Useful web sites

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    « Ablution service resumed | Main | Six minutes sixteen seconds of BBC balance »

    Comments

    Paul Miller

    I think there is some confusion here between, on the one hand, having a plan for a nuclear attack on Iran, and, on the other, planning to attack Iran (in any manner) within the foreseeable future. The Times has managed to create a sensation by confusing the two. Of course Israel has a plan -- probably several plans -- for a military attack on Iran. For goodness sake, does anyone in his or her right mind think that the IDF doesn't do contingency planning? This reminds me of how Seymour Hersh tried to make a little mini-sensation (not much came of it, as far as I could tell) by announcing, during the Israel-Hezbollah war last summer, that Israel had planned for the war well in advance. As some better-informed (or more honest) commentators pointed out, yes, of course Israel had planned for that war, as it plans for all imaginable wars. When that war happened, it had to choose a set of plans to follow. You cannot plan a war in 48 hours. And that is why Israel has plans for an attack on Iran. My guess is that Britain has plans to participate in a US-led attack on Iran. Does that mean Britain is considering doing something like that soon? Absolutely not. Impossible. But the military plans are there. And I'm quite sure that Israel has plans for all-out war against Syria (plans that it is hopefully now updating to incorporate the experience in Lebanon), and plans even for war against Jordan and Egypt, although surely no one believes anything like that will happen any time soon. Have people forgotten the cold war? Do people think that the US and the USSR didn't have elaborate plans to nuke each other? Or does everyone think that countries that have nukes just keep them sitting there, with no plans for how they would be used if they ever WERE to be used? Plans for use are an integral part of weapons systems. Now will everyone please calm down.

    Stephen

    It's not as if The Spectator has an unblemished record of unbiased reporting on Israel and Jews, either...

    Ripper

    Frankly I would not believe anything written about Israel coming from any British or French newspaper or news service. I am including The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Times as well as The Independent,The Guardian and The Spectator.

    Huldah

    Ripper writes

    "Frankly I would not believe anything written about Israel coming from any British or French newspaper or news service. I am including The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Times as well as The Independent,The Guardian and The Spectator."

    You could add the BBC to that list. Read what Stephen Pollard learnt about BBC Middle East Correspondent Jeremy Bowen's objective stance here.

    http://www.stephenpollard.net/003098.html

    Inna

    I have a much simpler question. Last year, The Alantic (can't find link sorry) ran a story about US war plans vis a vis Iran. Lots of people who could conceivably be called on to make some of these calls got to play war games. The war game (as it evolved) was published in The Atlantic.

    Now, nuclear weapons were mentioned as that was an option. However, the US plan called for a non-nuclear strike if all the facilities could be located. (A big if btw and the main reason according to the players that such a Conventional strike had not yet been carried out.)

    Now The Times clearly states that Israel Has located iranian facilities and that it is acting in concert with the US. So why again would Israel need a nuclear strike when the US would not?

    Regards,

    Inna

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    August 2015

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
                1
    2 3 4 5 6 7 8
    9 10 11 12 13 14 15
    16 17 18 19 20 21 22
    23 24 25 26 27 28 29
    30 31          
    Blog powered by Typepad