Is Tony Blair the right man to bring peace to the Middle East? Plenty of people will have their say on that if - as predicted in today’s FT - Blair is appointed as a new envoy to the area. But, to my mind, the more interesting question is whether the Middle East is the right place to bring peace to Tony Blair.

Consider the problem. Here is a man who is leaving office reluctantly after 10 years in Downing Street. He is uncomfortably aware that his reputation for competence and morality has been badly damaged by the Iraq war. He is seeking redemption - and now wants to do something unarguably good. He wants to save something. He could try to save the planet from climate change - but Al Gore seems to have cornered that market. He is itching to save Africa - but there is no formal job to apply for. Oh well, it will have to be the Middle East.

(more…)

What is the answer to the rise of fundamentalism across the Muslim world? For years Europeans and Americans thought they knew the antidote: secular democracy.

In the Islamic world, Turkey has been the shining example. Not only is the country a member of Nato; it has also been held up as proof that a country can be simultaneously Muslim, prosperous, secular and democratic. So what are we to make of events in Turkey now? Secularists have demonstrated in huge numbers because they are terrified by the prospect of the indirect election of a mildly Islamist president, and the army has hinted that it may stage a coup to protect the secular character of the state. Secularism and democracy seem to be at war.

The paradoxes do not stop there. American neo-conservatives hoped that the invasion of Iraq would create a new bulwark of pro-western democracy in the Islamic world. But while the US has failed in this aim, it has managed to inflict grave damage on its strategic relationship with its most important partner in the Muslim world: Turkey.

The remainder of Gideon’s weekly column can be read here (FT.com subscription required).

One of the many ironies of the Bush presidency is that George W came to power determined to spend less time on the Middle East. Well the US is now heavily engaged on all fronts – Iraq, Iran and the Middle East peace process. I spent last week in Washington talking to administration officials - and others – and this is where things seem to stand:

(more…)

Before leaving Israel yesterday, I and some colleagues had the chance to talk to various members of the Israeli military and foreign policy establishment. Obviously, they were well aware they were talking to journalists, so one must discount for spin. But here, briefly, is how they see the world:

Iran: The Israelis are obsessed with the development of an Iranian bomb. They say it will be the first time an "enemy state" has the capacity to exterminate Israel. They think the Iranians are 12-18 months away from crossing the technical threshold and three years away from having the bomb itself. They acknowledge that the Americans seem to think that Iran is further away than that - perhaps five years. There is time for diplomacy to work, and they think President Ahmadinejad is not in a secure position. But they clearly think that it is most likely that Israel and the United States will soon be faced by the decision over whether to take military action. They hope the US will do it. But the strong implication is that Israel will take action alone if necessary. But they are far from sanguine about the potential regional consequences, in terms of a wider war, terrorism and so on.

(more…)

It sounds like the stuff that conspiracy theories are made of. In a coastal resort near Tel Aviv, senior Israeli politicians and generals confer with top officials and politicians from Washington to discuss the threat of a nuclear Iran. In any good conspiracy theory, however, these talks would be going on in secret – preferably in an underground bunker. In fact the Herzliya conference on “Israel’s national security” is taking place perfectly openly in a smart hotel. And I am in the audience.

The Israel participation is, as one would expect, high level. The conference is scheduled to close with a speech from Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. The lunch-time speaker yesterday was Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader, and maybe the next prime minister. We’re hearing from the foreign minister, the defence minister and a string of present and former generals.

But what has really struck me is the number of top Americans who have bothered to come over for the conference. The speaker at dinner last night was Gordon England, America’s deputy defence secretary; earlier in the day we heard from Nick Burns, the number three at the State Department. Several contenders for the presidency in 2008 have also felt obliged to tip their hat to Herzliya. Mitt Romney, who is probably second favourite for the Republican nomination, is turning up in person. John McCain, the GOP front-runner is appearing by satellite, so is Rudy Giuliani. For the Democrats, John Edwards is also scheduled to make a satellite address. I cannot think of any other country in the world that could summon up this level of American participation for a conference like this. Certainly not Britain.

(more…)

The Baker report has been comprehensively leaked and almost equally comprehensively trashed – even though it is not due to be released until Wednesday.

But – for all the leaks – I’m still confused as to what exactly Baker and Co are going to recommend on the crucial question of troop withdrawals. It has been variously reported that Baker will call for a phased withdrawal, a redeployment of troops to an advisory role or – even – a new surge in troop levels, in a last ditch effort to stabilise the situation in Baghdad.

The one thing that everybody seems to agree is that Baker and Co will call for new diplomatic efforts in the region: fresh efforts to talk to Iran and Syria – and, almost certainly, more pressure on Israel to do a deal with the Palestinians.

But there are three big problems. First, none of these ideas are particularly new or radical. Second, there is strong evidence that President Bush is preparing to reject anything that smacks of “cut and run”, and is highly sceptical of the idea of engaging Iran and Syria. And finally – and worst of all – the situation in Iraq is so dreadful, that even the keenest advocates of the Baker group seem to fear that nothing it suggests is likely to make much difference anyway.

Faced with growing evidence of an uncontrollable debacle in Iraq, Washington insiders are doing what comes naturally – trying to make sure that somebody else takes the blame. Newsweek reports that one of Baker’s goals is to “cover your rear” – and I don’t think they mean this in a military sense.

(more…)