Iran ground forces
Literally, there wouldn’t be a war between Israel and Iran for many reasons such as the fact the US keeps telling Israel to not to. Israel is feeling suffocated and feels the need to expand with waging wars. Victory of Islamists in Tunisian and Egyptian elections and polls which all suggest a big majority of Middle eastern people favor Islamic view of government AND that Israel’s friends in middle east or dictators fall one by one, are all the reasons why Israel is going to be surrounded by hostile governments-Islamic or secular-hostile towards Israel and friends of Iran.
Israel’s loss to Hezbollah in 2006 which for itself was a surprise to whole world about Iran ally’s capabilities on the ground and aerospace was another heavy blow to Israel.
As you know, the first casualty of every war would be the truth. One of the reasons why Israel and the US cannot wage war on Iran is fear of isolation by the international community. The starter of a war would be naturally expecting the world’s condemnation.
However that’s not all of the reasons why Israel would never attack Iran either with the US’s support or without it. Israeli warplanes destroyed nuclear sites in Syria and Iraq before, but attacking Iran would be a much more difficult task. It is a more distant target, and Israeli warplanes would probably have to go over hostile airspace in Syria, Iraq or Turkey to reach it. Saudi Arabia could be an alternative as its relations with Israel have been overwhelmingly increasing. Iran’s nuclear facilities also are believed to be spread out across many sites, buried deep underground in which case Israel would have to use the Bunker buster bombs it has received from the states.
Only one problem with that, Iranian military is far more powerful than those of Syria or Iraq, equipped with sophisticated anti-aircraft defense systems, advanced E-warfare systems, jamming devices as well as powerful medium-range missiles capable of striking anywhere in Israel allowing Iran to respond with a full-scare war.
Even if the Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities were unsuccessful and all of the Israeli planes were shot down before they reached Iranian airspace which is the most likely case, Iran would still take the liberty to respond with ballistic missiles and paralyze life in Israel with hitting strategic locations and Israeli nuclear facilities. An Israeli attack would also likely spark retaliation from Iran’s allies in the region such as Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Frankly I don’t think the tiny so-called Jewish state would have enough space for all of those rockets coming from everywhere, considering the fact Iran Navy would launch EMP assault on Israel which would make it so difficult for Israel to do anything anymore and that even Hamas’ little rockets can reach Israeli cities and make Israel’s latest missile shields look like sitting ducks.
The US would have to interfere to save Israel which I would not really want to discuss as it’d be the most horrible thing that could ever happen.
But what would be the tactical aspects of an Iranian respond to Israeli attack?
I personally think Israel needs permission and support from West in order to attack Iran. Now that the US and West are weaker than ever in terms of economy and military and are also facing protests all over their countries, Iran has a great chance of destroying Israel. Due to the Ahmadinejad’s special government and the Islamic awakening in the region affected by the policies of Iran, an Iranian attack on Israel could be carried out before 2014. In fact I’d prefer Israel attacks Iran tonight.
In case Israel decides to act against Iran’s nuclear program, it would be attacked and given a heavy blow to suffer total destruction. In the first step of an Iranian attack on Israel, total destruction would be brought to Israel’s ground zero. Iran could use its medium-range ballistic missiles to accomplish this task. From the easternmost to westernmost of Iran, Israel would be about 2600 kilometers away. Strategic targets deep in the Israeli soil can be hit by conventional missiles from Iran.
Some important locations that must be hit in Israel:
Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa can be targeted with Shahab-3 missiles. These three points with the lowest population density and distance make 60 percent of Israelis. Sejil missiles could be also used to hit infrastructure, including power utilities, fuel, water and sanitation, transport and communications. On the next stage of attack, different types of missiles such as Ashura, Qadr and Shahab 3 could be used against residential space in the city until the final destruction.
Destruction of Israeli infrastructure
Israeli infrastructure such as railway stations, airports and , power plants, nuclear facilities and arsenals can be hit with Sejil-2 missiles. Iran could of carried out this mission 10 years ago.
Destruction of Israel’s nuclear sites
Nuclear power plant, “Raphael” is the oldest power plant in Israel. This plant is considered as Israel’s main nuclear engineering site. Nuclear power plant “Ylbvn” is another Israeli nuclear site that is located under the village “Nbryn”. Residents of this Village were forced to emigrate in 1948. This nuclear power plant is in fact where Israel keeps its tactical nuclear weapons such as medium and long range surface-to-surface missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Missiles like Jericho with a range between 500 to 1480 km.
And so many other uranium enrichment sites, nuclear arsenals, nuclear plants, power plants and even oilfields which all are marked targets thanks to satellite images and Iran’s operatives inside Israel.
Yedioth Harvnvt, Zionist military analyst Ron Ben Yshal said: “There is no place in Israel that is not in range of Iranian missiles. He added even tho Israel’s missile stocks are advanced in terms of quality and quantity but the number of Israeli missiles appears to be about 100 thousand which all would be within range of Iranian missiles.”
