News

Because..

it is the only Egyptian source I have and because Egypt is so involved in the peace process. Also because Ostaad, who is the one who taught me to check my sources carefully, is the one who told me (as per my comment to SG below) that al-Ahram is the mouthpiece of the Egyptian government and should not be used as a source.

I trusted her opinion at that time as fact (I still think she is a brilliant woman and consider her my mentor in becoming a good news contributor and even a reasonable commentator) and so I stopped reading al-Ahram. Then a couple of days ago in reading Dabashi's article on the homepage--someone I admire greatly for all his warts), I remembered he writes for Ahram. So al-Ahram CAN'T be the ONLY mouthpiece for the Egyptian government, as Ostaad categorically maintained.

So part of the reason why I am very interested in knowing why they would feature this so prominently is to try to suss out to what extent al-Ahram is the mouthpiece of the Egyptian government in order to properly evaluate them in future.

As you can see I am still a protege of Ostaad but as is the case with good proteges, we allow our mentors to shape us and then we build on that.  lol

Yes I know these analyses pop up like mushrooms but this one is particularly detailed and goes into this doomsday scenario of a LAND invasion devastating the entire region (WWIII????????) with the US and Europe involved...and I myself have never seen that before under Obama.

Thanks for taking my questions so seriously.

Rosie

I am not sure why you think an opinion in a paper is worth the entire Western and Eastern world policy watch?

These kinds of "analysis" is not new and certainly not the first of its kind in any of the world's news papers.

Thanks. Agree, but you're not hearing my new question.

Let's forget about the journalist. Okay so he is one of those who takes these things seriously, along with people in power echelons of IRI (not to mention Israel), but we don't and we're probably right, thank god.

Why did al-Ahram feature it? Why would they take it seriously? Are they paranoid? Are they trying to make a warning to Israel (and US, NATO, etc.) that should they make such a decision, they are courting disaster beyond imagination, to accelerate the peace process? Does Egypt have anything geopolitically other than that to gain by promoting such analyses (whether they actually believe it or not?)

See what my second question is?

Rosie

These kinds of analysis have been done before. Iranian government and many people do take them seriously, yet most of these analysis are baseless.

In the case of a war, no one could estimate the backfire, specially in the scenario where perhaps the Islamic Republic wants an air strike from Israel.

Israel is not that naive to put herself in this situation. If they do, then they hurt themselves hard in the long run. We have covered all these in many years of discussions in here and over the net. At this point, these are just repeated slogans rather than reports or news.

If it were to happen, there would be calm before storm and not much talking of an attack would go on.

Thanks to both of you. Now, on to my corollary question:

Two very knowledgeable (and very different people), having confirmed my feeling that Israel is most probably a yipper yapper vis a vis Iran, and that Obama has no intention of tolerating any military incursion on Iran by them anyway..

why the author's and/or the publication's Mad Max view of the future? Paranoia? Warning? Strategy, and if so what?

Any takers?

It's a matter of credibility

Israel does not have the credibility to justify a war with Iran.

Israel could start a war and give Iran and all other possible enemies an excuse to show their hate to Israel in full force.

Well I am glad to know that you basically concur with

my intuitions. I have long felt that Israel is a yipper yapper about Iran. I did feel that Bush & Co. would've loved to bomb Iran but they were hopelessly overextendied on the two flanking fronts to such point that the generals probably would've abdicated had they tried. Meantime for all his grave faults, in particular his military strategy in Afghanistan, I do believe that Obama is at heart a pacifist and that the last thing he would want would be to invade anyone could he possibly avoid it. In light of that I said Israel's go it alone, you just try and stop me rhetoric was foolhardy indeed; my reply to the people who were really afraid of it was, that would be real suicide bombing! Because I think if they did anything drastic like that against US wishes, their entire economic existence would be over, being the 51st but most highly endowed state.

I also concur with you that despite numerous flaws overall Obama and Clinton have been exerting a lot of pressure on Israel to contain itself, probably even more behind the scenes than publicly.  I also agree that Israel's last two military incursions were disasters for them (despite the protests of several Zionists on this site).  So it is a tremendous relief for me that you agree with all (or most ) of this, in particular the yipping yapping part. Because if anyone would voice a legitmate threat of an attack either by Israel alone or with just US or with a US-built alliance (who would join????) if there were one, it would be you.

_________________________

Having said all that, it brings us to the corollary question: why then does this Egyptian journalist and/or al-Ahram voice such a potentially apocalyptic scenario with such conviction? I was once told that Ahram was the mouthpiece for the Egyptian government by Ostaad and I shouldn't trust them, but remembered today through the Dabashi article on the homepage that he writes regularly for them. As such al-Ahram cannot be merely a mouthpiece so I decided to go back to them today. There on the homepage was this article.

So this article could be tjust his journalist's independent viewpoint but he is certainly knowledgable in several areas. So what's all the fuss? Is this paranoia? Is it an attempt on the part of the publication through forecasting the worst possible outcomes of an attack to warn that it must be taken off the table? Obviously the Egyptian government for all its legion warts is interested in the peace process not just in Palestine but in the region.

What gives? Why the gloom and doom Mad Max scenario on al-Ahram's homepage?

Thanks.

Militarily speaking

Pay attention to the economic disaster that will follow a US or a combined NATO attackers (minus Turkey). The US economy is having a heck of a time to manage two limited wars. Think about a real war against a relatively well armed country with large population and as big as Texas. The world will go into an unseen depression not to mention a possible third world war. In the end, what guarantees that Iran's nuclear technologies have been hampered enough? If the US had enough intelligence about complete Iranian nuclear activities, it would have been much easier to convict Iran first through IAEA frst and not make the same mistake that Bush did.

As for Israeli attack on their own, given a remote possibility that they can enter Iran, what they can achieve will be minute. In the end, Israel will just get itself targeted by Shahab missiles with devastating results.

Israel could not win a war against a few rag-tag militia in Lebanon over 33 days. Its only masterpiece was to kill over a thousand innocent women and children with its "mighty air force", just imagine what possibly they can do against Iran? In comparison "niente"!

In the meantime, we will hear a lot of Huf and puff from Israeli/Zionist sources mostely to divert attention from Obama's pressure for a peace accord with Palestinians. That much is for sure. 

 My two cents