Oh the Irony!

Tony Blair is being put in charge of the one file at which he failed abysmally as Prime Minister. At least that's how I look at his new job being the Middle East peace envoy.

I remember after 9/11 that it was popular to speak of the "death of irony" and all that. Irony isn't dead, it's become darker and more monstrous. I started writing out examples, but really, I'm tired and they are obvious.

Cringing

Watch Tony Blair's face as George W tries to defend him against *horror* reporters asking questions.

Tony Bows Out

...and I'm not talking about New Jersey's favourite mobster either. A lot of progressive/left types are correctly chastising the man for his enabling of George W. Bush's misadventure in Iraq. Having the UK on board for something like Operation Iraqi Freedumb lent a veneer of credibility to a poorly considered act of (depending on your level of cynicism) either insanity or criminality.

That said I think the man deserves credit for his shepherding of the Northern Ireland peace process. Even two years ago I thought it inconceivable that so staunch a loyalist as Ian Paisley would ever be part of anything like a unity government. As the grandson of a refugee from the Irish Civil War I am relieved that this conflict might be winding down.

It still doesn't excuse being party to a new war, but Blair's efforts for peace are part of his legacy.

Showdown of the Under-Qualified Premillenialists

This is what seems to be happening now between Ahmadinejad and Bush, or at least Bush's proxy, Tony Blair. Or not.

The office of president in Iran is rather unlike the office that goes by the same name in the United States. Ahmadinejad is not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and he therefore may not have a whole lot of say in the fate of the British sailors held in Iran. Ahmadinejad may be a terrible person, but at least his power is limited under the Iranian constitution.

Moreover, it appears in an article that Juan Cole linked to that Iran is simply looking for the British to admit wrongdoing in the affair, i.e.: admit that they were in Iranian waters. It is also worth remembering that the waters in question have been subject to boundary disputes, and that makes me wonder whether the maps that are constantly put in the newspapers and on TV are of the Iraq territorial claims, or of the Iranian territorial claims. Are they some melange of both sets of territorial claims?

Of course, it may be that the British were indisputably in Iraqi waters, but the question of where the boundary is has been cast aside - perhaps in the hope that we'll just start assuming that the British were correct. The Iranian offer to free the soldiers may be a ploy, but regardless, it's interesting that that element of the story has been far less reported than images of Tony Blair looking indignant on TV.