Old Socialist comments.
Jun 13, 2025
Editor: There can be no doubt that Zanny Menton Beddoes and her cadre of Oxbridgers, and other various educational replicants, are Neo-Cons or entusiastic fellow traveler’s? Netnayahu and his government are guilty of Genocide yet Beddoes and her cadre ignore that contiuing crime! The Title, headline and sub-headline give the game away, the whole of it reeks of the celebratory:
Leaders | Strike it lucky
Israel has taken an audacious but terrifying gamble
The world would be safer if Iran abandoned its nuclear dreams, but that outcome may prove unattainable
Editor: The first three paragraphs are unsurprising propganda
FOR THREE decades, Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has warned that Israel’s gravest external threat is Iran. And no Iranian threat is graver than its programme to acquire a nuclear bomb. Israel is a small, densely populated country within missile range of the Islamic Republic. A nuclear-armed Iran would put its very existence at risk.
Early on Friday June 13th, Mr Netanyahu at last acted on this conviction, dispatching wave after wave of Israeli aircraft to strike Iran. They attacked nuclear installations in Natanz, 300km south of the capital Tehran, as well as officials associated with the weapons programme. And they also killed the top echelons of the Iranian armed forces, including Mohamad Bagheri, the chief of staff.
Mr Netanyahu once had a reputation as a risk-averse leader, but this strike was audacious, even reckless. Israel is entitled to take action to stop Iran from getting a bomb. The prime minister is justified in fearing that a nuclear-armed Iran would hold dire consequences for his country. He appears to have the support of President Donald Trump, an essential ally. Friday’s assault could turn out to be a devastating blow against the regime in Tehran. But it also threatens a bewildering range of outcomes, including some that are bad for Israel and America.
Editor: The Hero of this political apologetic is presented as the ‘Mr. Netanyahu once had a reputation as a risk-averse leader’ Yet The Economist failes to inform the reader.
Editor: The Economist offers these conjectures, speculations and belicosity!
The Islamic Republic has been a malign presence in the region, sponsoring terrorists, violent militias and despotic regimes, including that of Bashar al-Assad in Syria
…
Iran backed Hamas, which launched a murderous attack on the country from Gaza on October 7th 2023.
…
An Iranian bomb would make all of this worse. (Editor: where in the proof of an Iranian Bomb?)
…
Even without any proliferation, a nuclear-armed Iran would be perceived in the region as a constraint on the Israel Defence Forces’ freedom of manoeuvre.
…
Israeli officials argue that they would eventually have no choice but to attack Iran’s nuclear programme and that they had a brief window to carry one out. Iran is weaker than it has been for decades.
…
In a recorded address, Mr Netanyahu claimed to have evidence that Iran is weaponising its technology, saying that it may be close to a device. His officials believe that, in talks with America about a deal that would halt the nuclear programme, Iran has been creating a smokescreen behind which its scientists were in reality pressing rapidly ahead.
…
Having killed many Iranian officials, it may have caused so much chaos in Tehran that the regime cannot mount a powerful response. After being on the receiving end of such a show of strength, the mullahs may be deterred from mounting another attempt to build a nuclear arsenal.
…
However, Friday’s offensive is also a huge gamble. For one thing, the urgency may not be as great as Israel suggests. In March America’s intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, said that Mr Khamenei had not reauthorised the weapons programme he suspended in 2003.
…
The strike is also a gamble because of its potential regional and global consequences. Although Iran is less able to retaliate than it once was, it can still cause a lot of harm. Already, on June 13th Iran loosed over 100 drones against Israel.
Editor: The Voice of Reason of a kind ?
Odd as it may sound, a collapse of the rotten Iranian regime, much as it is hated within the country and in the region, could also be highly destabilising. Iran is a big and complex country without a history of democracy. Nobody can say what might emerge from the chaos.
…
Even in a world where the old rules are breaking down, an endless pattern of regular bombing raids on a sovereign nation would carry a heavy diplomatic and political cost. Eventually, repeated strikes could stretch America’s patience and inflame public opinion there, doing long-term harm to the alliance with America upon which Israel depends.
…
The hope is that Iran’s nuclear programme will be destroyed never to return. That would be vindication for Israel’s prime minister. But if not, Israel will have to live with the paradox that Mr Netanyahu engenders. At a time when the Gulf states are offering a new vision of the Arab world built on the coexistence with Israel that comes from economic development, his eagerness to resort to conflict risks making their plans impossible. In attempting to spare the Middle East from Iranian aggression, he risks trapping it in a cycle of violent destruction and instability. In its own way, that poses an existential threat to Israel, too.
Editor: The final paragraph of this what to name it? Oxbridger self-serving political morilizing, tinctured in self-congratulation?
Old Socialist.
StephenKMackSD's Blog 