There are reasons to believe that now might be the time to do a Northern deal, writes Frank Millar, London Editor
Is Gerry Adams about to deliver big-time for Ian Paisley? It may be necessary to "think outside the box" to conceive the possibility. Yet the British and Irish governments are allowing themselves to hope it might be so, and can see powerful arguments as to why indeed it might.
First, it is beyond question that, as of now, Dr Paisley is the only unionist leader capable of concluding an agreement with republicans and making it stick.
Much media hype may surround tonight's meeting of the DUP executive. However the political reality - known to both governments, and to the next generation of DUP leaders - is that it is "the Big Man" who will make the call.
Second, as the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, and the Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, ceaselessly observe, if this "important moment of opportunity" is lost there is no guarantee when another might arise.
Sceptics have past experience on their side in suggesting that the process would inevitably be resumed following the British general election. However, elections can affect the dynamics of the political process in all sorts of unforeseen ways. The summer is always a dangerous time in Northern Ireland.
And with the advances made on policing threatened by the continued erosion of SDLP support, there is no basis for cosy assumptions that the peace secured at the sectarian interfaces over the past two years is guaranteed to hold.
Assuming Mr Blair wins his third term he will have other priorities, including the chairmanship of the G8 and the presidency of the European Union, and a potentially "history-making" referendum on the European constitution probably in spring 2006.
Whatever his personal disposition, moreover, Mr Blair cannot guarantee how the Labour Party will respond when potential successors start positioning themselves following his confirmation that he will not seek a fourth term.
As Labour MPs begin to contemplate life beyond Mr Blair, so likewise some British and Irish officials have appeared content to wait and contemplate life after Dr Paisley retires the stage. Yet they cannot know when that might be; nor has the Sinn Féin leadership any certainty about who would come after Dr Paisley, or how long an alternative DUP leader might take before feeling sufficiently secure to make a move toward an accommodation with republicans.
Mr Adams has already presided over significant republican movement in order to settle Northern Ireland, albeit, as he would argue, as a necessary precursor to a united Ireland. It is also widely believed Mr Adams wants and needs to resolve his own problem with a continuing IRA in order to pave the way for further electoral advance, and eventual Sinn Féin entry into government in the Republic.
With the Irish election expected in 2007, many commentators are inclined to think the Sinn Féin president need be in no hurry. However, if he really wants the North (and the unionists) settled, he has no guarantee he can recreate the right conditions at a moment of his choosing further down the line. Why delay then - especially as Mr Adams insists the IRA (and by implication questions about its status and future role) is not the problem in the current negotiations.
A quick glance at the DUP's list of requirements, and that party's "spin" on the British-Irish proposals, would suggest problems-a-plenty for republicans.
Decommissioning restored as a "decontamination" pre-condition for Sinn Féin entry to a power-sharing Executive. A unionist veto over the devolution of policing and justice powers. Clergymen appointed to verify complete IRA decommissioning and a pictorial record of the event.
And, for all the current focus on the question of photographs which might actually prove little, DUP demands for clear and unequivocal commitments about the future status of the IRA's Green Book; the cessation of all paramilitary and criminal activity and the constitution of an IRA "Old Boys' Association" which presumably will not be allowed to recruit new members to engage in targeting and intelligence gathering?
Couched in terms of a DUP wish list, it is hard to imagine that republican pain could be assuaged just by the sight of the one-time firebrand Dr Paisley concluding his political career in co-leadership of a Northern Ireland administration with Mr Adams or Martin McGuinness.
And there, surely also, is the rub for the DUP. It is a truism that peace-making involves mutual pain as well as gain. Sequencing might be agreed to enable the DUP to claim to have won better terms from the IRA - after all David Trimble was offered some such cover in last year's aborted deal. Yet it can hardly be over a protracted period which demonstrably amounts to the humiliation of republicans.
Greater accountability may be achieved in respect of ministerial decision-making and the North-South Ministerial Council. But it seems unlikely, for all the SDLP's recent hysteria, that an Irish Government could allow the DUP to drive a coach and horses through a Belfast Agreement endorsed by the peoples of this island in the 1998 referendums. And, while clever civil servants and parliamentary draftsmen may fudge the timetabling, the policing issue must surely be resolved - not least because it is hard to imagine the DUP sharing power with a party which refuses to support the policing of the polity it presumes to govern.
Dr Paisley knows he will not lose "the blame game" if he is denied republican terms he can stand over. He must also know that in order to win the big prize he too will have to compromise. And he has to calculate whether - if he rejects a deal now, but Mr Blair decides he has a basis on which to proceed - the marginalisation of unionism might be resumed on the DUP's watch.
For all the beaming smiles on the faces of some of his younger colleagues, it is Dr Paisley who will make the call.
And it will almost certainly prove a tougher call than their apparent self-belief would suggest.