Russian Med fleet returns – an unintended consequence

My Catbird Seat May 24, 2013 7
Russian Med fleet returns – an unintended consequence

Nobody in the American military is going to willingly die for bully Israel other than maybe the Christian Zionists in the Air Force. But that said, the world would be a safer place with them gone anyway.

 

by Jim W Dean

Originally published in PressTV  on May, 21st, 2013

There was a lot of distraction in the news last week, particularly the flank attack moves on Obama that obscured a huge development in the Mid East… the first return of the Russian Pacific Navy for Mediterranean deployment since 1992.
 

The first big part of the news is the active word ‘permanent.’ Corporate media decided to ignore the strategic shift consequences of that, and the West may be looking back soon at the wisdom of their aggressive regime change military moves, despite the extensive use of proxies.

The recent Israeli attacks on Syria, particularly the use of a nuclear bunker buster gave the Russians a gift from heaven, opening the door to make a defensive deployment to protect their longtime ally in Syria. The Russians are back in the Med to stay, and this might be a good lesson to the folly of the Western slow motion aggression policy in the region, which has put a match to the whole place.

Russian Navy Commander Admiral Viktor Chirkov has announced that a permanent staff was being set up, and the present force might eventually include their nuclear submarines. In speaking to RIA:

“Overall, already from this year, we plan to have five or six warships and support vessels [in the Mediterranean Sea], which will be replaced on a rotating basis from each of the fleets – the Black Sea, Baltic, Northern and, in some cases, even the Pacific Fleet. Depending on the scope of assignments and their complexity, the number of warships in the task force may be increased.”

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu let the cat out of the bag when he stated that a permanent naval task force was needed to defend Russian interests in the region. The world has watched for two years now how coolly Russia has dealt with the continuing escalations in the fighting there, supported by a growing number of outside states who have effectively declared war on Syria thinking that such was a no-risk deal.

Here is what corporate media has not been telling you all. The preemptive strike doctrine of the Israelis and Neocons is going to be challenged. Netanyahu can talk all he wants to about red lines which will trigger a preemptive ‘defensive’ strike, but yours truly has written in these columns that eventually the intended targets would adopt that policy themselves. They have actually been given permission to by the dummies who invented it.

US Navy sources can sneer at the ‘old’ Russian ships all they want to, but there is nothing old about what they will be carrying, a game changer… their state-of-the-art missiles which they made a top priority in their defense policy as the new missiles are revolutionizing the next generation of warfare. The will sweep the skies of planes and the seas of ships. Air forces are working now to deploy robotic war plane drones that are basically missiles themselves by matching their speeds and aerodynamics.

Part of the corporate media hoax has been the fraudulent story of the S-300s being ‘introduced’ to the region as being destabilizing. Anyone wanting to check a copy of Jane’s in 1996 will find them already in Syria. Maybe some definition game has been going on that if they were under Russian physical control, as American munitions are in many foreign bases, they are not officially Syrian. But I would ask the lazy media what they thought brought down the Turkish F-16 provocations, a waste of those unfortunate pilots in peace time.

Yes folks, the S-300’s have been there all this time, and not fired at Israel yet. But that is all going to change. Israel’s days of roaming freely over Lebanon airspace and their ability to launch air flight munitions without entering Syrian territory may be over, or it will be when the Russians decide to.

Their fleet, even its older ships will be carrying their state-of-the-art weapons like the S-400’s where a pilot only has two or three seconds to live once the ‘beep beep’ that they are locked onto at tremendous speeds. The Russian ships on patrol will be able to shoot any attacking Israeli planes down, including those returning to base post attack. They can even be shot down while taking off.

Any retaliatory strike by Israel would trigger a full response by the Russians that could include their bases and command structure. Their updated Iskander missiles are stated to have speeds in the Mach 6 to 7 range but our sources say over Mach 8. To evade anti-missile fire they can pull 30+ g turns and make a 90-degree dive onto a target while doing so. The Israeli bullies have never had to stand up to a modern military but they may get the chance. They won’t like it.

The beauty in all of this is the scenario described above could all be done in a purely defensive mode while resisting an Israeli attack. After one incident alone the Russians might tell the Israelis that any Israeli warplane leaving Israeli air space would be considered an attack and both the plane and the base it flew from subject to attack.

Oh… I forgot to mention above that the targeting can be done either by satellite or programmed into the missiles so jamming would not be effective. This is not the Gaza Strip mortar shells on a back yard rocket tube, which Israel claims to be such a mortal threat where they have repeatedly launched civilian punishment retaliations as ‘deterrents.’ The dummy Israelis did not realize that they were giving moral permission for the same thing to be done to them someday.

Veterans Today has reported that the US Army Corps of Engineers has been spending huge amounts of money building the Israelis nuclear strike proof command centers. More American taxpayer money was wasted to protect Israel, which has a huge weapons-of-mass-destruction inventory threatening everyone else. Under the Bush/NeoCon preemptive strike policy the Russians could have taken these out of ‘potential’ threats, and similarly the Patriot missile batteries.

