[The following, by Eamonn McDonagh, is crossposted from Z Word.]

If you take a look here you'll find a report by the Oxford Research Group about the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. The report opposes any such action on Israel's part but I, like you, knew that before reading it. It's well worth a read though, in spite of its adherence to the bien pensant received wisdom on the matter in question. There are, however, a couple of questions about it that I'd like to bring up:

1.

One of the main reasons it gives for advising against Israeli military action against Iran is that any such action would be unlikely to prevent the eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons by the state the late Ayatollah Montazeri described as neither Islamic nor a republic. Well, what sane person imagines that any series of military measures could put a permanent end to Iran's nuclear ambitions? Not even an invasion and occupation could do that. The real question is, what sort of damage and what degree of delay could an Israeli attack cause to Iran's nuclear facilities and plans and would such damage and delay be worth inflicting when balanced against the costs of the inevitable Iranian retaliation?

Despite going into considerable detail about the targets Israel might attack and the forces it might deploy to do so the report says nothing about the damage to Iran's nuclear programme that such an attack might cause. It just says that it would cause would cause Iran to redouble its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and withdraw from the NPT, as it surely would. As is only to be expected, given the Zionists renowned thirst for blood, it also places considerable emphasis on the civilian casualties it believes an Israeli attack would produce. Wouldn't destroying the uranium enrichment plants near Natanz put back the day when the ayatollahs get their hands on the bomb? The report doesn't say. Would Iran's nuclear ambitions be weakened by the loss of the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan? Nothing on that either.

This seems to be another example of the application of the perverse logic of contemporary warfare that holds that Israel, and only Israel, actually strengthens its enemies when it inflicts damage on them.

2.

The report states as fact that;

So the IDF is widely active in Iraq, not just a few Mossad guys? That seems a pretty strong claim to make without citing any sort of evidence. I mean, the world being the way it is you'd expect the usual crowd to be howling about this new Zionist imperialism but, as far as I know, it isn't. I'd be delighted to read some credible information about this if readers have any.