We were supposed to have learned the lessons of the
The target is of course
The echoes of the run-up to the invasion of
As in the case of
In case anyone missed the parallels, Tony Blair hammered them home at the
In a timely demonstration that neoconservatism is alive and well and living in London, Blair attempted to use the fact that Iraq had no WMD as part of a case for taking the same approach against Iran. Perceived intention and potential capability were enough to justify war, it turned out. Mentioning Iran 58 times, he explained that the need to "deal" with
You might think that the views of a man that 37% of British people now believe should be put on trial for war crimes would be treated with contempt. But Blair remains the Middle East envoy of the Quartet – the US, UN, EU and Russia – even as he pockets £1m a year from a UAE investment fund currently negotiating a slice of the profits from the exploitation of Iraqi oil reserves.
Nor is he alone in pressing the case for war on
The reality is that such an attack would be potentially even more devastating than the aggression against
Iran is a divided authoritarian state, now cracking down harshly on the opposition. But it is not a dictatorship in the Saddam Hussein mould. Unlike
Nor has the UN nuclear agency, the IAEA, found any evidence that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, while the US's own national intelligence estimate found that suspected work on a weapons programme had stopped in 2003, though that may now be adjusted in the new climate. Iran's leadership has long insisted it does not want nuclear weapons, even while many suspect it may be trying to become a threshold nuclear power, able to produce weapons if threatened. Given the recent history of the region, that would hardly be surprising.