This is while Iran’s capable of launching 13,000 different types of short range, medium range and long range missiles per minute and Israel as a small country would be way too easy for Iran to destroy that Iran should not even expect retaliation from Israel.
The successful production of the short-, medium- and long-range and tactical battlefield missiles such as Shahab (Meteor) and Sejjil (Baked Clay), Saqeb (falling stone) and Sayyad (Hunter), Fateh (Conqueror) and Zelzal (Temblor), Misaq (Covenant) and Ra’ad (Thunder), Toufan (Storm) and Safar (Journey) bears testimony to the claim an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites which would be most likely a failure would be followed with the end of Israel’s very existence.
Iran has so far succeeded in producing more than 50 types of high-tech missiles as part of its deterrent strategy for enhancing military might as it has always been exposed to threats by the Zionist regime and Washington. But that’s just official.
Iran’s project Koussar which includes designing and developing IRBMs and ICBMs which are independent from Shahab family with a range more than 3500 miles have been kept hidden due to the fact Iran does not intend on starting a new cold war with the US or posing a security threat to the US by all means necessary. It’s also possible that Shahab-4, Shahab-5 and Shahab-6 in fact enjoy different structure than Shahab-3.
Iran’s recently unveiled naval missiles tells more of the speed of Iranian efforts to keep the country safe.
Iran possesses the technology to launch superfast anti-submarine rockets which can travel at the speed of 100 meters per second under water, making the country second only to Russia in possessing the technology.
According to IRGC Navy commander, the US has not developed such subsonic underwater weapons despite spending more than USD 20 billion over 15 years to achieve the know-how.
Iran’s supersonic anti-ship ballistic missile Persian Gulf also is designed and developed inside the country to deliver a heavy blow to the US Navy in Persian Gulf. The supersonic projectile, which carries a 650-kilogram warhead, is immune to interception and features high-precision systems. The US is believed to be totally incapable of shooting down such missiles.
New Shahab-3 models also enjoy the next generation cluster warheads having each warhead target different destinations. These improvements would greatly increase the Shahab-3B’s survivability against ABM systems such as Israel’s Arrow 2 as well as being used for precision attacks against high value targets such as command, control and communications centers.
Sejil-2 missile has a close structure to Shahab-3 and enjoys deadlier warheads with a greater range of destruction. The missile leaves the atmosphere and returns with a speed of 10 to 12 mach (approximately 3400 to 4080 meters per second) which makes it impossible for any missile shield system to identify and destroy. The missile also enjoys anti jamming and interception systems and could use its blades in the exhaust emissions to reroute in case the rocket had lost its path.
Considering Iranian long range radars installed in Lebanon, Syria and Iran, it is most likely Iran would be alarmed of an event of war early enough.
Ghadir is one of Iran’s radars systems which covers areas (maximum) 1,100km in distance and 300km in altitude has been designed and built to identify aerial targets, radar-evading aircrafts, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles as well as low-altitude satellites. Or Cosmos radar system with a range of 3,000 kilometers in radius. The advanced system can detect, intercept and destroy aircraft equipped with radar cross-section system (RCS), cruise missile and strategic long-range aircraft.
Iran could also use its Air Force to hit certain targets in Israel if needed. According to Iran’s Air Force chief, Brigadier General Ahmad Miqani, the country has revamped its fighter jet fleet to fly distances of 3,000 kilometers which would allow the aircraft to fly to Israel, Britain or any US military base in the region — and back without refueling.
Sayyad missile defense system is comprised of two-stage missiles that can target all kinds of aircraft, including bombers, at medium and high altitudes. It’s been recently upgraded with a higher precision, range and defensive power.
A few weeks ago, the commander of Iran’s Air defense division announced that Iran had the ability to intercept enemy missiles and redirect them to desired locations.
The Christian Science Monitor report cites an unnamed European intelligence source as claiming that Iran in an unreported incident managed to “blind” a CIA spy satellite by “aiming a laser burst quite accurately” at its optics.
Iran has made breakthroughs in designing and developing its own advanced main battle tanks, UAVs, aircraft and helicopters, simulators, radar systems, missiles, rifles, air defense weapons, bombs, naval missiles, torpedoes, armored vehicles, mortars, artillery, rocket artillery, small arms, boats and destroyers and submarines.
Iran’s domestically developed Zulfiqar-3 MBT
The western experts have a great history in trying to underestimate and not taking Iran’s scientific and defense achievements seriously but after Iran hacked into RQ-170 and made the bird think it’s coming home while it was instead landing into the hands of IRGC considering the fact the plane is impossible to lose its way for it has been designed to find its way back home or self destruct, many in west have been starting to take Iran’s achievements seriously.
