First Gaza, Then Iran

The West is unified on Israel's razing of Gaza. This will usher in a Fatah-Israel peace deal, already inked according to Quartet Middle East Envoy Tony Blair. With that "solved", western powers will turn their attention to Iran.

What evidence do I have for "the West will war evermore"? The Jerusalem Post points to Iran being the real problem:

Iran has reason to be satisfied with the conflict in Gaza as it draws attention away from the country's nuclear program, Brig.-Gen. (res) Yossi Kuperwasser, former head of the Research and Assessment Division of Military Intelligence, told diplomats and foreign correspondents in Jerusalem on Wednesday.

Speaking at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), Kuperwasser said he holds Iran to blame for the Gaza situation. "The Iranians are clearly behind this operation because they supplied Hamas with money and weapons that enabled Hamas to be where they are," he said.

The New York Times quoted another ex-Defense man, William Perry of the U.S.:

Iran is ''moving inexorably toward becoming a nuclear power,'' with ominous implications for the Middle East, Perry said.

''It seems clear that Israel will not sit by idle while Iran takes the final steps toward becoming a nuclear power,'' Perry told a conference on foreign policy challenges facing the incoming Obama administration.

''If North Korea and Iran cannot be contained, we face the real danger of a cascade of proliferation'' of nuclear armed-states, he said. ''Indeed, I believe that today we are clearly at the tipping point of nuclear proliferation. And if the world does tip, it will be irreversible and dangerous beyond the imagination of most people.''

First, Israel does not sit idly by alone, nor does it plan and act by itself. Tony Blair spilled the beans in his role as the Quartet's Middle East Envoy. Haaretz interviewed Tony, a week prior to Israel's steamrolling of Gaza:

(In early December) Blair met with Hillary Clinton, the incoming American Secretary of state, and with Gen. James Jones, who will be national security adviser. He says the two understand that a change of strategy on Gaza is necessary.

Second, why are we talking about a nuclear arms race? Bush cancelled treaties and militarized space to make the world a "safer place". Apparently, the world didn't buy it. Might there be a different way to stop an arm's race than ceaseless weapon development and war?

It looks like the West ordered retired military men to lay the groundwork for an Iranian attack. What's the next step in psy ops? How do leaders move an angry public to yet another war? Step by step, inch by inch. Consider Blair's remarks on December 20.

At the Saban Forum discussions earlier this month in Washington, D.C., in which Blair took part, there was talk that the international community will have to come to terms with a nuclear Iran and prepare to deal with the new reality. Blair refuses to take this line.

"I don't think we should compromise on this at all," says Blair. "A nuclear Iran is a very bad thing - not just for Israel. It would immediately start proliferation across the region and would create a very big threat to the world's security. I really don't think it is sensible to send out any other message to the Iranians other than a very firm message of No. What is really important is that they shouldn't misread signals because in my view that is the position of the Western governments - they are not going to permit Iran gaining nuclear weapons."