Guardian describes Iranian blast, which killed missile program architect, as “dangerous Israeli escalation”

We may, of course, never know with certainty if Israel was behind the recent explosion at Alghadir missile base at Bid Ganeh, Iran which killed seventeen of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards, including a man described as the “architect” of the country’s missile programme, Major General Hassan Moghaddam.

However, the manner in which Julian Borger and Saeed Kamali Dehghan framed the issue, in “Iranian missile architect dies in blast. But was explosion a Mossad mission?“, Nov. 15, was classic Guardian.

Though assigning blame for the blast on Israel is more than plausible, to characterize such an act, as Borger and Dehghan do, as “a dramatic [Israeli] escalation in a shadow war over the Iranian nuclear programme” is a classic Guardian style moral inversion.  And, it is thoroughly consistent with recent Guardian editorial lecturing the Jewish state on the folly of not only a pre-emptive missile strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities but even against covert action, cyber attacks, and economic sanctions.

Of course, opining that Israeli responsibility for the explosion is a “dangerous escalation” represents either remarkably myopia or willful blindness in the face of undeniable evidence regarding Iran’s role as one the biggest exporters of terrorism on the planet.

In addition to the Islamic Republic’s role in “continuing to fund, train, and provide weapons and ammunition to Shia extremist groups that carry out attacks against Iraqi and U.S. forces,” Iran, primarily through the efforts of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, continues to employ a sophisticated arms smuggling network through Syria to Hizballah in Lebanon, and to Hamas in Gaza – representing an Iranian proxy war against the Jewish state.

In fact, Iran has been so successful at re-arming Hezbollah after the 2nd Lebanon War that Israeli authorities estimate the Shiite terror group to have a rocket arsenal of over 50,000, many which could strike almost anywhere in Israel. 

Further, experts believe, in the next Lebanon war, Hezbollah could fire 400-600 rockets at Israeli towns per day.

Yet, strangely, Iran’s arming of terrorist groups who fire rockets at Israeli towns is, for some reason, not considered a “dangerous escalation” by the Guardian.

Further, evidently the moral and political experts at the Guardian are unmoved by an Iranian regime which both denies that the Holocaust, while inciting for another one against the Jewish state – what Irwin Cotler, former Justice Minister of Canada, terms “incitement to genocide.  Said Cutler:

“[We are] witnessing s incitement to genocide, we can see the unfolding of one case where there is a responsibility to act. This incitement, dramatized by parading in the streets, promotes the wiping of Israel off the map and religiously sanctioned genocide. The inflammatory epidemical metaphors used by Iran, are reminiscent of the Metaphors used by Nazi Germany. These metaphors are used by Ahmadinejad along side the denial of the Holocaust.

These calls of Ahmadinejad and other senior officials are also reminiscent of Rwanda government’s incitement to the elimination of the Tutsi.

The failure of state parties and the United Nations to act is a fatal blow to the corpus of international law and the United Nations, especially to the Genocide Convention. The international community must promote preventative action, accountability and not impunity for the sake of international peace and security.”

Not only don’t Guardian editors and journalists even marginally share Cotler’s concern, but a recent Guardian editorial decried the Israeli notion that it can, or should, engage in efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear aspirations as the foolish belief that “they can stop history.”

Israel, it seems, should listen to the sage advice from London, let history take its course, and just meekly accept their fate – a moral formula which, I assume we are to believe, has worked so well for the Jewish community throughout history.

Related articles

24 replies »

  1. So, the G condemns Israel (on the basis of speculation) of “dangerous escalation”? In comparison, what does that make Iran’s nuclear programme itself? Childsplay?

    • The G. has condemned nobody.

      And why don’t you consider the Israelis already getting nukes as “escalation”?

  2. Guardian describes Iranian blast, which killed missile program architect, as “dangerous Israeli escalation”

    But the G. does no such thing!

    What an appallingly dishonest headline.

    • The link given to the Guardian article shows the words “a dramatic escalation.”

      Will twistedprezel now quibble that “dramatic” is not “dangerous”?

      Or is he capable of understanding the tone and spirit of the GUardian article?

      Furthermore, Israel “got” nukes nearly a half-century ago and has shown responsibility, as expected of a democratic country. Yet he implicitly compares Israel to the brutal, expansionist, murderous, terrorist Iranian state.

      • You’re way off the mark. I’m not talking about the dramatic/dangerous distinction.

        The G. article says: “If true, the blast would mark a dramatic escalation …”

        That makes it conditional. So it’s not (as the CiFW headline misleadingly claims) a “description”.

      • “brutal, expansionist, murderous, terrorist Iranian state.”

