Sir Tony Blair, a former UK prime minister of over a decade, was renowned for his adeptness at political compromise.
He navigated the center ground with skill, deftly maneuvering beyond traditional left-right divides.
However, in the event of a Gaza peace accord, and should he be called upon to govern the region, would even the famously resilient Blair possess the political acumen to satisfy all factions and maintain stability?
His potential role remains undefined. Donald Trump’s proposed 20-point peace plan involves an international transitional entity to oversee post-war Gaza’s governance.
The US president would chair this “Board of Peace,” with the 72-year-old Blair serving as a member. Trump described him to reporters as a “good man, very good man.”
Blair’s potential involvement is hardly surprising.
The former prime minister has been actively involved in formulating Gaza peace proposals for months, collaborating with Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, and Ron Dermer, a key advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Blair attended a high-level meeting with Trump at the White House in August to discuss a post-war strategy for Gaza.
Prior to that, he engaged in talks with Steve Witkoff, the president’s chief envoy, at the White House.
Blair issued a statement lauding the Trump plan as “bold and intelligent,” deeming it “the best chance of ending two years of war, misery and suffering.”
He asserted that the proposals presented an opportunity not only for “Israelis and Palestinians finding a path to peace” but also for “a broader regional and global alliance to counter the forces of extremism and promote peace and prosperity between nations.”
This aspiration has been a focal point of Blair’s efforts for decades, across various roles.
As prime minister from 1997, he supported the Clinton administration’s peace initiatives in the region.
Upon leaving office in June 2007, he was appointed special envoy for the Quartet – representing the US, Russia, the EU, and the UN – tasked with coordinating peace efforts, a position he held until 2015.
Supporters maintain that his role within the Quartet was focused on economic development, excluding him from the political process.
Since then, his business ventures and the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change have maintained his engagement in the region.
Diplomats suggest that Blair’s unique position stems from his trust within the Trump administration, his extensive network in the Middle East, and his long-standing experience dealing with both Israeli and Palestinian leadership.
Nick Hopton, director general of the Middle East Association, suggested Blair was the only Western leader one could imagine taking the role, adding, “He’s got the credibility and experience having been embroiled in the Middle East for 24 years.”
“But it will work only if he is able to have the confidence of Donald Trump and also if he is not seen as being manipulated by Benjamin Netanyahu. He also needs to demonstrate he has the confidence of the Palestinian Authority leadership.”
However, Blair’s involvement would come with significant baggage.
He remains a divisive figure for many.
His role in the 2003 Iraq invasion, based on inaccurate intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction, continues to stain his reputation in the region and has led to accusations of war crimes.
Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur on rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, stated bluntly, “Tony Blair? Hell no. Hands off Palestine,” adding, “Shall we meet in The Hague perhaps?”, a reference to the location of the International Criminal Court.
Sir Simon Fraser, former head of the UK Foreign Office, acknowledged Blair’s genuine interest in the Palestinian issue and his trust in Washington, Israel, and the Gulf. “But the Arab street has not forgotten Iraq,” he cautioned.
“The future oversight of Gaza needs a broader base and cannot look like an American/British enterprise.”
Hamas expressed reservations. Husam Badran, a member of the group’s political bureau, argued that Blair should be on trial for the Iraq invasion, not administering Gaza, adding, “Any plan linked to Blair is an ill omen.”
Some Palestinians view Blair as historically aligned with Israeli and US positions. Nomi Bar-Yaacov, a former international peace negotiator, stated, “I don’t think the Palestinians trust him at all. I think they view him as a colossal failure during the time that he was the Quartet envoy.”
Even UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, while praising the Trump peace plan in his Labour conference speech, made no mention of Blair’s potential role.
As Middle East peace envoy for eight years, Blair was tasked with strengthening the Palestinian Authority to prepare it for governing a Palestinian state. Few would argue that the PA is currently in such a state.
Palestinians contend that he did not adequately address illegal settlements and settler violence, and that he should have prioritized Palestinian statehood over economic development.
A key question is why Blair remains committed to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has long viewed himself as a peacemaker, particularly after his success in negotiating the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.
As a political correspondent during Blair’s time in power, I observed his persistent refusal to accept that he might have failed to persuade someone of his viewpoint. The Middle East may be seen by Blair as unfinished business.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting told PA Media Blair’s role would “raise eyebrows” because of the Iraq war and said he had an “incredible legacy” in Northern Ireland of building peace that lasted. “If he can bring that skill set to bear in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the support of Israelis, Palestinians and other regional powers, then so much the better,” Mr Streeting said.
Ultimately, Blair’s role is secondary to the peace plan’s success, which remains uncertain. The unresolved differences between both sides and the details yet to be finalized by the White House are far more critical.
Sanam Vakil, Middle East programme director at the Chatham House think tank, observed: “The focus on Tony Blair and his legacy of western intervention in Iraq masks the real challenges of this peace framework that lacks details, timelines and deliverables – and does not yet have Palestinian or Israeli buy-in, let alone leadership.”
“Without significant work to move beyond 20 points on a piece of paper, this plan will be another version of cosmetic diplomacy that embeds structural injustice and deprives Palestinians of agency and sovereignty.”
Therefore, the focus should shift from the psychodrama surrounding Blair and the opinions surrounding him to the role of any transitional authority in Gaza and whether Blair possesses the necessary skills and experience.
Coordinating with Gulf leaders and the White House is one task; effectively governing Gaza, overseeing its reconstruction, security, and economic development, is another. As one diplomat texted, “Viceroy Blair? That will never wash.”
BBC Verify analyses President Trump’s peace plan for Gaza and what it means on the ground.
A senior Hamas figure told the BBC the group is likely to reject Trump’s Gaza peace plan, saying it “serves Israel’s interests”.
Donald Trump hosted a phone call between the Israeli and Qatari PMs to ease tensions after Israel’s air strike on Hamas chiefs in Doha three weeks ago.
The former UK prime minister is the first named member of a new “Board of Peace” chaired by Donald Trump.
Donald Trump says if Hamas rejects the plan, Israel will have US backing to “finish the job of destroying the threat” from the armed group.