Do we need Tony Blair in the Middle East?

Mustafa Barghouti, a member of the Palestinian parliament, said recently: "If I am honest, I would say that his mission was a failure." -  The Guardian - UK , June 1, 2009

International efforts to advance the Middle East peace process are facing imminent failure under Tony Blair’s leadership, aid groups operating in the region say in a report released today.  UK Timesonline, September 25, 2008

So what exactly is Tony Blair doing in the Middle East, as the voice representing the so-called Quartet? And is he redundant, considering that now, George Bush is no longer President, and disengaged as he was in the Middle East, leaving all policy decisions to ex-Secretary of State Rice? The two statements above are almost a year apart, and both speak of failure on the part of the British ex-prime minister.

His irrelevancy was underscored yet again today when he appeared in an interview on Fareed Zakaria's GPS.  His stance was hesitant, and when questioned about Iran's accusation against the UK, and its alleged interference in their election, Blair called it nonsense.

When asked about the position President Obama has taken vis-a-vis Iran, Blair indicated not 'being sure' about what the right approach would be. He indicated that whether Obama does pronounce an indictment or not, 'everyone knows where he stands and what he thinks'. It seemed at one point that he thought Obama's willingness to engage Iran in dialogue was OK, but that it was attached to conditions. He never did come out in favor or in opposition of these conditions. All he was able to make clear was that the idea of a nuclear Iran in the region was unacceptable, and that the world was to do all it could to prevent this from happening. Is that really the greatest threat we face in the Middle East? Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu will agree.

Unfortunately, it would seem that Tony Blair is continuing to impose Western values on the Iranian Republic. We have already turned the page on this book, but he appeared to be still stuck in the table of contents. He called on Iran to become 'helpful', 'constructive', 'stable' and stop the export of terrorism to other countries. He spoke about the intense anxiety felt in the Arab world by Iran's nuclear ambitions; are we just fabricating this anxiety? Is it real?

Is it possible that Arab countries in the region are more frightened of a successful democratic movement in Iran than a nuclear program? Would dictatorships and monarchies begin to topple should the Iranian people succeed in ousting their theocratic oppressors? This, it would appear, is a much more grave concern to Arab countries in the region. Let us not fabricate danger where there is none.

And then, Blair goes on to agree that President Obama's speech in Cairo had a huge impact in the region. That people saw that there can be co-existence among the nations in the region, and that dictatorships will suffer. That new possibilities exist, and that tough choices will have to be made. The tough choice implied here was regarding Iran, and though he did not mention war, his overall hesitancy and lack of assuredness implied it.