Connect with us

Diplomacy

Tony Blair: From lapdog to trustee

Published

on

Eric Hobsbawm called him “Thatcher in trousers.” With the invasion of Iraq, he became better known as “Bush’s lapdog” or “poodle.”

The moniker isn’t mine: a 2002 poll for Channel 4 News revealed that nearly half of the British public saw the then-Prime Minister Tony Blair as George Bush’s “lapdog.” So much so that the famous British singer George Michael, in the music video for his song “Shoot the Dog,” satirized the now-disgraced prime minister as Bush’s dog: Blair was shown playing “fetch” and being rewarded with a belly rub from Bush.

Perhaps Nelson Mandela, with a more “subtle” view, called Blair the “US Secretary of State.” The “special relationship” connecting both sides of the Atlantic was being lambasted in the old, toothless empire [a reference to the declining British Empire] as a one-sided affair.

***

However, this branding of the transatlantic special relationship as “lapdoggery” was not new.

In 1983, a Labour MP called Margaret Thatcher “Reagan’s poodle” following the US invasion of Grenada. Similar insults include claims that the United Kingdom is a “US satellite state” or “America’s 51st state.”

These narratives about Britain’s subservience continued into Blair’s early years. A significant example of this was the newspaper article by future Mayor of London Ken Livingstone titled “Uncle Sam’s Patsy.”

It seems Hobsbawm’s description, so to speak, had hit the nail on the head. The historian was criticizing Blair as the domestic successor to the conservative Iron Lady’s neoliberalism, but when it came to aligning with American policies and geopolitical interests, we were also facing a Thatcherism that the Labour Party had eagerly embraced.

***

He is praised as the man who solved the problems in Kosovo and Ireland. The “solution” in Kosovo was the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. As prime minister, Blair was one of the strongest supporters of the NATO invasion of Kosovo in 1999. In his famous “Chicago speech,” he declared that the policy of “appeasing” the “evil dictator” Slobodan Milošević was over and that the time for intervention had come. In this speech, a tremendous reflection of “liberal interventionism” and the American neocon mindset, the praise of globalization and the bogeyman of Milošević-Saddam were constantly invoked. NATO had to intervene in Kosovo to secure its credibility; national sovereignty now had to be viewed in a new light.

Last June in Pristina, in his 25th-anniversary speech to the Kosovo assembly—which Serbia does not recognize—he claimed to have no regrets about the bombing and invasion. Had it not been for the Iraq fiasco, it wouldn’t have been surprising to see him carried on shoulders as the savior of Kosovo: parents emerged in the region who named their children “Tonibler”!

It was suggested that he wanted to transform the Labour Party tradition, often accused of being “weak” on foreign policy, and become more hawkish. Indeed, even before the 1999 attack on Yugoslavia, he would eagerly support Bill Clinton’s Operation Desert Fox in Iraq in December 1998.

Moreover, if we are to believe his biographer Anthony Seldon and Jonathan Powell, who was interviewed for the book, Blair’s religiosity played a significant role behind his “messianic” and “moral” stance: it is claimed that the Prime Minister’s baptism in the Anglican Church while studying law at Oxford in 1972 “affected his entire life” and that his conversion to Catholicism after leaving office was widely “predicted.”

Speaking of Jonathan Powell… when you say “conflict resolution,” his name is written alongside Blair’s as the former-and-current civil servant. Indeed, Powell, known as the man who brokered the Good Friday Agreement, not only managed the British state’s Syria file but also played a decisive role on the issue of Gaza and Palestine. The task of writing a separate, detailed profile of Powell still awaits, but it’s worth noting in passing: last August, The New York Times wrote that an 8-point Palestine plan prepared by Powell was being “circulated” among London’s allies. A day after Powell put the plan into circulation, 22 Arab countries signed a declaration reflecting the plan’s main objectives at a United Nations conference jointly organized by Macron and the Saudis. The declaration, coincidentally, included for the first time the Arab League’s demand for Hamas to disarm and relinquish its power in Gaza. The same theme was also dominant in the Trump declaration that would place Blair at the head of a “mandate” administration in Gaza as a trustee. It seemed the two pals, after all the years and roads traveled, had once again decided to implement Anglo-American plans, this time under different circumstances.

