Tomorrow's Haaretz article adds more to the Sudan story: the arms are said to have originated in Iran, and a Sudanese official is quoted as saying there were two strikes, the other taking out a ship carrying Iranian arms. In this context Olmert's remarks that no place is outside Israel's reach takes on a subtler meaning as a direct notice to Iran that they are vulnerable. Whatever turns out to have happened in Sudan, it may have Iranian resonances, or is at least so being portrayed by Israel.
And this Ha'aretz story in which retired military officials analyze the implications of the strike pretty much discards any pretense that this was not an Israeli operation. The Israeli media seems to be celebrating rather than denying.
More tomorrow.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Interesting, but I'm cynical as regards the alleged Iranian involvement.
The Israelis inevitably try to tie every incident to Iran, and their media well known for being riddled with that kind of grey propaganda.
Not saying that it wasn't 'Iranian arms' on the ship or in the convey, (no way of knowing) only that the arms smuggling situation is far more complicated than that, and that the Israelis find it politically convenient to reduce everything to Iran->Hamas.
Post a Comment