A War With Iran Will Happen By Summer....

As I have written before, it appears as if confronting Iran strongly looks increasingly likely since Europe is dithering away time with useless diplomacy. In fact, Iran is playing the hapless Europeans for time since they are so convinced that they can actually achieve something. Despite the troubles with appeasement in Europe's past, where it arguably caused deeper long-term trouble with Nazi Germany, Europeans continue to put their faith in the silly belief that irrational people can be dealt with on rational terms. Without military might to back up diplomacy, who will ever take it seriously?

Neville Chamberlain, as with many in Europe who had witnessed the horrors of the First World War and its aftermath, was committed to peace at almost any price. Across the political spectrum in the major Western Democracies, there was a sense that war could, and should, be avoided by concession, negotiation and compromise. The theory was that dictatorships arose where peoples had grievances, and that by removing the source of these grievances, the dictatorship would become less aggressive. Chamberlain, as even his political detractors admitted, was an honourable man, raised in the old school of European politics. It was his misfortune, and Britain's, that the imperial rules and aristocratic norms in which he believed were, indeed, anachronistic. His attempts to deal with Nazi Germany through diplomatic channels and to quell any sign of dissent from within, particularly from Churchill, were called by Chamberlain "The general policy of appeasement" (June 7, 1934).

A good man that believed in people...

Chamberlain believed passionately in peace for many reasons (most of which are discussed here), thinking it his job as Britain's leader to maintain stability in Europe; like many people in Britain and elsewhere, he thought that the best way to deal with Germany's belligerence was to treat it with kindness and meet its demands. He also believed that the leaders of men are essentially rational beings, and that Hitler must necessarily be rational as well.

I too believe in people but I don;t believe that these crazy ayatollahs have the best interests in peace and of people in mind.

Is it in the best interest of your people if Iran get nuclear capabilities? Are you comfortable with that prospect? Is the IAEA really on top of the situation?

The International Atomic Energy Agency has found no "smoking gun" in Iran that would indicate a nuclear weapons program, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the IAEA, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday. At the same time, however, he acknowledged that, until three years ago, Teheran maintained an undeclared nuclear program for 18 years, which the IAEA failed to detect.

And this piece lays out in Officer's Club, a theory that Israel will be forced to attack Iranian nuclear capabilities before long and Natanyahu will be the one to do it....

Also today, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (widely expected to replace Ariel Sharon as head of the Likud Party in elections next month) asserted that he would "not hesitate" to strike Iran as Prime Minister.

And if Israel attacks, the US will be lumped in as accomplices and so may-as-well participate so that the job is done correctly.

And Iran is now run by a madman and a bunch of insane Ayatollahs...

Thousands of Iranians staged anti-Israel protests across the country Friday and repeated calls by their ultraconservative president demanding the Jewish state's destruction.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- marching with the protesters -- signaled he stood by his remarks, even as Iranian officials tried to defuse the issue.

"My word is the same as that of (the) Iranian nation," he told the official IRAN news agency.

I have written about the new President in Iran. He will prove to be a big problem for the sane world not too long from now.

So, I figure that there will be a conflict in Iran sometime the summer of 2006.