B"H
Dramatizing the situation may add suspense to an article and thus increase the number of its readers, but it does not make it good information.
The fact is that it is unlikely that the events will go the way Haber describes them.
Why? First of all because his presumption is incorrect: everyone knows that Israel under no circumstances can allow Iran to go nuclear, as a.) it would represent an unreasonable risk factor for the State and b.), more importantly, because it would represent an unreasonable risk factor for the political survival of the individual ministers sitting around the table. They know only too well that they can hold on to their turning and tilting leather-covered ministerial armchairs only as long as they guarantee – bottom line - the safety of their electorate. Should this corrupt bunch of partycrats fail to do even this bear minimum Israelis, forced to live under an Iranian nuclear threat would, without a doubt, boot them out.
So, a preventive strike is almost certainly on the cards and it is not so much a question of if but when and the when is not a political issue, but rather an operational one.
It also is possible that the Iranians will lunch a preventive strike to prevent the Israeli preventive strike. They might do it directly themselves or through Hezballah or through Hamas or through any variation on these three.
What is sure that war, and a big one of that, will be and that it will come sooner rather than later.
Now, if an opinionist like Haber had the guts to elaborate on the different scenarios, that I would call "journalism". Sitting us virtually down in the crucial cabinet meeting, without presenting us a single argumentation or a single scenario of the many is just a waste of the readers’ time.
- This is a censored talkback on
The moment of decision