After Iraq lies, who will believe Blair (or Bush) on Iran?

Whilst facing the House of Commons Liaison committee today Mr Blair was asked if anybody would believe him were he to tell Parliament that action was needed against Iran because it had weapons of mass destruction.

He replied: "I'm not saying that and, secondly, it depends what the evidence base is."

In other words, it depends on the source and content of the 'evidence'. One might guess that if that evidence comes via MI6, which is headed by the overtly political John Scarlett , it would be rejected as tainted. And if it comes from the CIA, again, it will be seen by many as less than convincing. If on the other hand the evidence came from Iranian defectors or US 'assets' in Iran the laughter and mirth from these shores would be audible from Washington and beyond. Has anybody thought of asking Russia or China about what might be going on in Iran? Their assessment may be taken a little more seriously.

The problem is that both Bush and Blair are surrounded by 'yes men' (sorry Condi - and 'yes women') and proven liars. Why on earth, given what we now know, would Parliament, or the British public, ever be hoodwinked again? As for the American public, someone else can make that call.