Few were surprised, as he was ordained by his Texan friend to be the quartet's special envoy to the Middle East. Blair's unquestionable ability apart, the high profile appointment is ostensibly a reward for his tenacious loyalty to President Bush in the face of massive disapproval at home and abroad of the war they together waged to destroy "Radical Islam" and configure anew the greater Middle East.

Apparently, with Blair, his close confidante, on the spot, George W. Bush wants to step into the crucial endgame of their still unaccomplished mission. On his part, Blair couldn't be happier, because it's the job he looked for. So far so good.

In a joint announcement last week, the US, UN, EU and Russia confirmed that Blair would be adopting this role with immediate effect, and the entire Arab world heard askance that this man -- given his despicable role with regard to the Middle East -- would be the peace envoy in the region.

Barring the guarded welcome by an almost non-entity like Mahmoud Abbas, the US Israeli backed president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), no Arab leader has so far welcomed Tony Blair's appointment as the Quartet's envoy for the Middle East. The more popular Hamas has rejected Blair's new role outright.

The media, from the Gulf to the Atlantic, doubted that a man so closely identified with the US neo-conservative agenda could play the role of an honest broker. The most enthusiastic reaction has, however, come from Israel, while the US has welcomed what is obviously its own decision.

In the meantime mixed messages emanate from the Western press. A report in The New York Times suggested that President Bush wanted Blair to work on behalf of the quartet to help the PA president build the institutions and apparatus of a viable state. But neither the quartet's brief nor the White House's statement speak of an Israeli withdrawal or of a sovereign Palestinian state.

In fact, the quartet is long dead because its idea and existence was associated with the "Road Map" unveiled by President Bush in 2003, but the president himself sabotaged it by saying that the 2005 deadline for the emergence of a Palestinian state was unrealistic.

The prestigious German weekly, Der Spiegel, disclosed that the German Foreign Office had not been informed of the plans to nominate Tony Blair for the post, even though German Foreign Minister, Steinmier, currently represents EU in the quartet. Russia is reported to have only grudgingly accepted the appointment.

On the issue of Blair's new role, the harshest comment has come from Britain itself. Writing in the Independent, Robert Fisk felt overwhelmed at the news that "this vain, deceitful man, the proven liar, and a trumped-up lawyer, who had the blood of thousands of Arab men, women and children on his hands, is really contemplating being our Middle East envoy." Saying that Blair was totally discredited in the region, Fisk finds him as a politician who signally failed is everything he had ever tried to do in the Middle East.

Reflecting on the Arab perspective, Soumaya Ghanoush wrote in the Guardian that in the Middle East Blair's name was associated with catastrophe, and the inferno he helped create in Iraq. "For that is," Ghanoush reminded the readers, "exactly what Iraq is today whatever Blair may think, shrouded in a cocoon of hubris as he is. But he has no idea of how deeply loathed he is in the region to which he wishes to be dispatched as peace envoy."

Tony Blair is undoubtedly a gifted man and can, like Bill Clinton, fit in any national or international role. Yet he asked for President Bush's support for the Middle East assignment. It would be interesting to know why. There can be several explanations.

One, he may still be determined to fight radical Islam which hurt him badly. He had to leave office with a flawed legacy largely because of the decisions he took with regard to two Muslim countries.

In building up the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq he is known to have traveled 40,000 miles and attended 54 meetings with other world leaders. The occupation of both the countries is among his pet projects. Two, he may be nourishing a desire to redeem himself by doing some good -- something for which there are few takers, because his regrettable role in delaying a ceasefire in Lebanon has resulted in a cynical view of his approach.

Then what exactly were the mainsprings of his passion for going whole hog with the invasion of two Muslim countries? A popular, essentially secular, version attributes it to his fascination with an imperial reordering of the world. Yet, only a year ago Simon Jenkins surmised that the hidden premise of Blair's position is that British and American troops must, by definition, be a blessing to any nation they occupy.

It is essentially the same mind-set that made Ms Albright maintain that the deaths of a million Iraqi children due to US-sponsored UN sanctions was worth the cost, and make Ms Rice maintain that, notwithstanding half a million Iraqi deaths and displacements since the 2003 invasion, Iraq today is better off than it was under Saddam Hussain.

According to another version, the dynamic that drives Blair beyond imperialist illusions may be a religious/ideological factor Blair shares with Bush. As Blair became increasingly concerned about his legacy as a consequence of the wars he co-initiated with Bush, he became an exponent and defender of global values threatened by political Islam.

No wonder that Blair has so little resonance with Muslims, and that during his diplomatic journey to the Middle East his efforts to mobilise Arabs against Iran, and to blame Hamas for obstructing a two-state solution of the Palestinian issue, made hardly any impact.

He becomes an envoy to the Middle East at a time when there is a clear option between an honourable and comprehensive settlement, and wars of greater intensity. The Arab world will keenly watch which of the two categories fits his new role -- peacemaker or war monger?

Brig ( retd) Hafiz is former DG of BIISS.