United Nations ? President Bush’s urgent phone campaign to world leaders, seeking their support for a tough deadline on Iraq, came up short Monday — forcing a delay of the Security Council’s vote and opening the doors to a possible compromise to give Saddam Hussein more time.

The United States had hoped to present the resolution to the council today, setting a March 17 deadline for Iraqi disarmament or war. But the vote was put on hold when it became evident that America and its allies had not yet won the nine votes they needed for a majority.

But even nine votes wouldn’t be enough. French President Jacques Chirac declared that his country would veto any resolution that opened the way to war. The Russians also said they would vote against the proposal as it was currently worded.

Both the United States and Britain said they were willing to negotiate the deadline and other changes to the resolution.

During a closed-door council session late Monday, British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock suggested a two-phase approach to the resolution, in which Saddam Hussein would have 10 days to make a “strategic decision” to disarm, council diplomats said.

The inspectors would then have a brief window to verify whether Iraq was carrying out a set of tests — or “benchmarks,” as they are called — before the decision to wage war was made. The council was planning to have an open debate today on the Iraq crisis.

Some of the uncommitted countries were talking about delaying the deadline by as much as a month, until April 17 — though it was clear that such a proposal stood no chance with the United States, as hundreds of thousands of American soldiers awaited their orders in the Persian Gulf.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said a vote on the resolution would not come today. He said consultations were ongoing and a vote could come anytime later in the week.

“The vote will be the day we get nine or 10 votes, and I think we’re getting close,” said Spanish Ambassador Inocencio Arias, whose country is co-sponsoring the resolution with the United States and Britain.

But on the surface, at least, Monday was not a good day for the coalition’s efforts.

Pakistan’s prime minister said for the first time publicly that his country, a key swing vote on the council, wouldn’t support war with Iraq. And Chile — another vote that Washington is after — suggested it was not prepared to embrace the resolution without changes.

The resolution — which authorizes war anytime after March 17 unless Iraq proves before then that it has disarmed — requires nine “yes” votes. Approval also requires that France, Russia and China withhold their vetoes — either by abstaining or voting in favor.

The United States is assured the support of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, with Cameroon and Mexico leaning heavily toward the U.S. position.

But with Germany, Syria and now Pakistan preparing abstentions or “no” votes, Washington is left trying to canvass the support of Chile, Angola and Guinea.

Meanwhile, in Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair struggled to head off a growing revolt within his own party unhappy with his Iraq policy. A third of the Labor Party lawmakers are already on record opposing Blair’s pro-U.S. stance, and on Monday his International Development secretary, Clare Short, threatened to quit over the issue.

Noting the pressure at home and at the United Nations, Blair said he was open to a compromise.

“We are talking to all the other countries about how we ensure that we can make a proper judgment about whether Saddam is cooperating or not,” he said.

One example, Blair said, would be whether Iraq was allowing inspectors to interview scientists outside the country.

Diplomats said the benchmarks could be presented in the form of a presidential statement — a diplomatic text that everyone in the council could sign on to whether they supported the resolution or not.