Tony Blair and the judgment of history

Tony Blair’s interview with CNN about the Iraq war has been interpreted in some quarters as an apology for the invasion more than 12 years ago. It was nothing of the sort: this was not the former prime minister’s “Frost/ Nixon” moment. Indeed, he does not feel that he needs one because he remains convinced that his actions were correct in the circumstances.

While he was sorry that the intelligence on which the decision was made was flawed, and he lamented “mistakes” made subsequently, he does not resile from the decision he made to commit UK forces to the conflict. “I find it hard to apologise for removing Saddam,” he said.

But while toppling the Iraqi dictator was the inevitable consequence of the 2003 operation led by America and Britain, it was not its rationale. Mr Blair consistently told MPs that the reason for backing George W Bush’s action against Iraq was to uphold the rule of international law because Saddam had refused to abide by UN resolutions on the inspection of weapons of mass destruction.

However, we know – and Mr Blair conceded as much in evidence given to the Chilcot inquiry four years ago – that he had already pledged to support President Bush come what may at least a year before the invasion. Emails released by former secretary of state Hillary Clinton confirm this.

So what, then, are we to make of Mr Blair’s interview and its timing? Later this week, Sir John Chilcot will finally present a timetable for publishing his long-delayed report. Mr Blair – who as the principal protagonist will have already seen those sections critical of him – is making sure the political ground has been prepared for the fight to defend his reputation.

It would seem, from the CNN interview, that the former prime minister is expecting to be criticised over failures of post-invasion planning and is also anticipating a connection being made between the collapse of Iraq into sectarian civil war and the rise of Isil extremists. Mr Blair said that Iraq might have gone the same way as Syria had Saddam remained in charge because of the forces unleashed by the “Arab Spring”.

But this is to write his own alternative history of what might have happened had he not taken certain decisions. Mr Blair needs to justify what actually occurred, not what didn’t. He told CNN he was prepared for the judgment of history. He won’t have long to wait.