By Amer Al Sabaileh

You can’t have failed to notice the massive global propaganda campaign insinuating that war against Iran is on the cards. A scenario is presented of nuclear war as the only solution to face what being labeled the “Iranian danger and its evil will”. It is interesting to observe how broadcasted news has presented the war as an inevitable necessity.

The London Daily Mail newspaper reported on Thursday November 10 that British government ministers have been warned to expect Israeli military action in the wake of the UN watchdog report “as early as Christmas or very early in the new year”. They were told Israel would strike Iran's nuclear sites "sooner rather than later" – with "logistical support" from the US. A major US concern is said to be that a nuclear-armed Iran would spur Saudi Arabia and Turkey into developing their own weapons.

It seems that many other military reports are spreading information that aims to prepare the audience psychologically for a cruel war scene. Reports also assure us that the Israeli Air Force is continuing to conduct comprehensive drills for long-range attacks. A recent drill took place in Italy at the NATO Decimomannu air base on the Island of Sardinia. During the last two years Decimomannu has increasingly become the alternative training space for IAF drills since the closure of Turkish air space due to diplomatic tension between Turkey and Israel.

According to reports, Israeli fighter jets participated in air combat drills against the Euro-fighter planes of the Italian air force from one side, with Tornado planes of the German air force (Luftwaffe) and Dutch F-16 planes from another.
Knowing that Germany has put its Tornado warplanes into this intensive training for a potential attack on targets in Iran would deepen the curiosity surrounding the desire of Germany to appear as a new player on the scene. It could demonstrate an unexpected change of heart as their policy has mostly been limited to a latent role in Middle Eastern issues. This transformation would open the door to many different interpretations.

According to some Media psychology theories, the spreading of news linked to tragic scenarios such as nuclear war or catastrophic consequences would prepare public opinion for the worst. However, these tactics are also the ones used to secure popular consensus for war on a completely different front. Following this train of logic, forewarnings of nuclear war might ease acceptance for a traditional war, the case in point being that predicting a war on Iran (which the media portray as the one and only evil) would make it easier to get the international community to accept war against Syria. This might well mean that we are not so far from an imminent war with Syria. This would be particularly worrying in the face of the positions various countries would take which are not so dissimilar from the old cold war scenario. Russia seems determined to reject any war proposal against Syria. Sayyed Hassan Nassrallah the leader of Hizbuallah sent a clear message of their readiness to go to war with threats that this might turn into a conflict involving the entire region, whilst the Iranian position could never be questioned.

Strategically, a country engaging in war should have at least two borders from which to conduct military operations. In the Syrian case two borders are already excluded from operations considering the Iraqi refusal to invade on one side and the impossibility of using the Lebanese border on another. The only possible remaining borders are Turkey and Jordan. If Turkey agrees to letting troops cross its borders it would run the risk of being exposed to attack from two major fronts: Iraq and Syria which, in turn, could well receive back-up from Russia and eventually even China too. Turkey will have to think long and hard before exposing itself to such risk. So is it ready for such a venture?

In this case what will the Jordanian position be? Will the choice to enter into a war also be imposed on Jordan and would we then be able to face the consequences this would generate on our internal scene? Would this put our national security at risk?

Sometimes how words are represented or even manipulated can give us an idea of how we can be forced into positions against our will. A recent example is when the BBC took the words of King Abdullah as a call for Bashar Al Assad to step down whilst anyone who actually heard the interview can testify to the fact that he said no such thing – he was just giving an analogy as to what he would do in such circumstances. It rather begs the question as to whether it would be in the interests of some countries to impose the war option on Jordan. We would do well in these complex and rapidly changing times to make sure we are attentive in reading the information presented to be sure we are well informed.


Dr.Amer Al Sabaileh
http://amersabaileh.blogspot.com