Dinnerjacket. My my, how amusing.
It's a widely used amusing derivative of the gent's name even here in this forum. Yet you only now choose to be dismissive of it? Right, fair and balanced....
My admittedly limited knowledge of the Middle East is shaped by a now rather rusty degree in modern history (specialising in the history of the Middle East since 1915),
Ooooh, oooh, a history degree! Well, that's it then, case closed.
By the way, it's not that uncommon a degree to possess (hint, look at the pprune name). And how it'd work out for you as an aviation writer? By this logic, you are not qualified to comment on fighters, helicopters, ASW platforms, tankers, et al, the procurement and use thereof, yet you do so.
And for a living.
by reading widely, and by talking to mates, including some who now teach at the School of Oriental and African Studies in Russell Square, and others whose profession is based on evaluating military and industrial capabilities in the region.
The impact is made. There can be no further dissent after one's talked to 'mates' and others.
Or is it possible to arrive at a different conclusion based on the same set of facts? Hmm, different understanding of scholarship. Must be a translation thing.
I'd venture to suggest that I may have a slightly broader view than you'd get from reading the right wing US media and listening to paranoid Israeli and neo-con propaganda.
Well, of course. You're British. You understand how the world works. You aren't relevant, but you understand how it is. Thank you for the attempt at snideness and derision. To quote Maxwell Smart, "Missed it by
that much!"
This couldn't be another case of starting something in the Middle East some years back - Balfour, UN Mandate, etc, then just walking away. Again. Wonder how Zimbabwe is progressing?
Your point about under-estimating Hitler is interesting and well-made, but even more recently, there are examples of over-estimating threats, and over-stating the threatening intentions of enemy leaders. One only has to go back to the dire warnings of Saddam Hussein's entirely mythical deployable WMD (within 45 minutes), or to Russian intentions in the late 1980s.
See how fair and balanced you are? You see both sides of the argument. Yet, you don't comment on the fact that Israel can't afford to be wrong regarding a nuclear threat to it.
There's no doubt that Ahmadinejad has made some outrageous statements, and that if taken at face value, these might be considered extremely threatening. But there are questions as to whether intentions meet rhetoric, and especially as to whether rhetoric could be supported by capability.
The four-five thousand centrifuges, the contacts with the Paki nuclear engineer Khan, the total erasure of some nuclear facilities, down to scrubbed earth, none of that could be construed as 'maybe?'
And to continue the 'fair' theme, you know, as a journalist, the one you're supposedly a fan of, then why if Israel makes a show of force with no harm to anyone and says it will protect itself, you condemn it? After all, it's just rhetoric, isn't it?