premise: Blair had "learnt the hard way" that "loyalty in international politics counts for very little", it added.
  On Iraq, Bulmer-Thomas said it was a "terrible mistake" to rely on arguing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to justify the war.
  His paper added that the "jury is still out" on whether Blair knew such claims were "overblown or even fabricated".
  Blair's successor will have to develop closer relations with Europe and will not be able to offer "unconditional support" for US foreign policy, the paper said.
  The US is also likely to urge Britain to develop closer relations with Europe in future, it adds.
   If Blair had not relied on arguing that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,  what might his successor be able to do?
hypothesis: offer "unconditional support" for US foreign policy