Does anyone else think think is a really bad choice for a diplomatic post? How is he supposed to achieve anything if he is seen as biased towards Israel and after being the #2 person responsible for the invasion of two middle eastern countries, on one occasion against the wishes of the international community? What is the point of having a diplomatic post if you are going to fill it with someone so likely to inflame tensions?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Iran-unhappy-about-Blairs-envoy-job/2007/07/01/1183228958343.html

Iran has criticised Tony Blair's appointment as Middle East peace envoy but welcomed his successor as British prime minister, Gordon Brown.

"He did not have a good background and a good reputation in the region," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said on Sunday when asked about Blair's new post as envoy for the international Quartet.

"I doubt that this appointment would ... have a positive impact on the developments of the Middle East region," he told a news briefing.

The Quartet - the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations - appointed Blair on Wednesday, the day he stepped down after 10 years as British prime minister.

Under Blair, Britain has played a leading role in Western efforts to isolate the Islamic Republic over its disputed nuclear program. Iran denies accusations it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Britain also took part in the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Arabs have also said they doubted Blair could succeed as regional peace envoy because of his unpopularity and because he is too close to Israel and the United States.

They said Blair had little credibility in the Middle East because he took part in the invasion of Iraq, opposed an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon last year and failed to follow up on many promises to tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

after ireland i think he is a good candidate to make peace.

Quote:


Seconded.