As for accuracy, the Iskanders can take the Patriot missile batteries out the first day. And the Russians could surrender to the international court the next day on the grounds that their response was totally legal under international law. And if that did not suffice, their second defense would be the Bush doctrine of preemptive strike for defensive purposes… not to eliminate a future threat, but one that had already signaled its hostile intent.

If any of you are thinking I am hyping this scenario, I held up publishing this until I got confirmation from the Israelis. The headline of the Israel Hayom for May 19th was:

“Expect Israeli strikes on Russian arms shipments to Syria-Hezbollah… US officials tell the Wall Street Journal another round of Israeli airstrikes could target a new Russian transfer of Yakhont advanced anti-ship missiles in the near future.”

This was nothing more than laying the ground work for the IDF to continue aggressive strikes in support of the Syrian rebels. Note the automatic linking of Syria and Hezbollah like they share arms depots or the Russians let them give their arms away to others. Do the Israelis have US permission? Well, kind of. Obama said Israel has the right to defend itself, so that means others have the right, also. But the game is a bit different when someone is in the Med who has full retaliatory ability including nuclear weapons.

Oh, I forgot to mention something about the nuclear bunker buster that the Israelis used in Damascus. The Russians of course have them also, to use on their newer missiles to keep their weight down for higher speed or longer range, and to make sure one missile does the job. Despite Bibi’s claiming that Israel is ready for all eventualities, it is ready for none of this. And if the Russians responded to an Israeli attack, believe me the US would not intercede.

The US would be in enough trouble for having put the region in such danger by arming Israel to the teeth to a level its own population could never have afforded, nor would they if they could have.

When Israel suffers a substantial retaliatory strike after an aggressive attack on their part, I can promise you the average Israeli is going to have an instant different opinion of the bully buzz they have grown used to when attacking weak or defenseless opponents.

In the long run more than a few international civilian and military Intel entities have long suspected that this is what eventually would have to happen to remove Israel as a threat to everybody. They would attack the wrong people at the wrong time.

Nobody in the American military is going to willingly die for bully Israel other than maybe the Christian Zios in the Air Force. But that said, the world would be a safer place with them gone anyway.


Jim W Dean is managing editor at Veterans Today. He has been writing, speaking and doing public relations, television, consulting and now multimedia work for a variety of American heritage, historical, military, veterans and Intel orgs. He has appeared on PBS most recently on the Looking for Lincoln documentary with Prof. Henry Lewis Gates and lectured at the Army Command and General Staff School at Fort Gordon. His current writing focus is on national security, intelligence, black and psy ops, military/Intel history including personal video archives, and the current wars.

Also see:

7 Comments »

  1. g_h May 21, 2013 at 11:53 pm - Reply

    Nuclear bunker buster? S300 aimed at Israel? Nonsense!

    • Debbie
      Debbie May 23, 2013 at 8:38 pm - Reply

      @ Florence L

      Our Iranian-American editor on US/Iran issues writes:

      Javedabfar's essay does deserve attention and should not be written off or ridiculed as nonsense. America's dilemma in attempting to arm the Syrian opposition, including the sworn enemies of the United States, simply to pressure Assad out of office, is another example of enemies joining forces to accomplish some common objective. That does not mean that some future friendship would ensue after the collaboration is over; on the contrary, case in point, the Afghan Taliban.
       
       
      What Florence Leone writes is very true, direct and courageous, but her intended point may need a more extensive clarification to elucidate the pros and cons of this chess game.
      Kam Zarrabi
       
      Kam Zarrabi
  2. Florence L May 22, 2013 at 10:29 am - Reply

    Extraordinary reporting, Jim Dean. Russia's serious and permanent entry into the Great Game in the Mediterranean makes Meier Javandanfar's plea for an Iran-Israel alliance against al Nusra all that more pathetic. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/05/iran-hezbollah-israel-common-enemy-nusra.html

     

    This is why the governments of Iran and Israel must consider the option of talking to each other, be it overtly or covertly. Making such a decision will not be easy for either side. In Israel, the Iranian government's denial of the Holocaust and calls for Israel's destruction have created many enemies. At the same time, in Iran, the regime's anti-Israel rhetoric forms much of its character. It has invested much in its anti-Israel policies and rhetoric both at home and abroad since the start of the revolution. However, the severity of the upcoming situation in Syria means that Iran and Israel have a common enemy that will pose a severe threat to their allies and citizens. Although Iran does not share a border with Syria, it can not allow its Shiite ally Hezbollah and Syria's Allawites to be run over by al-Qaeda affiliated organizations, or it would lose what remains of its influence in the region. At the same time, Israel does not want to see a repeat of a civil war on its border, as was the case in Lebanon in the 1970s. The anarchy of such conflicts create the perfect environment for terrorist organizations to launch attacks against Israeli cities.

