American Missiles Target Russia

The United States has tested some missiles, previously, that could reach Russia.

Some countries don't like America or trust what it does with it's weapons and so want it to stop being a pushy git and chill out.

The US President (may have) said that it's nothing to worry about, they're just part of a massive military programme.

But the Secretary of State (might have) said that any action by Russia against the US will result in all out war.

The US has faced pressure in the UN about it's being a dick.

What do you reckon then? Good enough for the Sun? Should I be waiting for the job offer to appear in my email anytime soon?

No? Why not? If it's good enough for Tom Wells, then it should be good enough for me...

Iran Targets Israel

...screams the headline.

IRAN yesterday goaded the West by test-firing missiles that could hit Israel or even EUROPE.
Experts say the Shahab-3 and Sajjil rockets have a range of up to 1,300 miles.

That could include Israeli cities, US military bases in the Gulf and south-eastern Europe.

Iran goaded the West (note the capital letter. Where is this place they call the 'West'?) with missiles that could hit Israel or EUROPE.

These missiles have the range, but are they targeting us?

Later, Iranian Air Force chief General Hossein Salami declared: "All the missiles hit their targets."

Is everyone here? *does a quick head-count* Good. Those missiles weren't targetted at Israel or Europe then.

Iran insisted the war games by hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were just part of a military testing programme.

Missiles were tested by the military in a programme to develop long range weapons. Ooh. A that statement seems to checkout ok.

But defence minister Ahmad Vahidi warned Israel any military action against his nation would result in all-out war.

This is the bit that justified the headline: Iran has missiles. They could reach Israel. Iran threatens war on Israel if Israel attacks Iran. Ergo Iran's missile are trained on Israel.

By that logical, Everyones missiles are targeting everyone else.

But what did Israel say? Did Israel threaten Iran if it carried on with the testing? Are Israels' missiles, of which some are nuclear, pointing at Iran?

That warning from Ahmed Vahidi is a response to something, it is also not a quote, so is it out of context? Is it a warped interpretation of what was actually said? Seeing as there is nothing to substantiate the declaration in the headline, I would take all that with a pinch of salt.

Irrational and unpredictable.

When the Sun isn't doing its best to link Iran to the Taliban, it instead uses the kind of logic which would disgrace an 8-year-old. From today's leader column:

HOW dare Iran arrest nine workers from the British embassy in Tehran.

The claim that our diplomats were behind violent street demonstrations over the rigged Iranian presidential election is ludicrous.

Iran's irrational and unpredictable behaviour shows why it would be such a danger if it had nukes.

Diplomats can be ordered back. But you can't order back a nuclear missile once it's been launched.

Yes, because arresting diplomats is just like launching a nuclear missile, isn't it? It also isn't irrational or unpredictable when you note that the regime is blaming those that it has repeatedly in the past, and that this was just a step up from last week's reciprocal expelling of diplomats.

Despite numerous attempts down the years to paint those in power in Iran as "mad mullahs", they're not suicidal. The real reason why Iran must be stopped from becoming a nuclear power is because it will transform the balance of power in the Middle East, putting Iran on the same level as Israel and ahead of Saudi Arabia. This has always been about preventing a re-run of mutually assured destruction; only Israel can be allowed to have weapons which can decimate an entire region in minutes. You can be certain that were we to somehow go back to a time when war against Iran was potentially the next stop on the grand Bush regional tour, the Sun would back it to the hilt.

Weddings and Iranian funerals.

This tells you just how important the Sun remains, despite the arrival of the Twatter generation, in the estimation of politicians:

When Rebekah Wade, Sun newspaper editor and one of Britain's most powerful women, married horse trainer Charlie Brooks this weekend, she didn't so much invite a guest list to the reception as a power list.

Gordon Brown, David Cameron, and Wade's boss Rupert Murdoch attended a Saturday afternoon reception at Brooks' family estate near Chipping Norton.

Of course, they might have just turned up so they could chat to the actual boss, knowing he'd be in attendance, and while the Sun remains undecided about who it will support at the next election, despite it seeming more than likely that it will back the Tories, there is as they say everything to play for. Can you imagine both leaders of the main political parties being invited to say, the wedding of the Guardian editor, or the BBC director general, or even the Telegraph editor's do?

Stephen Brook also provides us with some apparent information as to when Wade herself might be moved upstairs:

But Murdoch has extracted a promise from her that she will continue to edit the Sun until the general election, before handing over the reins.

Not that the editor makes much difference: it's the master that sets the tone.

P.S. The Sun's editorial today deliberately conflates two completely unrelated issues:

THE dodgy "election" of hardline fanatic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to another term as Iran's President is bad for his country - and terrible for the rest of the world.

With the backing of the ruling Ayatollahs he is likely to continue with Iran's nuclear build-up and keep backing terror groups throughout the Middle East.

But just as important to us is the evidence that growing numbers of young British men are fighting with the terrorists in Afghanistan.

Our soldiers have already told of hearing Birmingham and Manchester accents among Taliban fighters.

And yesterday it was reported that a dead insurgent had an Aston Villa tattoo on his body.

You have to hand it to the writer of this leader column - that's a good connection, and one specifically designed to make the reader believe that Iran and the "terrorists in Afghanistan" are either one and the same thing or being funded by them. Iran might well support and fund Hizbullah, and to a lesser extent Hamas, which is a Sunni Muslim group, but the idea that Iran is doing the same with the Taliban is ridiculous, and not just because Iran originally co-operated with the overthrow of the Talibs in 2001. Iran might well sponsor Sunni jihadism in the form of Hamas, but it does so only because that group has no world view, and is instead dedicated only to the liberation of Palestine. Getting into bed with the Taliban, even the sections of it which are more moderate than the al-Qaida supporters which it also contains and connives with is similar to communists working with fascists (and before someone says Molotov-Ribbentrop, that was cynicism on both sides, knowing that war was inevitable but had to be delayed); they want to destroy each other, not work together.

Equally, the idea that there are "growing" numbers of Brits fighting in Afghanistan is plausible, but not especially likely. The fact that one "insurgent" had an Aston Villa tattoo is neither here nor there; in case the Sun hasn't noticed, the Premier League is global. In any case, I might be in the minority here, but that a tiny number of British Muslims might be fighting those they could have gone to school with, while a cause for concern, is not terribly terrible. Far better that they become insurgents and usually find themselves getting killed in the process than carry out attacks back here. The real problem, much more troubling than Brit Muslims fighting in Afghanistan is them coming back having been trained and graduated from the real "universities of terrorism" which are the camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan; security might be lax in some prisons, but they're not going to learn how to make TATP in there.

If we don't, we are simply playing into the hands of men like Ahmadinejad - who jabbers about democracy while locking up his opponents and supporting our enemies.

If the Sun wanted to do something useful rather than scaremongeringly bleat about terrorists, it would be supporting the young of Iran in what looks increasingly like a potential uprising against the Ayatollahs, but then you rather suspect that the Sun, like Israel and others in both Washington and London secretly wanted Ahmadinejad to stay in power so that the status quo ante, so important to all, stays unchanged.