Iran’s military might is one of the reasons why Israel and the US are incapable of launching an attack on Iran.
The RQ-170 plane was developed years after F-35 was developed and more than 50 years of the Americans’ technology of manned and unmanned aircraft has been used in it. All the technologies that Americans have used in the F-35 aircraft, stealth bombers, the Polecat, etc. have been used in this bloody plane. The plane is so important that Iran even denied requests from China and Russia experts to examine the plane.
But after Iran said it has the drone, some US news media such as CNN said “it’s a bluff”
When Iran showed the footage of the hacked drone, they said “it’s a mock”
So did Iran send Obama a mock when he asked Iran to give back the drone.
They forced Iran to prove the plane was reverse-engineered. The head of IRGC Aerospace division said “the reason why we cannot talk about the aircraft is that the plane is regarded as a national asset and… discussing (it) would be a disclosure of information, and we should not dispense it freely. However, I will reveal four codes so that the Americans will know how much information we have gleaned from the aircraft.
“The drone was in California on October (17), 2010, which corresponds to Mehr 25, 1389, for some technical work and was taken to Kandahar on November (19), 2010, which corresponds to Aban 28, 1389. It conducted flights there, but, apparently, it experienced a number of problems, which they (the Americans) could not fix.” He added.
After life is paralyzed in Israel and IDF is crushed into little pieces, it is most likely that Jews would be starting to leave Palestine in big groups as they have already started leaving Israel since a long time ago considering the fact they are afraid of Hezbollah’s growing power and Iran’s imaginary nukes.
After having Israel standing on a pile of ashes, Iranian, Syrian and Hezbollah ground forces are expected to be deployed at the area as part of their military intervention to bring peace back to Palestine and having Palestinians returning to their homes.That is the liberation of Palestine.
Iranian officials have promised a crushing response to any military strike against the country, warning that any such measure could result in a war that would spread beyond the Middle East.
Iran airborne rangers
Another step towards world war 3?
Initial phase of US missile network in Europe complete. The US plans to announce the completion of the initial phase of the deployment of a US-backed missile network in Europe, says a US top official.
Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall also noted that additional work is underway in the next phase of the US-backed global missile network. The deployment of the missile network has already enraged Russia. Moscow says the US-led system poses a significant threat to its national security.
It’s true, the US’s missile networks around globe pose a threat to Russia. But they also do pose a threat to Iran. The US intends on having the upper hand in an event of world war against countries like Russia, Iran and China with installing missile shields worldwide.
But such efforts to surround Iran which could be seen as the first steps towards an attack on Iran could be confronted. Iran could and has used its allies in Latin America in order to have the upper hand in an event of world war as Iran is reportedly planning to place medium-range missiles on Venezuelan soil, based on western information sources, according to an article in the German daily, Die Welt, of November 25, 2010. According to the article, an agreement between the two countries was signed during the last visit o Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to Tehran on October19, 2010. The previously undisclosed contract provides for the establishment of a jointly operated military base in Venezuela, and the joint development of ground-to-ground missiles.
According to Die Welt, Venezuela has agreed to allow Iran to establish a military base manned by the Aerospace division of the Iranian Army of the Guardians of Islamic Revolution and Venezuelan missile officers. In addition, Iran has given permission for the missiles to be used in case of an “emergency”. In return, the agreement states that Venezuela can use these facilities for “national needs” – increasing the threat to neighbors like Colombia. According to the agreement, Iranian missiles such as Shahab 3 will be deployed in the proposed base. It says that Iran also pledged to help Venezuela in rocket technology expertise, including intensive training of officers.
Sounds like a never-ending game to me.
‘We are not going to join NATO or EU’ says Putin.
Putin assured the audience that it was not in Russia’s plans to enter NATO or the European Union.
The Russian Prime Minister said that the European states must settle their own debt crisis before making offers to Russia. “Are you offering us to join the EU? First sort out your debts,” Putin said, answering a question from a German participant of the forum.
The prime minister also said that Russia was not going to seek NATO membership. “We are not going to join NATO or the EU. We can secure our own safety,” Putin said.
This is while Turkey’s struggle to join EU seems like begging anymore, since some European leaders such as Sarkozy stated that there is no place for Turkey in Europe. Erdogan’s foreign policy seems like a failure anymore for couple of reasons.
1. Europe has been always a region of oppressing minorities such as Muslims and Jews. Sarkozy fiercely opposes Turkey’s E.U. entry, putting a premium on traditional European boundaries, and ignoring Turkey’s European political and economic credentials, including a long-standing membership in NATO. On September 26, 2007, Sarkozy stated, “I do not think that Turkey has a place in Europe,” claiming instead that Turkey’s place was in “Asia Minor.”