***

He was one of those who spread the lie about weapons of mass destruction in the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. According to an inquiry held in his country years later, Tony Blair had “misused” intelligence regarding Iraq’s weapons capabilities before the 2003 war but had not deliberately misled Parliament:

The Prime Minister had “exaggerated” the evidence for WMDs, but he and others had believed it.

The Chilcot report, published in 2016, revealed that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein did not pose “an imminent threat” at the time of the 2003 invasion and that the war was waged based on “flawed” intelligence. The Blair cabinet’s decision to invade was made under “far from satisfactory” circumstances.

The effects of the WMD lie should not be underestimated. Blair’s powers of persuasion in the weeks before the invasion led to a partial sense of unity around the Union Jack. Support for the war rose from 38% to 53% on the day of the invasion and climbed to 66% when US troops entered Baghdad.

Allegedly, on April 28, 2003, just a few weeks after the fall of Baghdad, the chairman of the joint intelligence committee, John Scarlett, went to the office of Tony Blair’s press secretary, Alastair Campbell, and asked in a panic: “How difficult would our position be if it emerges that we can’t find evidence of Saddam’s WMD program?” Campbell replied, “Very, very, very difficult.”

***

If he had a “legacy,” the Iraq invasion consumed it. Within this legacy that left nothing behind was also the rampant neoliberalism disguised as the “Third Way.” There were those who argued that the Labour Party’s Third Way pursued a domestic policy that did not deviate an inch from Thatcherism. Privatizations, market adoration, attacks on the acquired rights of the working class, financial deregulation… all of these continued during the Blair era. The financialization and deindustrialization that had rapidly advanced in Britain during the Thatcher period were continued in exactly the same way under the Labour government in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Blair was the bearer of a mission to erase the 20th century in post-Cold War Britain. The “new” capitalism of the Third Way made one long for the old. Alongside Blair, Bill Clinton across the ocean and Gerhard Schröder across the Channel would end their careers as the prodigal sons of the new social democracy.

***

Clinton would busy himself with “charity” work, while Schröder would line his pockets with the fire of cheap Russian gas until he fell from grace after the Ukraine war.

The role that fell to Blair, as if to mock mere mortals like us, was to be appointed as the special envoy for the Middle East Quartet, where he would display his vast knowledge in the field of diplomacy by returning to the scene of the crime. The group, consisting of the United Nations, the EU, the US, and Russia, was a product of the search for a solution to the “Palestinian-Israeli issue.”

I don’t know if Donald Trump and Jared Kushner were aware of Blair’s grandiose schemes at the time. But if they were, they must have been impressed. The “Valley of Peace” initiative, developed in 2008, aimed to improve cooperation and increase employment opportunities between Palestine and Israel by creating new economic zones on the Israel-Jordan border. At the time, The Jerusalem Post wrote that the German, Japanese, and Turkish governments had begun to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for the project.

Four locations in the West Bank were selected to support this initiative. Japan’s deputy ambassador to Israel told former Israeli President Shimon Peres that a site on the outskirts of Jericho had been chosen for the construction of an agro-industrial park. According to a memo obtained by the Post, Japanese planners were holding talks with Israeli security officials to coordinate the movement of goods and workers.

***

It makes one want to say there is nothing new under the sun. Blair, who left his post at the Quartet in 2015, would get into the think tank business and mobilize for “peace.”

The “Tony Blair Institute for Global Change” (TBI) viewed Iran as a threat while engaging with both sides for a Middle East where Palestine and Israel could live “side by side.”

So where was this “non-profit organization” funded from? In 2018, TBI admitted for the first time that it had received payment from Saudi Arabia. Besides Riyadh, its funders included the US State Department, the Canadian government, some African governments, and the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, established by a Ukrainian billionaire. TBI claimed to operate with a sublime sense of mission: “to help make globalization work for the many, not the few.”

The Saudi donation came from an entity called Media Investment Limited (MIL), a subsidiary of the Saudi Research & Marketing Group (SRMG) registered in Guernsey. The chairman of SRMG was Prince Badr bin Abdullah bin Mohammed al Farhan, who is still the minister of culture. According to The Telegraph, the money that went from MIL to TBI amounted to £9 million as of 2018.

According to a Financial Times report from the same period, Blair spent 80% of his time at TBI. At the COP29 summit held in Azerbaijan last year, TBI played a significant role: 12 people in the Azerbaijani delegation were providing consultancy services as paid employees of the Blair institute. Blair also met with Azerbaijan’s Minister of Ecology, Mukhtar Babayev, in Baku “to discuss climate action.”

