After some months in respite, the Chilcot Inquiry commenced again in January 2011. Somewhat rapidly for an inquiry widely derided as an establishment whitewash, it called Tony Blair to the dock for a second time to clarify various statements made by him and indiscrepancies with statements made by others – most notably Lord Goldsmith, the then Attorney General. Words & Pics: Will Jobbins

It takes a certain level of determination to sit through a four hour stint of listening to this tanned, well-groomed man justify himself. Lyrically he is as nimble as ever; the famed Blair silk tongue dancing around the panel’s clunking, functional questions and he speaks confidently and earnestly of his self-belief.

It would be easy to believe that, whether right or wrong, Blair took the decision to invade extremely seriously and that his reasoning, whether flawed or not, may at least have been genuine. He may even have honestly believed he was doing ‘the right thing’. But, as always, the damnation is in the details and so, through a haze of charm, doubletalk and the judicious use of that chilling rictus grin, it became clear that Blair was on the back foot.

He did nothing to alleviate suspicions that he knowingly misled Parliament – and, of course, the population of this country – in building support for the Iraq invasion through dodgy dossiers and spin, and that he ignored his Attorney General’s legal advice, branding it “provisional” before excluding Goldsmith from the decision-making process entirely.

He did nothing to counter the suspicion that he had made some sort of secret agreement, shortly before the invasion, with President Bush for unconditional military support, a hunch seemingly reinforced by the refusal of Number Ten to declassify the memos relating to this conversation – a cynical move that appeared to infuriate Sir Chilcot and the rest of the panel as much as anyone else. And of course, a hunch which is all but consummated by the revelations, via WikiLeaks, that the Labour Government had actually promised to protect the US during the Chilcot Inquiry. Jon Day, MoD director general for security policy, informed Ellen Tauscher, US under-secretary of state, that the UK had "put measures in place to protect your interests during the UK inquiry into the causes of the Iraq war". (link - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-chilcot-iraq-war-inquiry )

And he did nothing to justify his colossal misjudgement of the post-invasion situation in Iraq, where his lack of forethought saw the country implode under a power vacuum in which various ethnic groups and insurgent organisations fought for power. And indeed, eight years later, they still do, resulting in massive, tragic humanitarian consequences and a country that barely staggers to its feet, only to be knocked down again in a maelstrom of bombings and infighting.

In fact there was only one thing that Blair was consistent and clear about – his opinions on Iran. One would expect a man already responsible for two wars, who has been placed in front of a panel of legal experts to analyse the extremely shaky case for his most recent, to exercise at least a little restraint, but the former Prime Minister – and the current Middle East Peace Envoy, of all things – instead beat the war drums for military action against Tehran, for all the world as if he were still the Prime Minister himself, and he beat them long and hard.

Only this week, the evidence of Blair and Campbell on the formation of the notorious 'dodgy dossier' was apparently contradicted by Major General Michael Laurie, a top British intelligence official during the run-up to war. Laurie stated: 

"We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care."