In essence, Sarkozy is telling France’s five million Muslims that they have a place in French society if they adopt France’s Western values and participate in its secular democratic institutions. By rejecting Turkey—a secular democracy with a pro-Western orientation—Sarkozy is sending the French Muslims another message: regardless of how secular, democratic, and Western you become, there is no official place for you in Europe.
Just a few days back, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called on Turkey to recognize the 1915 massacre of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as a genocide in remarks Friday that drew sharp criticism from Ankara. Turkey however said that France should confront its colonial past before giving lessons to others on how to face history, in an angry response Friday to President Nicolas Sarkozy’s call.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told a news conference: “Those who will not be able to face their own history for having carried out colonialism for centuries, for treating foreigners as second-class people, do not have the right to teach Turkey a history lesson or call for Turkey to face its history.
2. European leaders don’t seem to be wanting to strengthen Islamists in Turkey with accepting Turkey as an EU member while Erdogan is in power in Turkey.
3. Turkey wants Middle East like itself, which really can’t happen. Erdogan already called Muslim brotherhood in Egypt to form a secular government, which was rejected by Muslim brotherhood as most of the revolutionaries across the Middle east called for Sharia law in their countries. Poll also confirms that the majority of Middle eastern people favor Sharia law in their countries.
4. Erdogan achieves nothing from confronting Iran’s influence, as it has already failed to bring down Assad’s government with arming jihadis into Syria. Turkey’s plan to host NATO’s fast alarming radar also which seems to be completely aimed at the superiority of Iran’s IRGC Aerospace division in Middle east won’t do Turkey any good, neither it’s aimed at protecting Turkey.
5. Turkey’s struggle to force Israel to issue an official apology also doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere, Turkey is just playing in the playground. Israelis celebrated Turkey’s decision to host NATO’s radar in Turkish soil which could possibly save Israel from Iran’s missile threats and this is while Erdogan keeps questioning Israel’s secret nuclear program and complains about Israel over and over again with no action. Turkey is in fact working in the favor of Israel; Does anyone know what does it really mean to bring down Assad’s secular government , a government which helps Iranian weapons to fall in the hands of Hezbollah? does anyone really know what will happen if Turkey successfully puts radical Saudi-backed jihadis in charge of Syria? the axis of resistance in Middle east against Israel will be cut in half and Israel will see it as a great opportunity to launch news wars on Lebanon and occupy the lands it has lost in 2000.
I doubt Erdogan knows what’s he doing himself. Every single policy of him is aimed at securing his other policy, which all seem to be failing. Maybe he just wants attention.
By Jeremy Salt
October 06, 2011 Ankara – Information Clearing House – As insurrection in Syria lurches towards civil war, the brakes need to be put on the propaganda pouring through the western mainstream media and accepted uncritically by many who should know better. So here is a matrix of positions from which to argue about what is going on in this critical Middle Eastern country:
1. Syria has been a mukhabarat (intelligence) state since the redoubtable Abd al Hamid al Serraj ran the intelligence services as the deuxieme bureau in the 1950s. The authoritarian state which developed from the time Hafez al Assad took power in 1970 has crushed all dissent ruthlessly. On occasion it has either been him or them. The ubiquitous presence of the mukhabarat is an unpleasant fact of Syrian life but as Syria is a central target for assassination and subversion by Israel and western intelligence agencies, as it has repeatedly come under military attack, as it has had a large chunk of its territories occupied and as its enemies are forever looking for opportunities to bring it down, it can hardly be said that the mukhabarat is not needed.
2. There is no doubt that the bulk of people demonstrating in Syria want peaceful transition to a democratic form of government. Neither is there any doubt that armed groups operating from behind the screen of the demonstrations have no interest in reform. They want to destroy the government.
3. There have been very big demonstrations of support for the government. There is anger at the violence of the armed gangs and anger at external interference and exploitation of the situation by outside governments and the media. In the eyes of many Syrians, their country is again the target of an international conspiracy.
4. Whatever the truth of the accusations made against the security forces, the armed groups have killed hundreds of police, soldiers and civilians, in total probably close to 1000 at this stage. The civilian dead include university professors, doctors and even, very recently, the son of the Grand Mufti of the Republic. The armed gangs have massacred, ambushed, assassinated, attacked government buildings and sabotaged railway lines.
5. Bashar al Assad has a strong base of personal popularity. Although he sits on top of the system it is misleading to call him a dictator. The system itself is the true dictator. Deeply rooted power in Syria – entrenched over five decades – lies in the military and intelligence establishment, and to a lesser degree in the party structure. These are the true sources of resistance to change. The demonstrations were Bashar’s opportunity to pass on the message, which he did, that the system had to change.
6. In the face of large scale demonstrations earlier this year the government did finally come up with a reform program. This was rejected out of hand by the opposition. No attempt was even made to test the bona fides of the government.
7. The claim that armed opposition to the government has begun only recently is a complete lie. The killings of soldiers, police and civilians, often in the most brutal circumstances, has been going on virtually since the beginning.
