The prospect of Tony Blair heading a post-war authority in Gaza has revived memories of the Iraq invasion and the West’s disastrous Middle East interventionism
The prospect of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair heading a temporary international administration in Gaza has reignited fierce debate across the Arab world, with critics drawing parallels to the disastrous US occupation of Iraq two decades ago, of which Blair was one of the chief architects.
The proposal, part of a broader American plan to reshape the Palestinian landscape after the war, could see Blair lead an interim authority in Gaza for up to five years.
Hamas has given preliminary approval to elements of the plan on Saturday, though the arrangement remains under negotiation.
Still, observers view it as a continuation of the Anglo-American partnership in engineering Middle Eastern crises, with some warning that it represents an attempt to revive Britain’s colonial project in Palestine.
The White House released the proposal in late September, just days before the second anniversary of the war in Gaza, which has devastated much of the enclave, killed more than 60,000 people, and displaced millions.
Gaza, in the context of Trump’s plan, would be governed by “a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee,” though it does not identify any Palestinian individual or group by name as being involved in the transition.
Hamas is explicitly excluded from participation in Gaza’s governance under this framework, though the group has given preliminary approval to some provisions, including the release of hostages and bodies.
A continuation of the same policies
Iraqi political analyst Hamza Mustafa argues that the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza since 7 October has paved the way for “a new reality” that aims to place the territory under international administration led by Blair, who was President George W. Bush’s political partner in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“What is happening now mirrors the continuation of the same policies the United States and Britain enforced in Iraq, where they placed Paul Bremer at the head of the transitional authority following the invasion,” Mustafa said.
“Blair is now returning to the Middle East through Gaza to assume an interim administration of the territory, which could extend for about five years.”
The move reflects the continuing “American-British partnership in managing Middle Eastern crises and liquidating fundamental issues in the region,” he contends, warning that if implemented, the proposal would amount to a decisive step toward the comprehensive liquidation of the Palestinian cause.
“The proposed international administration of Gaza would effectively weaken the Palestinian Authority and strip the recognition of a Palestinian state of its real meaning, even though many countries, including Britain, have officially recognised it,” Mustafa explains.
He warns that any delay or disagreement over details could be exploited by Washington and Tel Aviv to justify accusations that Hamas is not committed, despite the group’s preliminary acceptance of certain provisions.
Blair’s Middle East network
Ghazi Faisal of the Iraqi Centre for Strategic Studies identifies Blair as a figure strongly aligned with the US, reflecting the deep strategic partnership between the two nations.
He points to Blair’s significant Middle East expertise, built through his role with the international Quartet and his broad network of contacts among Arab and Gulf leaders, especially in Saudi Arabia.
This engagement has continued post-premiership via the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, through which Blair advises international clients such as JPMorgan Chase and Saudi governmental entities.
“Trump’s plan was preceded by a key meeting that included President Trump, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Blair, during which the broad outlines of the initiative were drawn up,” Faisal said. “Blair emerged as a central partner in the plan.”
From an American, British, and overall European perspective, Faisal argues, Blair is viewed as “a suitable figure” to manage a temporary administration of Gaza during a transitional phase that would address various challenges, paving the way for establishing a government and civil authority after Hamas relinquishes its political and military power.
“Blair represents the natural extension of Western policy and strategy in the region and may play a pivotal role in implementing the American-British vision toward Gaza, amid new transformations in the Palestinian file,” he said, noting this comes as indirect negotiations proceed in Cairo between Hamas and Israel, and with recognition by several European countries of a Palestinian state.
Yet Blair’s suitability for such a role remains deeply contested, given his record in Iraq. He faced repeated accusations of misleading British public opinion regarding the justifications for the war, especially regarding Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, a pretext later proven false.
During the occupation period, policies supported by his government caused the collapse of Iraqi state institutions and the disintegration of social and security structures, leading to an unprecedented wave of sectarian violence and the birth of extremist organisations, most notably Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which later paved the way for the emergence of the Islamic State (IS).
In Britain, the Iraq war marked a political and moral turning point in Blair’s career. A parliamentary inquiry commission concluded in 2016 that the decision to engage in the war was made before peaceful means were exhausted, and that preparations for the post-regime phase were inadequate and unstudied.
Political researcher Aed al-Hilali argues that despite Blair’s media and diplomatic presence, he remains a controversial and potentially ill-suited choice for Gaza given this political record.
“The first thing that makes Blair unsuitable is his loss of credibility in the Arab street,” Hilali contends. “His role in invading Iraq alongside the United States led to widespread destruction and the collapse of state institutions and social fabric, creating a deep sense of distrust toward him.”
Any attempt by Blair to mediate in Gaza will therefore be received with suspicion, Hilali warns, not only because of his Iraqi experience but also because of his declared bias toward Israel at various stages of his career.
A failed precedent
Blair’s tenure as envoy for the Quartet for Middle East Peace between 2007 and 2015 offers another cautionary tale. Hilali characterises that period as one that “did not achieve any real breakthrough in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Rather, his presence seemed closer to a cosmetic role, giving the impression of movement without achieving tangible results”.
Politically, he says, Blair tends toward pragmatic solutions that often overlook human rights under the pretext of realism.
“In Gaza’s case, this means any proposals he adopts will seek more to ensure Israel’s security and regional stability according to a Western vision, without addressing the root causes of the crisis represented by occupation and siege,” Hilali says.
“His closeness to Washington and his history with Western decision makers make him closer to being a representative of those capitals’ interests rather than an honest mediator.”
Regarding Middle Eastern stability, Hilali argues that Blair’s return to the scene will only add more controversy.
“The region needs mediators who possess a record of neutrality and the ability to build trust, which he completely lacks,” he said.
“Assigning him any role in Gaza may exacerbate division and give parties opposed to the settlement process an additional justification to question the seriousness of international efforts.”
The proposed arrangement echoes historical precedents that continue to shape Palestinian anxieties.
Political analyst Nizar Haidar notes that the American plan effectively “returns the Palestinian issue to square one,” recalling a British proposal after World War I – the Peel Commission – in which Palestine would have been divided into three parts: a Palestinian state, an Israeli state, and a third area under British mandate.
When the Zionist movement accepted the United Nations Partition Plan in 1947, and Palestinians and Arab states rejected it, the state of Israel was established in 1948, leading to the mass expulsion and ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Palestinians in what they refer to as the ‘Nakba’, or catastrophe.
Israel has occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights since 1967.
Haidar argues that Blair’s proposed role can be seen as part of this “long-standing British engagement in the region,” particularly significant given that the first promise to establish a national home for Jews in Palestine was made by British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour in the early 20th century.