But of course, it’s unthinkable for the former prime minister to do just one thing: he also held many lucrative jobs, including the chairmanship of the JPMorgan International Council and the advisory board of the Southern Gas Corridor pipeline. The Financial Times wrote that Blair earned “irregular income” from high-paying speaking engagements with his vast knowledge.

***

It seems it was also in his destiny to return to Palestine, nearly 80 years after the British Empire left the region, as its informal representative and an American trustee. He will now lead the “Peace Board,” the fancy name chosen by Trump for the mandate and protectorate, for disarming the Palestinian resistance, and for opening the region to the plunder of capital.

Blair stated that he would be pleased to serve as the Gaza trustee with the approval and at the discretion of President Trump. In his statement, he showered praise on the Trump plan, presumably also getting his own back for the failure of his “Valley of Peace” initiative. According to him, if the 20-point declaration—which could actually be called the Kushner-Blair plan—is accepted, it will end the war, allow immediate aid into Gaza, and offer the Palestinian people the chance for a “brighter and better future,” while also ensuring Israel’s “absolute and permanent security” and the release of all hostages.

Here it was, the “bold and wise plan” put forth by Trump, which offered “us the best chance” to end two years of war, misery, and suffering.

Finally, he thanked President Trump for his “leadership, determination, and dedication.”

Backed by the firepower of Anglo-American imperialism and Zionism, the “smart city” fantasies of Silicon Valley, and the prayers of collaborationist regimes in the region, Blair, who had paused his Middle East career with his tail between his legs, was thus resuming it from where he left off as a colonial trustee.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Diplomacy

FIFA abandons $4.2 billion commercial stake sale following widespread revolt

Published

4 hours ago

on

03/08/2026

By

FIFA and Gianni Infantino have backed down from plans to sell a stake in the organization’s commercial and event operations following widespread backlash.

In a statement issued late Friday night, the embattled FIFA president said:

“After carefully listening to all views, it has become clear that this project, regardless of the level of support, causes divisions that are now contrary to the interests of the objective originally established. Our goal has always been, and will always be, to unite and improve. As a result, this proposal will not be implemented.”

Infantino’s proposal met with fierce resistance from UEFA, CONCACAF, and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC).

UEFA indicated that all 55 of its members would boycott FIFA competitions, including the World Cup, if the plans remained on the table.

In its statement, FIFA noted that “nobody is selling football,” and while asserting that it “acknowledges and respects the feedback and concerns expressed publicly,” emphasized that it would continue to implement suggestions.

It added that it “reaffirms its commitment to an open and democratic process of consultation.”

Shortly after FIFA issued its statement, the AFC released its own declaration of solidarity with UEFA and the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF).

Infantino subsequently suffered two major internal blows.

First, his adviser Carlos Cordeiro resigned from his position, sharply criticizing the plan in a statement as “a bad deal for FIFA member associations, a bad deal for football, and a bad deal for the long-term future of the game.”

Then, FIFA Chief Operating Officer Kevin Lamour told the Associated Press that staff felt “deceived” by Infantino and that after raising the issue, he would “sleep better, even at the cost of losing his job.”

Lamour said:

“This is the project of a single person. Leaving aside that this project should not proceed… it is now time for the political leaders of world football to ask themselves the right questions and make the right decisions.”

These developments left Infantino cornered, and by Friday afternoon, numerous figures within the organization—speaking to The Athletic on condition of anonymity to protect their jobs—believed it was no longer a question of “if” the cord would be cut, but “when.”

Joshua Kushner’s venture capital firm Thrive had not withdrawn from the deal as of Friday night, but that became moot when FIFA management ultimately decided to kill the project via a public statement.

Joshua Kushner is the brother of Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of Donald Trump.

On Tuesday, world football’s governing body had announced its intention to establish FIFA Forward Enterprises (FFE), a new private entity to manage its flagship events, including the World Cup and the Club World Cup, with plans to sell a 21% minority stake in FFE to external investors.

The sale was targeted to generate $4.2 billion (£3.2 billion) in revenue. FIFA stated that this amount could be immediately distributed to its 211 member associations under a new funding stream named the “FIFA Fast-Forward Program” (FFFP).

Under the plan, FIFA’s total development funding would have exceeded $10 billion over the next four years.

