There is little support for a US attack on Iran. The United States has taken notice and agreed to do what it once insisted it would not and has agreed to talk directly to Iran about Iraq, without preconditions. That in itself will diminish remaining support for a US strike against Iran.
What happened?
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans to sit down in April with the foreign ministers of 20 countries, including Iran and Syria.
In the words of The Christian Science Monitor the days of working from an "our-way-or-the-highway" stance is over.
Why after all the bombast and posturing has the Bush Administration decided to do what the critics have been demanding for many, many months, and will now open a dialog with Iran and Syria?
Could it be articles and opinion such as this scathing attack that appeared in The Telegraph this morning?
We must not let Bush wage war against Iran
By Boris Johnson
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 01/03/2007
No, no, let's be fair. Let's show the iron logic for which this column is famed. It is time to set on one side the catastrophic record of Bush, Cheney and the neocons, and look dispassionately at what they are now proposing. In considering the case for an attack on Iran, let us try to ignore the results of the demented adventure in Iraq.
It is not easy. The Iraq war has led to the deaths of more than 3,000 US service personnel, about 133 British troops, and anything between 50,000 and 655,000 Iraqis, most of them innocent civilians. There are about 100 Iraqis dying every day, or being hideously maimed, in the course of suicide-bomb attacks. It is undeniable - or at least it is undeniable by anyone except Tony Blair - that the war in Iraq has greatly increased the threat of terrorist attacks in this country and across the world.
But let us momentarily shut our eyes to those truths, and let us decide whether the warmongers are right this time...It is utter madness, and it must not be allowed to happen. As for a conventional attack, it would be much less likely to succeed, and its consequences for the region would be scarcely less baleful - above all in Iraq.
What is the real reason for American rage with Teheran, apart from the nuclear programme? It is the knowledge that the Iranians have made them look like complete idiots, like orang-utans playing chess against a grandmaster.
The Shia exiles such as Ahmed Chalabi were instrumental in bamboozling the Americans to go to war in Iraq. They conned the administration into removing Iran's most ferocious opponent in the region, and the net result of the whole exercise is that neither Saddam Hussein nor George Bush is the dominant power in Iraq. The dominant power in Iraq is Iran...
...Any attack on Iran, in other words, would be answered by yet more viciousness in Iraq, yet more slaughter. Isn't that obvious?
By all means let us tighten the noose on Ahmadinejad. He is a grotesquely incompetent and socialistic buffoon who is already in deep political trouble. Let us target measures against him and his regime. I don't even mind a spot of sabre-rattling, if that will really help deter them from their nuclear programme. But for heaven's sake don't let Dubya draw that sabre again.
I look at these people in Washington, and I ask myself whether I trust them to embark on such a lunatically risky venture, and in the words of Amy Winehouse I say no, no, no.
Join me now. Say no to Dubya and a war on Iran.
