by heath7 » Sat May 06, 2006 2:19 am
Today, Tony Blair saw fit to release his Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, presumably because Mr. Blair needed to rearrange the chairs on the deck of his Hindenberg, which I don't doubt, but was Straw really a liability for Blair politically? <br><br>As much as most Americans don't want to go to war with Iran, I imagine the British public is completely opposed, having been through Blair's even less popular Iraq war. So it'd seem good for Blair's cause that he had voice(s) out there speaking against any Iranian conflagration. Straw's pronouncements against escalating conflict with Iran have regularly been making their way stateside. What I hadn't heard, Blair had apparently been harping on Mr. Straw to stop being such a peacenik hippie. <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1768928,00.html">From The Guardian:</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Mr Straw has said repeatedly that it is "inconceivable" that there will be a military strike on Iran and last month dismissed as "nuts" a report that George Bush was keeping on the table the option of using tactical nuclear weapons against Tehran's nuclear plants.<br><br>But Mr Blair, who sees Iran as the world's biggest threat, does not agree with his former foreign secretary. The prime minister argues that, at the very least, nothing should be ruled out in order to keep Iran guessing. Downing Street phoned the Foreign Office several times to suggest Mr Straw stop going on the BBC Today programme and ruling it out so categorically.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>His fate was sealed when the White House called Mr Blair and asked why the foreign secretary kept saying these things. In any case, Mr Straw had boxed himself in on Iran to the extent that he would have had to resign if a military strike became a reality.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>... The question remains, what of Margaret Beckett, Mr. Straw's successor? All I've been able to learn is that she is a most loyal Blairite, which does not bode well. Her stance on Iran seems to be non-existent, despite the Iran issue being one of the main focuses of the British Foreign Office.<br><br>It definitely does not bode well that one of the few 'coalition of the willing' who have spoken out against this renewed warmongering, has now been effectively silenced. <p></p><i></i>