8. The armed groups are well armed and well organised. Large shipments of weapons have been smuggled into Syria from Lebanon and Turkey. They include pump action shotguns, machine guns, Kalashnikovs,RPG launchers, Israeli-made hand grenades and numerous other explosives. It is not clear who is providing these weapons but someone is, and someone is paying for them. Interrogation of captured members of armed gangs points in the direction of Saad al Hariri’s Future Movement. Hariri is a front man for the US and Saudi Arabia, with influence spreading well beyond Lebanon.
9. Armed opposition to the regime largely seems to be sponsored by the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. In 1982 the government ruthlessly crushed an uprising initiated by the Brotherhood in Hama. Many thousands died and part of the city was destroyed. The Brotherhood has two prime objectives: the destruction of the Baathist government and the destruction of the secular state in favor of an Islamic system. It is almost palpably thirsting for revenge.
10. The armed groups have strong support from outside apart from what is already known or indicated. Exiled former Syrian Vice President and Foreign Minister, Abd ul Halim Khaddam, who lives in Paris, has been campaigning for years to bring down the Assad government. He is funded by both the EU and the US. Other exiled activists include Burhan Ghalioun, backed by Qatar as the leader of the ‘national council’ set up in Istanbul. Ghalioun, like Abd ul Halim Khaddam, lives in Paris and like him also, lobbies against the Assad government in Europe and in Washington. Together with Muhammad Riyad al Shaqfa, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, he is receptive to outside ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Syria on the Libyan model (others are against it). The promotion of the exiles as an alternative government is reminiscent of the way the US used exiled Iraqis (the so-called Iraqi National Congress) ahead of the invasion of Iraq.
11. The reporting by the western media of the situations in Libya and Syria has been appalling. NATO intervention in Libya has been the cause of massive destruction and thousands of deaths. The war, following the invasion of Iraq, is yet another major international crime committed by the governments of the US, Britain and France. The city of Sirte has been bombarded day and night for two weeks without the western media paying any attention to the heavy destruction and loss of life that must have followed. The western media has made no attempt to check reports coming out of Sirte of the bombing of civilian building and the killing of hundreds of people. The only reason can be that the ugly truth could well derail the whole NATO operation.
12. In Syria the same media has followed the same pattern of misreporting and disinformation. It has ignored or skated over the evidence of widespread killings by armed gangs. It has invited its audience to disbelieve the claims of government and believe the claims of rebels, often made in the name of human rights organisations based in Europe or the US. Numerous outright lies have been told, as they were told in Libya and as they were told ahead of the attack on Iraq. Some at least have been exposed. People said to have been killed by state security forces have turned up alive. The brothers of Zainab al Husni claimed she has been kidnapped by security forces, murdered and her body dismembered. This lurid account, spread by Al Jazeera and Al Arabiyya amongst other outlets, was totally false. She is still alive although now, of course, the propaganda tack is to claim that this is not really her but a double. Al Jazeera, the Guardian and the BBC have distinguished themselves by their blind support of anything that discredits the Syrian government. The same line is being followed by the mainstream media in the US. Al Jazeera, in particular, having distinguished itself with its reporting of the Egyptian revolution, has lost all credibility as an independent Arab world news channel.
13. In seeking to destroy the Syrian government the Muslim Brotherhood has a goal in common with the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia, whose paranoia about Shia Islam reached fever pitch with the uprising in Bahrain. Wikileaks revealed how impatient it was for the US to attack Iran. A substitute target is the destruction of the strategic relationship between Iran, Syria and Hizbullah. The US and the Saudis may want to destroy the Alawi-dominated Baathist regime in Damascus for slightly different reasons, but the important thing is that they do want to destroy it.
14. The US is doing its utmost to drive Syria into a corner. It is giving financial support to exiled leaders of the opposition. It has tried (and so far failed thanks to Russian and Chinese opposition) to introduce an extensive program of sanctions through the UN Security Council. No doubt it will try again and depending on how the situation develops, it may try, with British and French support, to bring on a no-fly zone resolution opening the door to foreign attack. The situation is fluid and no doubt all sorts of contingency plans are being developed. The White House and the State Department are issuing hectoring statements every other day. Openly provoking the Syrian government, the US ambassador, accompanied by the French ambassador, travelled to Hama before Friday prayers. Against everything that is known about their past record of interference in Middle Eastern countries, it is inconceivable that the US and Israel, along with France and Britain, would not be involved in this uprising beyond what is already known.
