Spring is here and it's a truly beautiful Sunday morning. The sea is glinting in the sunlight, birds are singing in the garden, and the flowers are forcing their way through the slowly warming soil. One really wishes the reports relating to contingency plans to attack Iran were totally unfounded, could easily be dismissed, and that nothing could be further from the truth: unfortunately, I don't think they are. But who knows, maybe we'll get lucky and somehow avoid disaster. Maybe aliens will land on the Whitehouse lawn?

In my opinion the number one question we're going to face during the next year or two, is how do we stop an attack on Iran. Forget global meltdown and Peak Oil for a bit, these things are threats we face in the future. Iran is far more of an 'immediate concern' and could bring on the effects of Peak Oil far quicker than actually 'running out of oil' ever could.

What worries me, is that the current Bush administration has a great deal of support for taking some sort of action against Iran, especially in Congress, and not just in the Republican group. I seem to remember hearing various politicians stating that waiting and allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is a greater threat/risk, than taking action, before it's too late. This of course in a question of 'balance' and relatively small things can upset or sway such a balance.

There is also the 'Israeli equation.' What happens if Israel decides to lauch an attack on Iran? Is that worse or better for the US? Is attacking the nuclear facilities enough? Isn't 'regime change' in Iran the only viable and long-term solution to the Iranian question? These are difficult and complicated questions.

Perhaps Tony Blair could even stop such an attack. Let's imagine that literally threw himself into campaigning against an attack, with the same energy and vigour that he used to justify the war with Iraq. By doing this he might even wipe-out the stain on his reputation, save his legacy and secure his place in history. Surely this would be the kind of challange he loves, once more at the centre of the world stage, travelling from country to country, city to city, and speaking to millions at anti-war demonstrations. His rhetorical skills, and flowing words, mezmerising the adoring crowds, maybe even flanked by Bono and Sting holding guitars! Could he do it, could he swing the American people behind an anti-war stance? I think he just might pull it off. If only an angel would whisper in his ear!

If I was him, I'd go for it, and definitively break with Bush. I fear though that his gone too far down the road to perdition, and redemtion, is well nigh impossible.

Perhaps I should have added that stopping Iraq sliding into full-scale civil war, leading to to a wider regional conflict is also an enormous problem, requiring the skill, intelligence, and wisdom, of a Solomon to stop it happening.
Without Peak Oil, we'd have no need to attack Iran. If there were plenty of oil to go around for another decade, these sabres wouldnt be rattling.
Except that Israel is dictating to us that we go to war- a minor point.
You do realize that by "naming the Jew", you are being antisemitic, which is the most immoral thing you could possibly ever be? Shame, tsk, etc.
Arabs are Semites, too, and thus if you are anti-Arab you are also anti-Semitic.

As for myself, I am for the human race.


You might get in trouble for that too.
There's anti-semitism and then there's anti-Semitism :-)
If there was no oil in the Middle East, we would have about as many soldiers there as we do at the North Pole.