Running on Empty

Sunday, Nov. 19, 2006 By J.F.O. MCALLISTER
HURRY UP: Blair — seen here talking on al-Jazeera International — leaves office next year, and would like to extract something good from the morass in Iraq
AL-JAZEERA ENGLISH TV / AP
Article Tools
Print
Reprints
Sphere
RSS

It's like watching an aging rocker with too much ego back onstage: the old flashy moves may evoke the glory days but no longer convince. I accept that Tony Blair sincerely wants peace in Iraq and the broader Middle East, and that for the few months remaining in his premiership, he shouldn't just sit around. But his foreign-policy speech at the [an error occurred while processing this directive] Guildhall last week, followed by videolink testimony to the Baker-Hamilton commission in Washington that's tasked with somehow extricating the U.S. from Iraq, makes me think Blair's remarkable self-belief, so often his most potent tool, is now clouding his judgment.

The thrust of Blair's argument is that, to counter Islamic extremism, diplomacy needs a kick start. He wants a "whole Middle East strategy," grounded first of all in a robust drive by the U.S. to make peace between Israel and Palestine, but including enhanced dialogue with Syria and Iran as long as they behave better, and some changes in Iraqi arrangements too. That approach, he argues, will help "pin back" the extremism that fuels terror both inside and outside Iraq. Viewed from 10,000 m up, that's perfectly sensible. But down at the level where bullets fly and deals get struck (or don't), this strategy looks like a sack of airy promises that can't be delivered.

Of course it would be great to have a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, and to get Washington to twist arms and take names to make that happen. But Blair has advised, cajoled and beseeched George W. Bush to take such a role scores of times since 2001, without result. Bush once promised he was "willing to expend the same amount of energy in the Middle East" as Blair has in Northern Ireland, but that was bunkum. First because of Yasser Arafat, now because of Hamas' electoral strength, Bush has been deeply skeptical of dealing with Palestinians. He is less critical of Israel than his predecessors and has not wanted to risk his reputation in the kind of negotiating marathon that ultimately defeated Bill Clinton.