15. While concentrating on the violence of the Syrian regime, the US, European governments (especially Britain) have totally ignored the violence directed against it. Their own infinitely greater violence, of course, in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and other places, doesn’t even come into the picture. Turkey has joined their campaign against Syria with relish, going even further than they have in confronting the Syrian regime. In the space of a few months Turkey’s ‘zero problem’ regional policy has been upended in the most inchoate manner. Turkey eventually lent its support to the NATO attack on Libya, after initially holding back. It has antagonised Iran by its policy on Syria and by agreeing, despite strong domestic opposition, to host a US radar missile ‘defence’ installation clearly directed against Iran. The Americans say its data will be shared with Israel, which has refused to apologise for the attack on the Mavi Marmara, plunging Israeli-Turkish relations into near crisis. So from ‘zero problems’, Turkey now has a regional policy full of problems with Israel, Syria and Iran.
16. While some members of the Syrian opposition have spoken against foreign intervention, the ‘Free Syrian Army’ has said that its aim is to have a no-fly zone declared over northern Syria. A no-fly zone would have to be enforced, and we have seen how this led in Libya to massive infrastructural destruction, the killing of thousands of people and the opening of the door to a new period of western domination.
17. If the Syrian government is brought down, every last Baathist and Alawi will be hunted down. In a government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood the status of minorities and women would be driven backwards.
18. Through the Syria Accountability Act, and through sanctions which the EU has imposed, the US has been trying to destroy the Syrian government for twenty years. The dismantling of unified Arab states along ethno-religious lines has been an aim of Israel’s for decades. Where Israel goes, the US naturally follows. The fruits of this policy can be seen in Iraq, where an independent state in all but name has been created for the Kurds and where the constitution, written by the US, separates Iraq’s people into Kurds, Sunni, Shi and Christian, destroying the binding logic of Arab nationalism. Iraq has not known a moment’s peace since the British entered Baghdad in 1917. In Syria ethno-religious divisions (Sunni Muslim Arab, Sunni Muslim Kurd, Druze, Alawi and various Christian sects) render it vulnerable in the same way to the promotion of sectarian discord and eventual disintegration as the unified Arab state the French tried to prevent coming into existence in the 1920s.
19. The destruction of the Baathist government would be a strategic victory of unsurpassed value to the US and Israel. The central arch in the strategic relationship between Iran, Syria and Hizbullah will have been destroyed, leaving Hizbullah geographically isolated, with a hostile Sunni Muslim government next door, and leaving Hizbullah and Iran more exposed to a military attack by the US and Israel. Fortuitously or otherwise, the ‘Arab spring’ as it has developed in Syria has placed in their hands a lever by which they may be able to achieve their goal.
20. It is not necessarily the case that a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government in Egypt or Syria would be hostile to US interests. Wanting to be seen as a respectable member of the international community and another good example of ‘moderate’ Islam, it is likely and certainly possible that an Egyptian government dominated by the Brotherhood would agree to maintain the peace treaty with Israel for as long as it can (i.e. until another large scale attack by Israel on Gaza or Lebanon makes it absolutely unsustainable).
21. A Syrian government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood would be close to Saudi Arabia and hostile to Iran, Hizbullah and the Shia of Iraq, especially those associated with Muqtada al Sadr. It would pay lip service to the Palestine cause and the liberation of the Golan Heights but its practical policies would be unlikely to be any different from the government it is seeking to destroy.
22. The Syrian people are entitled to demand democracy and to be given it, but in this way and at this cost? Even now, an end to the killing and negotiations on political reform is surely the way forward, not violence which threatens to tear the country apart. Unfortunately, violence and not a negotiated settlement is what too many people inside Syria want and what too many governments watching and waiting for their opportunity also want. No Syrian can ultimately gain from this, whatever they presently think. Their country is being driven towards a sectarian civil war, perhaps foreign intervention and certainly chaos on an even greater scale than we are now seeing. There will be no quick recovery if the state collapses or can be brought down. Like Iraq, and probably like Libya, looking at the present situation, Syria would enter a period of bloody turmoil that could last for years. Like Iraq, again, it would be completely knocked out of the ring as a state capable of standing up for Arab interests, which means, of course, standing up to the US and Israel.
23. Ultimately, whose interests does anyone think this outcome would serve?
– Jeremy Salt is associate professor in Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey. Previously, he taught at Bosporus University in Istanbul and the University of Melbourne in the Departments of Middle Eastern Studies and Political Science. Professor Salt has written many articles on Middle East issues, particularly Palestine, and was a journalist for The Age newspaper when he lived in Melbourne. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.
Interestingly, right after 9/11, most Muslim countries showed strong confidence in Osama Bin Laden but it faded away over the years as Bin Laden has failed to launch another spectacular attack. Although Iran remains an enemy of Alqaeda and Iranians show great hatred for Osama and his kinds. http://forum.ebaumnation.com/showthread.php?52518-Iran-Mourns-America-s-Dead
Pentagon fight to keep Osama bin Laden death photos secret, photos and videos of Al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden after he was killed in May in a U.S. military/Central Intelligence Agency raid in Pakistan should not be released publicly because they would reveal military and intelligence secrets and could lead to violence against U.S. personnel, the Obama administration argued in papers filed in federal court in Washington late Monday night.
