I am often amazed at what the British press produces, and this article from Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London is no exception. I don’t really put much stock in the substance of the article, which explains that the Saudis have conducted tests to assure that Israeli bombers can pass through their airspace on their way to Iran without being molested. I see these types of articles less as real reporting than as a form of psychological warfare against Iran. It’s not that I can’t believe the Saudis would countenance such an attack, and even help plan for it. The problem is with the very idea of having Israel be the bad guy. If you want to get near universal condemnation for an attack on Iran, by all means have the Israelis carry out the mission. Then everyone can deny their complicity and rail against the rogue Zionist entity that respects no one’s sovereignty. In the scenario discussed in The Times, Israel would use the air space of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and possibly Kuwait. Since America controls Iraqi airspace, we would be complicit, too. Yet, it can be safely assumed that such an attack would be portrayed as Israel’s decision and responsibility alone (particularly by the Arab governments). That kind of obvious deceit won’t convince a single soul.
If such an attack were actually merited and had some reasonable prospect for success (which doesn’t seem to be the case) then the Israelis should be the last people assigned to carry out the attack. That would just boost Iran’s image in the world and give them further reason to pursue nuclear weapons and to discourage any peace in Israel and the occupied territories.
I understand that the goal here is to get Iran to make a decision that having nuclear weapons is actually not in their national security interests. But someone really ought to think through these propaganda pieces before they’re published. The whole Israel-attacks-Iran thing just doesn’t seem very credible. It’s certainly a profoundly bad idea.
