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

404 Not Found

---

nginx/1.14.0 (Ubuntu) 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.

Yet Groundhog Day is perpetual. Last week, Blair was still asking Bush to get involved. Perhaps the rumors are true that James Baker (who orchestrated the 1991 Madrid conference that finally got the Israelis and Palestinians talking) will recommend another big confab, so Blair, who tried to get one going in 2003, is pushing against an open door. Unfortunately, during the long hiatus when Blair has been imploring Bush for help, relations between Israel and the Palestinians have soured to curdling and U.S. influence with Arab states has plummeted. "Besides the residual, declining power of America, Bush doesn't have any credit built up in the Arab world," says a British official. Nor does Blair. He's seen as an appendage to Bush, both because of Iraq and because he backed Israel in rejecting a quick cease-fire in Lebanon last summer.

Then there are the shopworn policies the Prime Minister is advancing to fix Iraq: "a strong political compact to bring all parties together, with clear commitment to nonsectarian government and to democracy." The international community should also "build Iraqi governing capability" and "plug any gaps in training, equipment and command in control in the Iraqi army." Sure — and while we're at it, why not just ask for world peace? Coalition forces simply can't figure out how to turn these bromides into reality in Iraq, where chaos and carnage steadily mount. A gap between alluring vision and stubborn reality is evident also in Blair's challenge to Iran to help pacify Iraq — while pointedly refusing its leaders any incentives to do so as long as they won't renounce its nuclear program. Other countries too are flummoxed about how to get Iran to cooperate, but as the coalition sinks deeper into its Iraq quagmire, Iran is actually gaining leverage.

Before the Iraq war, Blair's foreign-policy speeches were worth listening to: brilliant evocations of a world order enhanced through global coalitions mobilized to fight poverty and extend the rule of law — and willing to fight too if necessary. And he delivered results, over Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and aid to Africa. But now he is stymied, because his war in Iraq has made his grand vision much less attainable, and strengthened the terrorists he abhors. He knows it, but will not publicly admit it. (Last week, when he started a long answer to a question from David Frost on al-Jazeera about Iraq's being "pretty much of a disaster" with the apparent agreement, "It has," his spokesman said no admission was intended.)

So now his speeches take strange turns of logic around the hardest questions and are populated with straw men bred for easy defeat. Aides say he is frustrated. With good reason: the man who said "what counts is what works" has rendered himself unpersuasive and ineffective. He is counting down the days, knowing a large part of his foreign-policy legacy is failure.

• J.F.O. McALLISTER
• Tony Blair wants to make peace in the Middle East; first he must make more sense