Read Mark Steyn on Iran, if only to see how he works in,
How do you solve a problem? Like, Sharia.
Then:
Nukes don’t nuke nations. Nations nuke nations. When the Argentine junta seized British sovereign territory in the Falklands, the generals knew that the United Kingdom was a nuclear power, but they also knew that under no conceivable scenario would Her Majesty’s Government drop the big one on Buenos Aires. The Argie generals were able to assume decency on the part of the enemy, which is a useful thing to be able to do. But in any contretemps with Iran the other party would be foolish to make a similar assumption. That will mean the contretemps will generally be resolved in Iran’s favor.
Then he explains how we've come to this pass by trying to fit Iran into an East-West Cold War paradigm. Read it. There's too much to excerpt. And then come back and read about a British MP complains that in the face of this, all his country can think to do is worry how we'll react.
What’s wrong with us in a nutshell. A series to be continued. Item one. Iran sponsors terrorism, and its leadership is pledged to the elimination of another nation. It’s trying to acquire a nuclear weapon. Its leaders explain that the Holocaust never happened. But, never mind, they’re going to make good where the Nazis left off by obliterating the Jewish people. Meanwhile, the American President asks his top team what can be done to stop this. And then the entire media-political consensus allocates their time not to analysing Iran but to worrying about what America might do. Moral? The key to being respected in British life, when faced with any tough question, is always blame George Bush.
Curtsy to ninme, who entitled her post on this latter topic, "Can't see the forest for the Bushes."
