You Don't Engage in Assassinations when You're Winning the War

Israel v. Iran

Greetings,

This is a quickie since I don’t have my computer with me and I’m writing with my laptop. So I just came across this article on the Unz Review on the latest war between Iran and Israel. Click on this link to check it out.

In that article, the author Mike Whitney argued that Israel lost the war and that Western (read: American) media have been doing all they can to hide it. Whitney’s article is very informative as it laid the case for why Iran came out the victor of its undeclared war against Israel.

Truth be told, I haven’t really followed this conflict. Nor am I the kind of person who paid much attention to current events. Thus, I cannot say for sure if Whitney’s article is accurate.

However, I am inclined to believe it for one simple reason: you do not engage in assassination attempts when you’re winning the war.

It wasn’t too long ago when we heard that Israel was successful in assassinating large chunks of Iran’s leadership. Understandably, most people saw it to be a heavy, possibly decisive blow against Iran.

But now looking back, especially in light of Whitney’s article, I can’t help but see it as evidence that Israel was losing the war. After all, if Israel was winning the war, why would they engage in assassinations?

Napoleon Bonaparte once said: “never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”.

If Israel was winning the war, the worst thing they could have done is to “interrupt” their opponent by cutting off the leadership that was making their prospect of victory possible.

So why would they do that?

The answer is: they wouldn’t.

But if Israel was losing the war (and did lost the war), they would have every reason to assassinate Iran’s leadership. It wasn’t enough to win the war, clearly. But at the very least, it did discombobulate their enemy enough for them to save face.

-MPM