The Washington Post editorial on Iranian missile tests turns their purpose on its head. (photo: Iranian Defense Ministry)
As Reuters (10/11/15) reported in October:
Improvements in accuracy could let Iran use its missiles in a wider variety of roles, for example by targeting military bases or economic assets rather than population centers.
The IISS noted in 2010 that poor accuracy meant Iran could use its missiles only as a “political weapon” to target enemy cities, since their military utility was “severely limited.”
Israel, the only Mideast country that does have nuclear weapons, has repeatedly threatened to bomb Iran. Given that Israel has already bombed Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Tunisia, there’s no need for the Post to attribute “nuclear ambitions” to Iran to explain why it would be interested in developing a credible deterrent to the prospect of an Israeli attack.
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. Follow him on Twitter: @JNaureckas.
Messages can be sent to the Washington Post at letters@washpost.com, or via Twitter @washingtonpost. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
In fairness to the editorial board of the Washington Post (the political arm of Amazon), the Reuters article was over TWO months ago. With the holidays and the debates, they probably just forgot.
Clearly, the Post has no interest in improving its accuracy.
The regime contends that the resolution would only ban missiles “designed” to carry a nuclear warhead, not “capable of”, so it would not affect its military program as Tehran does not pursues nuclear weapons. The distinction is akin to saying a gun that is not designed to kill humans expressly, but is capable of killing humans is somehow different.
“Israel, the only Mideast country that does have nuclear weapons, has repeatedly threatened to bomb Iran. Given that Israel has already bombed Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Tunisia, there’s no need for the Post to attribute “nuclear ambitions” to Iran to explain why it would be interested in developing a credible deterrent to the prospect of an Israeli attack.”
Is this a fair statement? The author implies that Israel would use “nuclear” weapons on Iran. Even the article the author links to provides no indication of an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran; rather, the article implies a conventional attack as in many other articles. This is all rather interesting considering the author is putting forth an argument in this very article that Iran is testing for conventional use only. Having said all this, Post editorials are often misleading and super super shallow in thought.
In a fair worldm, the WaPo would spontaneously combust!
Connor ; Jim never said Israel would attack Iran with a nuclear bomb.
What he says is “threatened to bomb Iran”. Israel has bombed Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Tunisia with conventional bombs, not nuclear bombs, thus the author is implying “threatened to bomb Iran” with conventional bombs.
I love what you guys tend to be up too. This kind of clever work and exposure!
Keep up the terrific works guys I’ve included you guys
to blogroll.