        Substitute “Israeli” for “Iranian” and you’ve got it about right. Israel’s creation was achieved through a combination of Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing. It’s military-led governments have pursued expansionist policies from day one – and still have expansionist ambitions. State terrorism, whether through vastly disproportionate attacks on civilian populations in Lebanon, Gaza and elsewhere or via kidnapping and assassination of elected politicians, scientists and others have been regular features of Israeli policy. Israeli hypocrisy in respect of its nuclear status is quite staggering. Any nuclear proliferation is to be deplored but Iran has not conducted an aggressive war in recent times (Iran/Iraq was started by iraq), whilst Israel has started several such. Which would a neutral observer be more likely to trust with nuclear weapons?

        • “but Iran has not conducted an aggressive war in recent times ”

          Then why does an Amnesty International report of July 2008 about Iran have this in it, and I quote;
          “Scores of Kurdish villages and towns were destroyed and around 10,000 Kurds were killed. Thousands of Kurds were sentenced to death after summary trials.”

              • Thanks Gerald, I’ve read the report. As the title suggests it is primarily about human rights abuses in Kurdish areas of Iran. The “scores of… villages” quote refers to the central government putting down a regional rebellion. All of this confirms that the Iranian government does some very nasty things to its own people. None of it constitutes “aggressive war” in the usual sense of attacking another state. If you want to widen the definition of war to include putting down internal rebellions I’d be happy to clarify my original statement accordingly to: “Iran has not conducted an aggressive war against another state in recent times…..”.
                Incidentally, are you one of the many CifWatch posters who rubbishes Amnesty International when it criticises Israel’s human rights record?

                • sencar I’m interested in your view that denies the Kurds their own country and regards them as vassals of their Iranian masters.
                  Is it because you deny the Kurds the right to their own country, and support the Iranian colonisation of part of Kurdistan?
                  Or are you ignorant of the history of the Kurds and their struggle to free themselves from their colonial subjugation by Iran, Syria, Turkey and Iraq?

                  • I don’t pretend an intimate knowledge of Kurdish history, Gerald, but I am familiar with the facts as you outline them. The Kurds make up one of many national groups around the world that is denied statehood. The Palestinians make up another.
                    It’s clearly not practical for every national group to form a nation state. I would place more importance on whether national groups enjoy democratic rights and some autonomy within their host countries. This is true to some extent for Kurds in Iraq and Turkey (although there are obviously problems in the latter); it is not true for Kurds in Iran or for Palestinians under Israeli colonial rule.

                    • “Palestinians under Israeli colonial rule.”
                      Please explain who you mean, e.g. Arab citizens of Israel? Surely not as they enjoy democratic rights. The West Bank has its own elected Palestinian Authority, and Gaza ‘elected’ Hamas.
                      So who are these “Palestinians under Israeli colonial rule” who do not
                      “enjoy democratic rights and some autonomy within their host countries.”?

                    • “Palestinians under Israeli colonial rule.”

                      I wrote this last bit slightly tongue in cheek, Gerald. Some other time perhaps we can debate the political status of Palestinians….

        • You’re using the Arab measuring system. Israel has 22% of the land it should have: Jordan has 78% that it shouldn’t have, making it rather obvious where all the Jew-hating Arabs should go.

          22% is not expansion.

  3. Silly old me – there was I thinking that cuddly Iran was not making nice threatening genocide and all that – when it was really all Israel’s fault for taking their anhialtion seriously. Strange that because the US, Saudi Arabia and lots of other places aren’t too keen on them chucking nuclear bombs either.

    • Yes, Steve. Silly little fool with an oversized ego, who believes that he will usher in the 12th Imam in a (literal and perhaps nuclear) blaze of glory, and has a tenuous grasp of reality and a disconcerting tendency to big himself up and then fall for his own rhetoric.

      And he looks likely to have nuclear bomb!!!

    • If the little president of the Fascist Islamic Republic of Iran is a descendent of Muhammed, then the president is an Arab.

      Considering that Arabs and Persians hate each other, why would Persians have an Arab as President?

  4. What is it with the so called ‘balanced editorial’ espoused so readily by the Guardian whilst suggesting theirs is the moral high ground.

    How is it that one state can repeatedly and disgustingly threaten to “wipe another and its inhabitants off the face of the map” where was the Guardian’s comment on this.

    How is it that a supposed civilised nation trying to establish civilised credentials stones women, hangs children, and overtly sponsors terrorism, is not condemned by the Guardian ? That to me is extraordinary

    Israel has a right to exist and long may it do so.
    It is not representing some moral code or moralising to others which perhaps others should take note of before hypocritically and naively one-sidedly judging them.

    I believe we should not applaud the stance and position of Israel, but respect and acknowledge that they exhibit the courage and fortitude that many of our exalted brethren in the west so woefully lack.

    They are not only fighting for their own right to live as they choose but in actuality ours too.

    Go Israel I say and if they would take me I’d stand alongside them tomorrow.