Clearly there is no consensus on this blog–or anywhere in the world–on what to do about a nuclear Iran. As long as we bluster to and fro, for and against, military strikes or diplomacy as options with Iran, we will eternally fail to build a consensus on what to do.
Unanimity is impossible, but developing a consensus is possible, IF first the lethal nature of the threat from Iran is dispassionately and objectively discussed. That desire for an objective analysis and discussion is missing in the blogosphere, although the Woolsey/Holbrooke/Ross/Wallace gambit mght make a sincere effort.
The threat from Iran is not a nuclear weapon, nor is it a gun, or a knife, or bare knuckles. The threat to the world is from the political psychology of Iran’s governance, so toxic that it does not matter what weapon they have in their arsenal: they are driven to use any weapon they possess against the eternal enemy they seek.
Until there is a consensus about the nature of Iran’s form of governance, there will never be a consensus about what to do about that governance. Not until we come to understand ‘theofascism’ in Iran will a consensus be possible about “what to do.”
