Its 25 members, all representing a dutiful balance between Iraq’s Shia, Sunni, Kurdish and secular population (one cannot but be reminded of all those intensely fair power-sharing governments in Cyprus and Northern Ireland), is already the subject of the deepest cynicism.Its first act – at the behest of the Pentagon’s Shia acolyte, Ahmed Chalabi – was to declare a national holiday for 9 April, marking the downfall of Saddam Hussein Or at least, that is how it looked in the West. For Iraqis, their first new national holiday marked the first day of foreign occupation of their land.In the days before the March-April war, the Baathists claimed that one of the first acts of American occupiers would be the installation of an Israeli embassy in Baghdad. Now Adnan Pachachi, a former Sunni foreign minister on the Council, has met the former Israeli foreign minister, Shimon Peres, in Rome, who asked for – you guessed it – an Israeli embassy in Baghdad.Mr Pachachi dutifully said that this would have to be preceded by an Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories occupied during the 1967 war – essentially compliance with UN Resolution 242 – though perhaps he did not realise that Israel does not have to abide by UN resolutions in the same way as Iraq was supposed to But the discourse about an embassy has begun. Many Iraqis now predict increasing American support for Mr Pachachi as well as for Mr Chalabi.On to all this is grafted the illusion of global stability The Poles are here, and the Japanese are coming. Ruud Lubbers, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, turns up in Baghdad to announce that tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees will return next year. There are 204,000 Iraqis in Iran, 300,000 in Jordan, 22,200 in Saudi Arabia, up to 72,000 in Syria, 50,900 in Germany (not to mention 20,000 asylum-seekers) and 38,500 in the Netherlands. But is it safe to come back to Iraq, someone asks? “Well, we are here,” he smilingly replies.But even as he leaves his press conference last week, the UN radios crackle with static and fear.

A convoy has been attacked on the Hilla Road, with one UN Iraqi employee killed. Hours later, a US colonel tells journalists this only proves how “low” Saddam’s “remnants” have become.In the conference hall that now serves as the press centre for the occupation authorities in Baghdad, sets of handouts are laid carefully on a table for journalists to peruse. They lurch from good news to bad.”Al-Saydia Public Health Clinic Grand Opening” says one “Soldier Killed in Explosion” says the next. “Iran National Vaccination Day for Children” says a third, just an inch from another flyer recording the killing of two more US troops. “4th Infantry Division Successful in Operation Ivy Serpent” announces another report from the “CJTF-7 Coalition Press Information Center”.Only fatal attacks on US troops are recorded nowadays.

Other ambushes, on the men and women of the occupation authorities, simply do not exist.And the reality? Yes, there are good men and true trying to help Iraqis. There are NGOs aplenty, and universities have all reopened, and Iraqis with outdated passports will be welcomed back to Iraq, and 9,000 young Iraqi men have offered to join the new army – how scrupulous, one asks oneself, will their screening be – and now there’s even talk of an Iraqi “militia” as well as an army Anything – anything – to stop the attacks on US troops. There’s an election coming in the States and Mr Blair needs help, too. Let’s get this thing wrapped up.What was it Paul Wolfowitz, one of Mr Rumsfeld’s pro-Israeli advisers who pushed for war in Iraq, said last week? “Some of our assumptions turned out to be wrong.” Quite so
More from Robert Fisk. They were soldiers, but they were soft targets. Three US troops from the 4th Infantry Division, guarding a children’s hospital in Baquba, north of Baghdad, were killed yesterday by grenades Four others were wounded

They were soldiers, but they were soft targets.