Despite mounting criticism in recent days, FIFA confirmed that if member associations opposed the FFE plan but the proposal was accepted, the dissenting federations would each receive $20 million (£14.9 million) for the 2027–30 cycle, regardless of whether shares in FFE were sold to private investors (to be followed by $22 million for 2031–34 and $24 million for 2035–38).

However, had a given member association accepted the FFE proposal, it would have received $40 million for the 2027–30 period, with subsequent payouts remaining the same.

The three confederations that explicitly took a stand against FIFA’s plan represent 137 of the 211 FIFA member associations.

FIFA had stated that for the proposal to move forward, it required the approval of a majority of the 211 member associations as well as the 37-member FIFA Council, which consists of Infantino and eight FIFA vice presidents.

Strategic reactions and leadership crisis

South American football confederation CONMEBOL did not reject the plans in a statement on Friday, but noted that financial and commercial decisions “must always serve the interests of football and never take precedence over the essence of the game.”

According to a report by The Athletic, Infantino’s future leadership of FIFA was called into question during UEFA and CONCACAF meetings held on Thursday.

Infantino assumed the FIFA presidency in February 2016, succeeding Sepp Blatter, and was expected to run unopposed in the next election scheduled for March 2027.

There is also talk among European officials of putting forward Nasser Al-Khelaifi, the Qatari CEO of beIN Media, to run against Infantino.

Lise Klaveness, President of the Norwegian Football Federation, told VG: “My clear impression right now is that he has suffered a major loss of trust. We did not vote for him last time and were skeptical about this. There are many good aspects to FIFA, but if you take a lax approach to governance principles and rules, you lose trust quickly.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Defense Priorities director warns US air strategy in Middle East faces tactical limits

Published

8 hours ago

on

03/08/2026

By

The collapse of a tentative memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran, coupled with the diminishing strategic returns of American air power, has left the United States locked in an unsustainable, low-intensity conflict with Iran, according to Benjamin Friedman, Policy Director at the Washington-based think tank Defense Priorities.

Speaking in an interview on the YouTube channel Harici with host Sarp Sinan Hacır, Friedman attributed the failure of the short-lived US-Iran memorandum primarily to the Trump administration’s diplomatic missteps, vague draft language, and unrealistic expectations regarding a comprehensive settlement.

“Both sides really deserve some blame, but the Trump administration deserves the bulk of the blame for drafting an agreement that was so vague on key terms,” Friedman said, citing ambiguities surrounding the timeline for unfreezing Iranian assets and the scope of American commitments to restrain Israeli military operations in Lebanon.

Friedman emphasized that deep-seated mistrust in Tehran, exacerbated by repeated instances where diplomatic engagement was followed by Israeli or American military strikes, led Iranian negotiators to adopt an unyielding posture. At the same time, he noted that Iran likely miscalculated by using disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz to aggressively force leverage.

“The Trump administration remained intent on this sort of grand bargain that would restrain Iran seeking weapons development… and I think they continue to misread the Iranian willingness to sign that kind of deal,” Friedman noted, adding that Tehran viewed its leverage over the Strait of Hormuz as essential despite the risk of provoking further strikes.

Expressing deep skepticism over the prospects for a lasting diplomatic breakthrough, Friedman criticized the administration’s reliance on informal envoys such as Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner over professional diplomatic channels, predicting that the baseline outcome will remain an unpredictable, episodic conflict.

“What’s more likely is a kind of on-off-again kind of war—sort of what we’re in now, where we have occasional strikes, with the United States perhaps by accident adopting the Israeli model of ‘mowing the lawn’ periodically,” Friedman said.

Addressing the efficacy of US air power, Friedman argued that military operations against Iranian targets have reached a point of diminishing returns. While early strikes successfully eliminated critical high-value assets—such as over-the-horizon radar systems that targeted anti-ship missiles—Iran’s ballistic missile and long-range drone capabilities remain largely intact and operational.

He pointed to a recent strike on a base hosting US personnel in Jordan, launched from western Iran over a distance exceeding 1,000 kilometers, as evidence of Tehran’s sustained strike precision and the tactical limits of American interdiction efforts.

“The war is a failure for air power even in a tactical sense,” Friedman stated. “Initially, we looked at it and said we had a lot of success in destroying targets, but as more information came out, it turned out they had maybe more than half of their missiles and launchers survive the initial phase of the war.”

