Today's Financial Times reports that an Iranian official is claiming that Tony Blair wrote a letter of apology that sprung the British sailors and marines. Blairs denial was phrased evasively, though an underling offered a categorical "no." Still, no Iranian has produced a letter.
SWNID thinks that if Blair didn't issue a letter, his own denial should be as ringing as Bill Clinton's denial of his involvement with Monica Lewinsky. If he did, we take back all the nice things we've said about Tony Blair.
Certain gentle readers, suddenly transformed into zealous commenters, have suggested that negotiations with heads of state who sponsor terrorism bestows on said leaders the legitimacy that they covet, thereby ameliorating their alienation, lessening tensions and reducing the potential and need for conflict. We confess our puzzlement that a thoughtful person would hold such a view when we lack examples in history that demonstrate its plausibility. Of course, it's been tried--remember Jimmy Carter? But it's been found wanting--remember Jimmy Carter?
It would be a shame if Tony Blair retires with the label "the English Jimmy Carter."