Yet some reports suggest that Osama is in the white house. lol
Well I think Obama needed Osama dead in order to win the elections, well I think this is gonna help his career a lot after all. Without declaring Osama dead, he’d lose his job in 2012….
“I like Ahmadinejad (or, at least his rhetoric) but Iran has no influence and can’t make a difference.”
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks at the Forum for International Law organized at Opera House by Cairo University Faculty of Economics and Political Science in Cairo, Egypt on September 13, 2011. (Kayhan Ozer / EPA)
It’s not much surprising to hear this from Erdogan, Turkey has recently planned to place NATO’s fast alarming radar on its soil, which is a move against Iran, but on the other hand, Turkey opposes Israel while that radar could possibly help Israel with the missile threats from Iran. Turkey wants to connect the Islam world with West which Turkish PM once said officially, but they are doing it in a weird way, Turkey seems to be wanting to take Iran’s place which is leadership of the Muslim world against Zionists by meddling in Syria’s internal affairs to weaken Iran’s influence in Middle east and with placing NATO’s radars; posing a threat to the superiority of Iranian missiles in region . And in meanwhile, Turkey hopes to gain support from Muslim world with opposing Israel, vowing legal action against Israel, threatening Israel with sanctions, cutting all military ties with Israel, kicking out Israel’s ambassador, giving deadline to Israeli politician to leave Turkey and such.
This is very much like the rise Ottoman empire. Erdogan has recently suggested Egyptians to form a secular government in Egypt, which was rejected by Muslim brotherhood. Well it seems to me like Turkey is trying to form its own block with secular allies like itself, but Erdogan is either so naive about the reality in Egypt, or he’s miserably wishing that Egypt would turn into another Turkey. Most probably Erdogan is being unrealistic about Arab revolutions in Middle east for some reason. Wait did I just say Arab spring? well it’s not Arab spring, but Islamic awakening. Yemeni and Libyan revolutionaries also said they are going to bring Sharia law (Islamic laws for society) for their countries once they bring down dictators. So it’s clear that just like Bush’s plan was failed, Erdogan’s plan based on unrealistic analyses will fail too. Middle east is religious, and I think Turkey is better off with Eurozone, or if they wanna stay in Middle east, they better deal with the reality.
Poll shows that a majority of Egyptians want to institute Islamic laws and cancel the peace treaty with Israel. In a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, all Muslim countries want Islam in politics and majority of them favor Sharia Law and this is it, Erdogan either deals with this reality, or he’s just gonna be another loser in the lost pages of history.
Where was Turkey 32 years ago when Iranians with the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini made the first revolution in Middle east against the former dictator king of Iran and called other Middle eastern nations to rise against the dictators in their countries too? Iran’s influence finally brought down dictators in Middle east, and I don’t think anyone could ever deny that revolutions in Middle east were inspired by Iran’s Islamic revolution.
Hey Ron Paul Fans: Hope You Know That If America Stopped Being The World’s Policeman, America’s Economy Would Collapse
Aug. 23, 2011, 4:32 AM “Business Insider” – Ron Paul doesn’t just think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a mistake. He’s an isolationist: he thinks America shouldn’t be the world’s policeman. He thinks America shouldn’t have troops abroad and shouldn’t use its military except in cases of self-defense.
Here’s the problem: this would wreck the US economy, and the world economy.
And isolationists in general, and Ron Paul in particular, don’t seem to grasp that.
Here’s the thing: when isolationists talk about America being the “world’s policeman”, they think about foreign wars like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. That’s what mobilizes people’s imagination for very obvious reasons: it’s where people die. But foreign wars are by far the least important part of America’s duty as the world’s policeman.
What matters about America being the world’s policeman, and America’s troops abroad, is all the troops that don’t do any fighting.
From bases in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, the US military protects the world’s shipping lanes, making sure the clockwork of the global economy runs smoothly and goods and oil can be shipped to and back. This is the part of the global American military footprint that actually matters, not the wars.
These wars may be very bad ideas, but Ron Paul and his ilk don’t just want to end those wars. They want to end America’s global military hegemony.
And it should be obvious by now that this would be like taking a wrecking ball to the American economy.
Everyone takes it as a granted that you can load a ship full of oil in Saudi Arabia and take it to China and not have anyone steal it. And that you can load a ship full of toys and iPhones in China and take it to the US and not have anyone steal it. And so on.
But even a cursory look at world history shows that this is exceptional in the history of the world. The reason why this happens is because there is a benign, global military hegemon which ensures the security of the world’s shipping lanes, on which the globalized world economy, and therefore the US economy, depends.