Friedman observed that the global proliferation of low-cost, high-precision guidance technology has permanently altered the strategic landscape, neutralizing the traditional invulnerability of forward-deployed US installations. “The precise effects of air power that used to be almost a monopoly of the United States… is actually making our posture in the region less sustainable,” he said, warning that similar vulnerabilities would be vastly amplified in any potential high-intensity conflict with China.

As an alternative to open-ended military engagement, Friedman suggested that Washington consider a complete military withdrawal from the region, even if it entails accepting Iranian transit fees on commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. “The cost of preventing that through perpetual outbursts of warfare is much higher than just accepting it,” he noted.

Turning to regional dynamics, Friedman addressed Israel’s current absence from active strike operations against Iran, characterizing it as a calculated move to preserve its own air defense interceptors while relying on Washington to bear the operational and political burdens of containment.

On European security and the broader alliance structure, Friedman offered a critical assessment of the NATO summit in Ankara and the administration’s “NATO 3.0” concept. He described the white paper led by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as an effort to coerce European states into escalating defense expenditures and purchasing American hardware under the threat of reduced security guarantees, rather than executing a structured, strategic US posture adjustment.

“This is not a real US withdrawal; it’s a kind of pressure to up your loyalty in a particular way,” Friedman said, noting that major European powers such as Germany, France, and the UK lack a compelling existential incentive to construct independent, large-scale conventional war-fighting capabilities.

Regarding bilateral relations with Ankara, Friedman noted that US-Turkish tensions have eased considerably following the shift in American posture in Syria and progress toward resolving long-standing friction points, including the F-35 program and S-400 procurement. He added that while Israeli leadership under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed frustration over Washington’s constructive engagement with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the White House has maintained its strategic course despite pressure from domestic pro-Israel lobbying groups.

Addressing internal Republican Party dynamics, Friedman highlighted the evolving public stance of Vice President J.D. Vance, whose cautious criticism of Israeli influence and emphasis on divergent national interests reflects broader ideological shifts within the conservative base.

“Vance is more representative of the shift in the Republican Party,” Friedman said. “He’s criticizing them in a limited way and saying, ‘Our interests are different.’ From the perspective of those of us who would like the United States to have a more distant relationship from Israel, it’s progress.”

Looking ahead to the upcoming US midterm elections, Friedman anticipated that a loss of congressional control by the Republican Party would severely curtail the administration’s domestic executive overreach, though its structural impact on foreign policy execution and Middle Eastern operations would remain comparatively limited.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham pledges full support to Ukraine in meeting with Zelenskyy

Published

6 days ago

on

28/07/2026

By

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham has met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Portsmouth, England.

Zelenskyy is the first world leader Burnham has met in person since taking office, with the prime minister committing to building a “firm partnership” between the United Kingdom and Ukraine.

Demonstrating their support, the two leaders toured a military base in Portsmouth where 200 Ukrainian troops are currently undergoing naval training exercises.

Burnham described his meeting with the Ukrainian president as “warm” and said he plans to visit Ukraine soon.

“We will build this together and address the various issues President Zelenskyy is facing, many of which we discussed today,” Burnham said.

The meeting follows an announcement by London that it will share intellectual property rights to assist Kyiv’s war effort.

The new prime minister announced that the UK will share the “Stone Cloak” electronic warfare system—which is fitted to drones to prevent detection—and will assist Ukraine in mass-producing the technology.

Burnham has focused primarily on domestic matters since replacing Keir Starmer, who faced criticism from elements within his own party for spending too much time abroad and focusing heavily on foreign affairs.

However, Burnham sought to signal continuity in Britain’s policy toward Ukraine. In one of his first phone calls after becoming prime minister last week, Burnham invited Zelenskyy to visit the UK “as soon as possible.”

Starmer spent his final full day as prime minister in Kyiv, where he announced £255 million in funding for Ukraine.

Speaking to Sky on Monday, Zelenskyy said his telephone conversation with Burnham had been “very good.”

The Ukrainian leader noted that Starmer had previously assured him that “the new government would maintain the policy of supporting Ukraine during the war.”

The new prime minister told the Ukrainian leader it was “no coincidence” that he was his first international visitor since moving into Downing Street.

“The purpose of this is to send a very clear message. We stand 100% with Ukraine, I personally stand 100% with you, and I will fully deliver on every commitment this country has made to Ukraine,” Burnham said.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey