To Attack Iran, Or Not?

As British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw postures publicly against the use of force in the Iranian nuke issue, behind the scenes necessary measures to eliminate the threat those nukes would present if acquired. In the CNN.com piece, there is this:


"British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp., called the idea of a nuclear strike ``completely nuts.''

Straw said Britain would not launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran and he was as ``certain as he could be'' that neither would the U.S. He said he has a high suspicion that Iran is developing a civil nuclear capability that in turn could be used for nuclear weapons, but there is ``no smoking gun'' to prove it and rationalize abandoning the plodding diplomatic process.

``The reason why we're opposed to military action is because it's an infinitely worse option and there's no justification for it,'' Straw said."


Mr Straw doesn't know history, or is posturing for the public.
Anybody who knows history knows that the only way a dictatorship with bad intentions can be dealt with is through the use of force, or assasination. There is no relevant example in the past of any other viable resolution to such a problem as Iran presents today, and anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming.

I'll be back

CC