This is supposed to be the Times, the pinnacle of British journalism and we get some pie-in-the-sky fantasist who thinks that Northern Ireland and the Iraq situation have anything in common apart from the superficial appearance of being a religious civil war. The circumstances and backgrounds are utterly different. This is naivety of the highest order.

phil, london, uk

Tony's the man for the job! A grinning fool on a fool's errand.

Jay Gelman, Baltimore, MD

Was it a good idea to ask the Ireland correspondent to write about Tony Blair in the Middle East? Tony Blair will never succeed as Bush's envoy (and I say Bush's envoy, rather than that of the "Quartet", because that is what he will be) in the Middle East. He is hopelessly discredited among Arabs. In fact he is so discredited, that even Bush must be aware of it. I conclude therefore that some other plan is afoot. My guess is that what is wanted is "continue the war", until Israel arrives at a better chance of subduing the Palestinians, and the US arrives at the supposed "victory" in Iraq. That is, the Iraqis accepting a continuing occupation for 50 years on the South Korean model. It is pie-in-the-sky stuff. I would think Blair will come out of the envoy role with his reputation much diminished. Either he is completely blind to what is coming (a possibility - he is a complete egotist), or as one has always wondered: do the US have something on him, with which they can blackmail him.

Alex, Paris, France

Yes, I agree, Blair has the core skills and attributes for the job. What Mr. Blair does NOT have, though, is any credibility in the middle east. Here stands a man with much blood on his hands, and one that cannot be seen to be an impartial player in the region. He is beholden to Israeli and US/Euro oil interests, and has been involved in war crimes against humanity. This is a terrible resume for a peace envoy.

Yes, he was useful on the Irish agreement, but his relative position to Bush (good buddies) leaves him wanting severely in regard to being of any use to peace in the middle east. My guess is that he will create more division in the region, and waste more time as his allies seek to get even more advantage from the situation.

Mark Braun, Sarnia, Ontario, Canada

Having no way to leave this comment for PM Blair, I leave it here, in hopes that he may see it.

I have been thankful for a good friend for my country during the years of PM Blair's term of office, whether in times of liberal control of my country or in the recent time of conservative control. I thank him and the people of England for that, wish both well, and ask GOD to bless you all.

Fred Harwell,II, Houston, Texas, USA

I fail to see how anyone can think Bush's poodle is going to bring peace to the Middle East. The only person hated more is Bush. Assigning Blair as MidEast envoy is a farce.

Tai von Ble, Herndon,

Mr Blair's credentials as middle east peace maker are absolutely ZERO He commands no respect but rather is held in contempt in the Arab street
This peace maker role should be assigned to some one held in highest regard by both the sides I think the ideal person for that would be the former Irish President Mrs Mary Robinson

Jaseem Siddiqui, Castlebar, Ireland

An optimistic but startling naive analysis. Any comparison with Northern Ireland is ridiculous. In the mideast conflict, you have two peoples that have never lived together, speak different languages, do not want to live together but apart from each other, have different religions (neither of which is "forgive-and-forget" christianity), different value systems and whose central conflict is the Temple Mount itself where Jewish aspirations of rebuilding the temple are in direct and mutually exclusive with Islamic aspirations to hold sway over the existing precise same area of land.

Ian, London, UK

I would like to see Blair put these good 'skills' to use in the Middle East but I fear that if he doesn't manage to pull this off (which, even if he does, it will undoubtedly take a fairly long time) he will be condemned further by his critics. Blair is out of favour; whatever he does at this point will do little more than redeem himself.

That said, it seems ironic to send over Blair to the Middle East when it was he who decided to go to war with Iraq.

I know my parents thought they'd never see the day where the Irish dispute was dissolved, and they were shaking hands, but Blair did it. Can he do this too? That remains to be seen. I wish him the best of luck, for this can only make things better, surely?

Amber, Stevenage,