Tony Blair’s overtures to Syria look generous after the assassination of Pierre Gemayel, in which, despite the denials from Damascus, it must be a prime suspect.

So does his assertion that governments outside the region can do much at the moment to bring it stability. That is not to decry the effort; better that than the neglect which the United States, for one, has shown in the past few years.

But Syria and Iran — and even Iraq — are moving quickly to shape the region’s future, regardless of what Britain or the US might want.

In timing and motive, Damascus or its allies in Hezbollah top the list of suspects. Gemayel, an outspoken critic of Syria’s interference in Lebanon, was one of the Cabinet members who voted to press on with the United Nations investigation into the assassination of the former Prime Minister

Rafik Hariri. That passed on Monday by a narrow margin, and Gemayel’s death takes the Cabinet one member closer towards collapse — surely the purpose. Samir Geagea, the hard-right Christian leader, said on Friday that efforts to topple the Government could lead to assassination attempts on Cabinet ministers.

The Cabinet, and the country, are torn between the pro-Western factions, led by sympathisers of Hariri, and Hezbollah, the militant group which gets inspiration and arms from Iran and Syria. Hezbollah has tried to block the UN tribunal because it is thought likely to implicate Syria; if not the very top of the regime, then senior officials.

The US has condemned Iran and Syria for trying to undermine Lebanon’s elected Government, led by Fouad Siniora. But Mr Blair has tried an exploratory approach, sending Sir Nigel Sheinwald, his adviser, to Damascus to sound out the chances of co-operation on Iraq. Mr Blair has also pressed the US to talk to Syria and Iran about how to end Iraq’s violence. Syria, he suggested, was the better target, given the dispute over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It has long been a Western dream to tempt Syria away from its informal alliance with Iran and into the Arab fold.

Yesterday, before the Gemayel murder, Mr Blair praised Syria for sending Walid al-Moualem, the Foreign Minister, to Baghdad, as the two countries restored relations after 25 years. “The very thing that we have been seeking is to ensure that Syria becomes a help to Iraq,” he said.

Is he so sure that this move will be helpful? Even if it did help the Shia-led Government in Baghdad, why should that help Britain and the US? There is logic in saying that the support of Iran and Syria is needed to bring stability — but only because there is such good evidence that both have been helping to keep the violence on the boil, to discomfit the US and to boost their supporters.

Even if they could now turn down the heat — a big assumption, as the violence has taken on its own momentum — they will still want to promote their own interests.

The US strategy in Iraq has assumed that Baghdad shares its aims. But there is more evidence by the day, as it fails to clamp down on militias, that it doesn’t.

Mr Blair, the great communicator, should not assume that dialogue is always helpful — or that if Iraq and Syria find common cause, it will help him. Yesterday was a reminder of how hostile Syria and its sympathisers may be.

Times Recommends

• Times Christmas appeal: Letter from the Editor
• Conferences — what a waste of money
• Schools supremo learns a painful lesson