Please Wait...

We Remain Loyal to the Pledge 2026

 

Why ’’Israel’’ Won’t Attack Iran?!

Why ’’Israel’’ Won’t Attack Iran?!
folder_openRegional News access_time14 years ago
starAdd to favorites

Local Editor

Under the title "Hold Me Back! Why "Israel" Will Not Attack Iran", "Israeli" writer URI AVNERY reminds of the school scene in which a small boy quarrels with a bigger boy to "Hold me back!" he shouts to his comrades, "Before I break his bones!" to describe the "Israeli" threats against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

"Our government seems to be behaving in this way. Every day, via all channels, it shouts that it is going, any minute now, to break the bones of Iran," the writer views.

Quoting a GERMAN proverb that says: Revolutions that are announced in advance do not take place," Avnery notesthat the same goes for wars.

"All this seems to indicate that the whole hullabaloo is a ploy, perhaps to frighten and deter the Iranians. Perhaps to push the Americans into more extreme actions," the writer explains.

In his article published on "Counter Punch" website, Avnery advised the "Israeli" government to look well at the map.

"The first feature that strikes the eye is the narrow Strait of Hormuz, through which every third barrel of the world's seaborne oil supplies flow. When the first "Israeli" plane enters Iranian airspace, the strait will be closed. The Iranian navy has plenty of missile boats, but they will not be needed. Land-based missiles are enough," he emphasized.

Stating that "Iran is a very large country in which nuclear installations are widely dispersed and largely underground," the "Israeli" political writer warns that with the beginning of a war, the amount of "Israeli" death and destruction would be prohibitive."

"Missiles will rain down on "Israel" - not only from Iran, but also from Hizbullah, and perhaps also from Hamas," he claimed.

"An Israeli assault on a major Muslim country would instantly unite Sunnis and Shiites, from Egypt and Turkey to Pakistan and beyond. "Israel" could become a villa in a burning jungle," the article continues.

Considering that the "talk about war serves many purposes, including domestic, political ones," the writer concludes by asking "what better means for taking people's minds off "social justice" than talk of the "existential danger"?"

Source: Counter Punch, Edited by moqawama.org

Comments