Blair fears US action in Iran

I respect and admire Tony Blair. He has been a strong ally, as have the majority of the British people, and for this blogger that is very much appreciated. It seemed as though the Brits, along with the Aussies, got it. They knew the danger we faced. They knew what is at stake in this war. So that's why this story puzzles me. Blair has expressed concern about the US taking military action against Iran. He has stated this publicly while at the same time stating that military action should not be considered. Interestingly enough, this is also the same day the UN announces that Iran is actually stepping UP it's nuclear program despite all the international diplomatic pressure to do otherwise. What we have is a very dangerous and complicated situation.

So let me try and simplify it. Every law abiding freedom loving human on this planet surely has to agree that allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is a bad idea. This includes France and Britain, both of which could be in reach of an Iranian long range missile capped with a nuclear warhead at the control of a schizomaniacal egotist. Anyone disagree? Okay. And I think we can all agree that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons aggressively, the UN has just announced this. You bozos who believe that this is about them getting power to run their dishwashers need to get off of it because schizomaniacal egotists have no interest in improving the quality of life of their people. Remember, this is the same guy who has openly called for Israel's anniliation, followed by America's. This is the same guy who believes he has been tasked by god to bring about armageddon. Again, letting him get nukes is a BAD IDEA.

So back to Blair's comments. I agree, along with every sane individual in this country and on this planet, that ALL diplomatic options should be pursued actively and exhausted before resorting to military action. That has always been the case. It was the case with Iraq, both times, with Vietnam and Korea, with Japan, with Spain, with Mexico, even with the Confederacy. Lincoln even promised NOT to end slavery in order to avoid war. This is the ultimate in diplomatic concessions. We have always pursued diplomatic solutions first. Nothing has changed, and it never will. The Left and Right can all agree on this, so stop arguing it, you're all right. But what we have to realize is that much of our bargaining power comes from the mere possibility of our military might. Once you say "take it off the table" then you've just flushed all possible hope of achieving a diplomatic solution. It's the proverbial "shoot yourself in the foot" scenario. Iran wants nukes, badly. They will not give in to diplomatic pressure unless that pressure is backed with the threat of military action. If we say give up your nukes or else something will happen but it won't be a military attack, then we'll be laughed out of Tehran. It was TR who said walk softly and carry a big stick. They won't listen to us if we put the stick down.

If Iraq helped with anything, it showed that we ARE willing to back up our demands with military action if needed. It showed that we may NOT be the paper tiger they think we are. If nothing else it gave us a little bargaining power to stop Iran and other lunatics from getting nukes, but now we don't even have that because every Democrat, many of Bush's staff and now even the Brits are saying the military option is not an option. Folks, we've already lost the negotiation. Now that we've taken the military option away we're doomed to an even worse eventual military conflict, only now it's more likely to start with a preemptive Iranian nuclear strike. If we want to avoid war, we have to at least appear to not fear it. THAT'S what helped bring down the Soviet Union. Even JFK knew this and applied it brilliantly during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If we look like we don't have the guts to back up what we say, then what we say instantly becomes meaningless. Stop me if I'm using a little too much common sense.

The Iraq War was brought about in large part because most of the UN was saying the military option is not an option. Hussein called their bluff, and now we're the ones labeled as war mongers. Now, Iran is repeating the exact same scenario and instead of telling Ahmadinejad that he will suffer the same fate as Hussein, we tell him that we aren't willing to go through with it. How insane is this? Do we just want to see what he'll do with the bomb? Hasn't he already told us what he'll do with it? This will likely be a moot point because I honestly believe we have already failed with Iran. We have ruined any chance we had at achieving a peaceful diplomatic solution to the problem. I honestly believe that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons. What I don't know, and what I fear, is what happens next? Does anyone have the guts to answer that?