a chat with the Pope, nobody raised doubts about the latter’s Catholicism. But according to a Populus opinion poll in the London Times published this week, only 44% agree with the proposition: “America is a force for good in the world.”

Lest Americans despair of the historical ignorance, cultural intolerance, and sheer bloody-mindedness implied by this finding, they should bear in mind the saturation of the European airwaves with horror stories that are blamed on the United States. Last week it was the so-called Haditha massacre; this week it is the “extraordinary rendition” of CIA prisoners.

Accusations against American security forces are a dime a dozen, and often prove unfounded. Every day, however, there is an atrocity story from Iraq. It may be carried out by Islamist insurgents, Saddamite loyalists, Shiite militias or anybody else, but the responsibility will invariably be laid at the door of the U.S.-led coalition by the European press. And Iraq is by far the most frequently cited reason for the decline of America’s standing.

On Tuesday, for example, I watched the BBC’s foreign affairs editor, John Simpson, being interviewed on the main evening news program after yet another grim lead story about Iraq. In the anti-American bias stakes, Mr. Simpson is not one of the worst offenders at the BBC. His attitude to the U.S. tends to be sardonic rather than indignant.

Since Mr. Simpson is not a notorious Bush-hater, however, his verdict carries greater authority. And his verdict is that Iraq is already in a state of civil war, a civil war that neither the coalition forces nor the elected government can do anything to pacify. It may well be, he intoned in his world-weary way, that we have already reached the “tipping point” at which the U.S. and its allies will be forced to withdraw. Sure enough, the same Times poll showed that support for British troops staying in Iraq until democracy is secure has fallen to a new low of 32%.

This all sounded eminently plausible, coming after a particularly gruesome report about the discovery that day of nine severed heads in fruit boxes, and Mr. Simpson’s own grisly description of the torture of civilians with electric drills – a kind of Baghdad chain-saw massacre. But there is another side to the story, one that is rarely or never highlighted by European networks for whom “Iraq” has become synonymous with a grand guignol horror that would nauseate Stephen King himself.

Yes, it is true that on average more than a thousand people are dying violently every month in Iraq, though it is not true – as Mr. Simpson claimed – that this violence is getting worse, let alone that it amounts to civil war. In fact, the insurgents’ attempts to provoke civil war have failed: Witness the stabilization since 2003 of the Iraqi economy and currency, the resumption of food exports, and the return of exiles. More children are at school, more hospitals are treating the sick and injured, more Iraqis are training in the security services than ever before, despite the terrorists’ attempts to intimidate teachers, doctors, nurses, police, and soldiers.

Iraq, in other words, is not a failed state, but a functioning one, despite having to struggle against massive interference from what John Negroponte reminded a surprised BBC interviewer last week is the world’s leading sponsor of terror: Iran.

The Iranian leadership knows that there is trial of strength between two models of democracy: the “Western” one in Iraq, and the totalitarian “Islamic” one in Iran. If Iraqi democracy survives and flourishes, it is more than likely that other Muslim peoples will adopt the Western model. The Iranian leadership is no less determined that the totalitarian system that installed the demagogue Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president last year should become the Muslim norm.

It is, indeed, the rise of Iranian imperialism and its strenuous attempts to wreck the Iraqi experiment that concerned both President Bush and Mr. Blair at their summit last week – the one that ended with Mr. Bush “apologizing” for Iraq. The apology – for the triumphal tone of his war speeches, not for the war itself – reflects the president’s need to improve his own dismal poll ratings. But it was also a gesture towards his equally embattled ally. The British public is so disenchanted with Mr. Blair that even his undoubted successes – such as making himself indispensable to the most powerful man in the world – are held against him.

Nearly two-thirds of Britons agree with the statement: “If Gordon Brown takes over as prime minister, he should be much less close to President Bush than Tony Blair has been.” That is one wish that will certainly be granted – but not because Mr. Brown is likely to hold himself aloof. There are other European leaders with whom an American president can forge close ties, and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, already hopes to fill the vacancy that Mr. Blair will leave.

Siren voices are urging Mr. Brown, if and when he does take over, to make a clear break with the Blair era by pulling British troops out of Iraq, just as the Spanish did two years ago, and the new Italian premier, Romano Prodi, is about to do. I doubt whether Mr. Brown, after a decade as a notably pro-American finance minister, is naive enough to hearken to these voices. If he did, it would not be a catastrophe for the trans-Atlantic alliance, which has survived worse betrayals on both sides, but it would be a catastrophe for Mr. Brown. With every door in Washington slammed in his face, he would be at the mercy of the Franco-German duopoly.

We know that America is a force for good in the world – but is Britain? We know that the Pope is a Catholic – but is Mr. Blair? These are more doubtful propositions. Britain’s benign influence is contingent upon its Atlanticism. The last time British foreign policy was not conducted in concert with the U.S. was in the disastrous invasion of Suez in 1956.

As for Mr. Blair’s religion: We shall have to wait until he leaves office to discover whether it is true, as some insiders say, that he has inwardly already made the spiritual transition from Anglo-Catholicism to Roman Catholicism. His meeting with the Pope may give us a clue, not only to his faith but also to his future. If it is true that Mr. Blair invited Benedict XVI to visit Britain in 2008, then my guess is that 2008 will be his last year in office.