Every era of successful globalization, from Pericles to Queen Victoria, has involved a naval hegemon to ensure the security of shipping, and therefore commerce. The hegemon provides this public good that lets other, smaller actors free-ride not because it’s in the thrall of neocons, but because it directly benefits from strong, safe international trade.
And it’s everything libertarians abbhor: basically everyone except the US is getting a free lunch. Saudi kings and Greek shipping magnates don’t pay for the security that the US provides. And the US is paying for everyone else’s security. But actually, the US gets a lot more out of it than it spends, because it gets to be at the center of safe, global free trade.
There’s no way around it: without this trade subsidy that the US provides the world, which costs $700 billion per year in military budget but probably brings back trillions in value to the US economy, and trillions more to the world, the cost of everything would automatically rise, especially the cost of oil and the cost of anything that’s on store shelves. It’s not hard to see the effect this would have on the global, and US economy. It would make the Smoot-Hawley Act look like the Doha Round. It would have exactly the effect of something libertarians claim to detest: a giant global tarriff.
Now, Ron Paul fans sometimes answer with something like, well, once everyone else stops getting a free lunch, they’ll take charge of their own security.
Except that’s not plausible. Who else could do it? No one, that’s who.
This is Europe right now.
Europe would be the likeliest candidate, except that its defense capabilities have shrunk to an extent where it’s impossible. The United States has eleven carrier groups, and “Europe” (because “Europe” is a geographical construct, not a political one) has four. Europe’s carriers are all much smaller than the smallest US carrier. Europe has only one nuclear carrier, meaning a carrier that can stay at sea for a long period of time. Europe doesn’t have military and naval bases across all the global shipping lanes, mostly just in its former colonies in Africa. Even if Europe a- got a unified political executive and b- took up its defense spending to the level of the US, it would take decades for it to actually build the ships and the infrastructure it would take. And meanwhile the world economy burns. (Not to mention that given its current fiscal position, it would have to do it at the price of terrible austerity, which would also wreck the global economy.)
China is an even more risible alternative. For all the talk of China’s rising clout, it doesn’t have anything near a “blue-water” navy that can project power globally. Its first and only aircraft carrier, recently launched with much hype and fretting, is a 20-year-old Soviet diesel-powered hand-me-down. So even leaving aside the obvious problems with just handing over responsibility for the global economy to a Communist dictatorship, it’s just not possible.
The same applies to India: for all their sheer size, which makes them important political and economic actors, they remain very poor countries that just don’t have the technological and economic capacities to build a military with global-reach.
Well, maybe no one country can replace the United States, but maybe everyone could chip in: Europe and the US would ensure the security of the Atlantic, India of South Asia, China of East Asia (which will certainly go down well in Taiwan and Japan) and so forth. Except that history teaches us that these “multipolar” zones of influences lead to one thing: war. In the 17th century, Britain, France and Spain fought endlessly for naval superiority. Only when Britain became most powerful did peace arrive and global trade begin in earnest. Same thing with the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage. And so on.
But let’s imagine an ideal libertarian scenario. Let’s imagine that instead of a specific country, or even set of countries, global security is provided by private actors through some combination of mercenaries and insurance. By definition this would still raise the cost of global trade dramatically. Those mercenaries and insurance would still have to be paid, and those costs would still be reflected in the price of shipping. So it would still amount to a huge global tarriff.
All but the most hardcore libertarians realize that government has a role in providing public goods–things that benefit everyone but that it doesn’t make sense for any individual actor to pay for. Like it or not, global American military hegemony is a public good. The fact that the US military is so much more powerful than anyone else (indeed, everyone else combined) means that global trade is safer, and thereby cheaper, than it’s ever been before, which benefits the global economy and the US directly and tremendously.
When libertarians and isolationists talk about the US being “the world’s policeman”, they talk in terms of a- politics and b- foreign wars. But the parts that matter are about a- economics and b- preventing wars. What matters in policing a city isn’t the SWAT team, it’s the cops who walk the beat and take care of the riff-raff so that the SWAT team only has to come out once in a while. And when the SWAT team raids the wrong house, that’s terrible and we should do something about that, but it doesn’t mean we need to disband the police force.
We’re all for blasting illegal, unwinnable, endless foreign wars of choice. We’re all for smashing the national security state that treats grandma like a terrorist if she wants to board a flight. We’re all for howling at the insidious and wasteful military-industrial complex, and cutting the unsustainable Pentagon budget.
That’s what gets Ron Paul attention, but that’s not what he wants. What he and other isolationists want is to end American global military hegemony. And facts are stubborn: like it or not, doing that would wreck the global and US economy.
Ron Paul and his fans should come to terms with that.
Commentary. What a complete load of crap.
Business Insider admits it; But I have a question: Minding your own business is being “isolationist”? So that means that pretty much every other country in the world is isolationist?; So all these presence of the US military all over the world is only for securing the shipment of oiltankers? lol how much really are the people stupid to believe that?