You don't know US very well - do you?

The Scottsman UK attempts an analysis of conflict with Iran that concludes that the west is just going to have to "get over it", that Iran is going to have a nuclear program.

Well, dream on.

"Western governments face defeat in their attempts to stop Iran from pursuing its drive to become a nuclear power.

Officials in London and Washington now privately admit that they must face the painful fact that there is nothing they can do, despite deep suspicions that Tehran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons under cover of researching nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Yesterday a defiant Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country would not be deflected from its right to develop nuclear technology by referral to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.

"If they want to destroy the Iranian nation's rights by that course, they will not succeed," he said, adding that Tehran did not need nuclear weapons because they are only used by nations who "want to solve everything through the use of force".

Publicly, the US and Britain, the two countries that have adopted the most hawkish stance, are pressing for international action to stop Iran. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said last week that it was time for the UN to confront Iran's "defiance" over its nuclear programme, while British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that sanctions were now "on the table".

But behind the scenes there is no stomach for a fight. The US is the only country that could take military action. But with the US military already seriously overstretched in Iraq and with the mid-term congressional elections approaching there is no impetus in the White House or in Congress for another military adventure.

"Iran would be a far tougher country to try to attack than Iraq. It is three times as big and has highly motivated armed forces," a Foreign Office diplomat said yesterday."

I don't know what "officials" these writers were talking to (Murtha, Durbin, Biden?), but while it is true that Iran poses a greater force than Iraq - it's not THAT much greater, and the US is NOT the only country that can take military action.

In fact, if we did moblize a coalition of the "willing" would be decidedly greater than that for Iraq. Although Russian, China, Germany and France would no doubt balk, the fact is that a Nuclear Iran is not something any of those countries is likely to tolerate any better than the US and Britain. Let's not forget the formability of Israel in this.

As far as the US and England "Not having the stomach" for it, that's simply nonsense. Our forces in spite of abysmal and inaccurate reporting from the MSM is NOT stretched as thin and in fact with a large force and material already situated in Iraq we have never been more strategically advantaged to take them on.

However, the article does go on to list the possible actions that could be taken, most of which are ridiculous on their surface and in their core as well.

Make no mistake, the implications of Iran - governed by a former kidnapper/terrorist anti-semitic madman will not be tolerated or resigned to.

The fact is democracy is coming to the middle east and it's not the west that must be resigned to the mad-men of the world, but the other way around.