In an opinion piece on Iranian President Rouhani's overtures to the United States, the Sydney Morning Herald's international editor, Peter Hartcher, concluded that "an agreement [with the West] would need to guarantee that Iran's bomb-making capacity is dismantled, and verifiably so." (Closer eye needs to be kept on Iran, 22/10/13)
Leaving aside the fact that there is no evidence whatever that Iran is in fact in the business of making nukes, I note that Hartcher's sole reference to the Middle East's only possessor of nuclear weapons, Israel, is a reference to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu not "specif[ying] what he would do if Iran crossed his red line, [although] we know it would not be pretty."
Hartcher's failure to mention the rogue elephant in the room - Israeli nukes - is really the only thing of interest in an otherwise pedestrian analysis.
That failure is easy to explain:
To begin with, Hartcher has been rambammed, not once, but twice (2009 & 2011).
In addition, he chaired a meeting at Sydney's Central Synagogue in 2010 where celebrity American lawyer and Zionist advocate Alan Dershowitz "set out the case for a military attack on Iran." (See my 10/10/10 post Goose & Gander.)
Finally, in 2011, Hartcher arrogantly dismissed supporters of basic Palestinian rights as sufferers of "Marrickville Council syndrome." (See my 20/6/11 post Hartcher Brings the House Down.)
Writing in response to significant reader criticism of his 2009 rambamming, this "guest of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies" wrote: "It is routine for journalists to accept paid travel. The question is not whether journalists take trips; it is whether they disclose them. Disclosure means that readers can take this into account in forming their views." (See my 18/11/09 post No Hidden Agenda.)
So why was there no disclosure of Hartcher's history as a card-carrying supporter of the apartheid state at the foot of his latest opinion piece?