The Blair–Bush dilemma: is a nuclear Iran an acceptable price for a stable Iraq?

Tony Blair’s speech at the Guildhall adroitly placed him ahead of the news. By reiterating his support for dialogue with Iran and Syria on the same day that George W. Bush met James Baker’s Iraq Study Group, he has guaranteed himself some of the plaudits if and when Washington finally — and formally — talks to Tehran.

It is credit that Washington is happy for Blair to take. His appearance, largely for appearance’s sake, before the Study Group on Tuesday shows just how much more sensitive the Americans have become to Blair’s domestic plight. Long gone are the days when Dick Cheney, with a breathtaking ignorance of the realities of British politics, muttered that the administration shouldn’t fret too much about Blair being forced from office as Iain Duncan Smith would make a more congenial ally. One effect of Blair’s falling popularity, reinforced by the failed September putsch against him, has been to awaken the American foreign policy establishment to how close the United States was to losing Britain. All the blows that Blair has taken for his devotion to the special relationship will make things easier for his successor.

What won’t is Iraq. There is a sense of optimism on both sides of the Atlantic that the Study Group will chart a way out of the morass. Sadly, this optimism is misplaced. As one adviser to the group told me, ‘it ought to be fairly self evident’ that it won’t come up with a silver bullet. He points out that the middle ground on Iraq — which this American bipartisan commission is primed to find — ‘is an illusion’. Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair, seemed to confirm this analysis at the weekend, saying that the panel might not be able to reach agreement. What is certain is that the elections have made the quaintly named Study Group more important than before, as evidenced by the White’s House’s volte-face about sitting down with them.