The Osterley Times: Bush and Blair's legacy: The Middle East ablaze.

Bush and Blair's plans to build a new democratic Middle East appear to have achieved nothing other than to set the region ablaze.

Kofi Annan has described the Iraq war as "a disaster for the region."

Speaking about his tour of Middle East nations, Mr Annan told reporters: "Most of the leaders I spoke to felt that the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath have been a real disaster for them... They believe it has destabilised the region."
But he also said many leaders wanted the Americans to stay in Iraq until the security situation improved, arguing that "having created the problem they cannot walk away".
He said other leaders, notably in Iran, felt "the presence of the US is a problem and that the US should leave, and if the US were to decide to leave, they would help them".
Mr Annan concluded: "So in a way, the US has found itself in a position where it cannot stay and it cannot leave.
"And I believe, if it has to leave, the timing has to be optimum and it has to be arranged in such a way that it does not lead to even greater disruption or violence in the region."

Tony Snow rejected Annan's reading of events pointing to "attempts to establish democracy in Lebanon and in Palestinian areas", and said "democracy was also gaining a footing in Afghanistan and Iraq".

Tony Snow must surely be on smack. When he talks of the establishment of possible democracies, he implies Bush's theory that democracies ensure peace. He must be aware that Israel recently invaded both Palestine and Lebanon and that his own government are refusing to recognise the duly elected Hamas government in Palestine. So much for the embracing of democracy.

Meanwhile, the war in Lebanon continues to cause controversy in Britain with Kim Howells, minister for the Middle East, admitting that Blair made a mistake in refusing to call for a ceasefire.

(Howells) has conceded that Tony Blair's refusal to call for a ceasefire during 34 days of slaughter in Lebanon may have been a mistake.
Mr Howells also conceded that the decision to oppose - with the US - the international demand for an immediate ceasefire was not properly explained to the British public.

Mr Blair's isolated stance is seen as a major reason for the revolt that forced him to announce last week that he would be standing down within 12 months.

The Prime Minister's controversial approach to foreign policy - he has been criticised as President Bush's poodle - has begun to unravel of late.

And the price for the Lebanon war and the animosity it generated is only now beginning to be felt. Where once Bush and Blair could demand that others join in their global venture, they are now finding other nations reticent about committing themselves.

Blair yesterday pleaded with fellow Nato members that Afghanistan was in danger of unravelling unless reinforcements were sent from other Nato country's.

Speaking in Downing Street at a press conference with the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, Mr Blair said "Nato countries have a duty to respond".

His appeal was met with stony silence. No other Nato member state has pledged a single troop for the mission.

Key Nato countries have made it clear that they will not increase their contribution. They include Germany, Italy, Turkey and Spain, whose Defence Minister, Jose Antonio Alonso, said his country's "military presence will keep on the same level as now because this contribution is all that Spain can offer".

Bush and Blair have never looked more isolated and when one considers the state of play in Iraq and Afghanistan, their Middle Eastern policy has never looked more hopeless.

And now, to add insult to injury, the US have to witness Iraq appealing to Iran for help establishing security.

In Tehran, Mr. Maliki met with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and declared afterwards that “even in security issues, there is no barrier in the way of cooperation.”
For his part, Mr. Ahmadinejad said, “Iran will give its assistance to establish complete security in Iraq, because Iraq’s security is Iran’s security.” It was not clear what form Iranian support on security would take, or how it would be regarded by the American authorities here.

It's hard to believe that Maliki is making this request with America's blessing, therefore one can only assume that he is simply cutting the US out of the picture and acting unilaterally.

How can Bush spin this one? Did all those young Americans die only for Iraq to appeal to the US's greatest enemy in the region for help establishing the security that the US have so far been unable to establish?

It would be hard to think of a greater insult. Perhaps the logic is that, as the US claim, Iran is stirring a lot of the tensions in the region and that they are the logical people to approach in order to quell the violence. Even so, an Iraq that is dependent on Iran for security was most definitely not part of the game plan and is only further proof of just how much that same game plan has unravelled.

Mr. Maliki said the American accusations of Iranian interference in Iraq will have no effect on existing agreements between the countries.
“All the political, security and economic accords that have been signed with the Islamic republic’s officials will be carried out,” he said.

As Iraq sidles up to Iran and Afghanistan stands on the brink of chaos with no cavalry rushing to the rescue, there is now the distinct possibility that Blair will leave office with the Middle East still ablaze. Indeed, there is - at this rate - every chance that Bush will do the same.

I don't know what their plans were when they started all this, but their legacy is writing itself. And it is one of chaos.

It is a Middle East where fear of Israel's military strength has been diminished and the reputation of Hizbullah has been enhanced. It is Middle East where Saddam's influence has been removed allowing Iran an influence over the region that was previously undreamed of.

It is, from the west's point of view, an unmitigated disaster. And the responsibility for it lies squarely on the shoulders of Bush and Blair. And both will probably slink from office leaving history as their final judges and the region ablaze.

We don't need to wait for history's final judgement when the disaster is this clear. Incompetence on this scale only comes along once a century. In terms of British history, Blair has somehow out done Eden and his disaster in Suez. In terms of American history, Bush has managed, against all the odds, to construct an American defeat to rival Vietnam.

Neither need worry, their place in history is most certainly assured.