     

    Israel apparently has come around to think that Iranian blood is too precious to waste in targeted assassinations. Better to shed Iranian blood in defense of Israel.   When Iran was subjected to chemical attacks in the Iraq war on Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini refused to retaliate with chemical weapons; they were un-Islamic.   Iran's Islamic leaders may have a similar moral code that would require them to come to the aid of Jews in Israel — Iranians still think of Jews as a special and important part of Iran's history, and community.  Many Iranian people were appalled at some of the statements Ahmadinejad made about Israel.   But that was several years ago.  I wonder if the Iranian public would tolerate a situation in which the Iranian government DID aid Israel to protect Israel's border with Lebanon?   What will be the calculus of the Iranian leaders:  alliance with Russia-Syria-NAM-BRICS, or aid to zionist Israel and the many Iranian Jews who live there?

  3. Debbie
    Debbie May 22, 2013 at 2:17 pm - Reply

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has stressed Iran’s influential role in settling the Syria unrest, underlining the need for the inclusion of Iran in the upcoming  “international peace conference” on Syria in Geneva.

     

    Turkey's green light to Iran role in Syria talks in Geneva is a welcome step : All three analysts who spoke to Today's Zaman find the involvement of Iran in the Geneva talks essential, as it's, being a staunch supporter of the Bashar al-Assad regime, is a major stakeholder in the crisis.

     

    While Moscow backs Iran's participation in the meeting, France has opposed it, saying that it's against a Syria peace conference in which  Assad's regional ally Iran would also be invited.  Washington's position on Iran's involvement in the Geneva talks has not yet been announced, but Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Thursday that Iran must take part in the proposed international conference in Geneva, calling the country an important actor in the talks.

  4. Florence L May 25, 2013 at 12:28 am - Reply

    What tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive.

     

      http://ca.news.yahoo.com/general-says-israel-ready-attack-syria-assad-fall-151534140.html;_ylt=AkpwOgX90fVRoZCmQ4BcoSc6ssB_;_ylu=X3oDMTRxcGVxbWZhBGNjb2RlA3ZzaGFyZWFnMnVwcmVzdARtaXQDTmV3cyBmb3IgeW91IGNoYXNlIHRlc3QEcGtnA2ZkZWE1ZjlmLTY0YTAtM2VhMi04YTE5LTM3ZTk4Y2M2YzlkMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDbmV3c19mb3JfeW91BHZlcgM5ZWUwOWExMC1jMmYyLTExZTItYmQzZS00MjA5OGJjZDhmNTM-;_ylg=X3oDMTBhdnVpNmo3BGxhbmcDZW4tQ0E-;_ylv=3

     

    "HERZLIYA, Israel (Reuters) - Israel is prepared to attack Syria to prevent advanced weapons reaching jihadi rebels or Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon if President Bashar al-Assad is toppled, Israel's air force chief said on Wednesday.

    Major-General Amir Eshel also said Israelis should brace for a protracted and painful conflict should their forces engage in combat with Hezbollah or its main backer, Iran."  

     

    vs Meir Javedanfar:  Iran and Israel need to fuggedabout their past conflicts and unite against al Nusrah.  

     

    Which is it?  

     

    Smells to me like Israel is running scared. Only it's genuine this time, not the faux holocaust grip of fear that zionism's leaders have used for a hundred years to keep Jews in Israel and around the world, as well as non-Jews, submissive to the psychopathic agenda of zionism.  

  5. Rufus Peterson May 25, 2013 at 3:48 am - Reply

    Those of us not up to speed with Mr. Dean's depth of knowledge re weapons and who has what among Syria, Russia, the US and Israel are a little in the dark and just have to take his word for it.

     

    Nevertheless, Russia does finaly seem to be stepping up to the plate, and it doesn't take Jim Dean to let us in on that. Russia wouldn't be taking the action it has if it couldn't back it up.  

     

    Check this out by Juan Cole: http://mycatbirdseat.com/2013/05/juan-cole-russia-strikes-back-in-syria/ "Russia is only a 24-hour drive from Aleppo, Syria’s northernmost metropolis."  

     

    While that's true, and I was pointing that out since at least last Fall, there are a couple of US bases between Russia and Aleppo- both in Turkey I think- if not, Iraq. Russian convoys could perhaps drive around them, but would the US just stand by?  

  6. Florence L May 28, 2013 at 5:06 am - Reply

    Thanks for synchronizing Kam Zarrabi's comments on possible Iranian responses to a) Javedanfar's suggestion that Iran and Israel must ally against al Nusrah; vs  b) the usual argument that destroying Syria is all about destroying Iran. 

     
    I spent some time studying Dr. Zarrabi's website and was especially impressed with his review of the Leveretts' "Going to Tehran."

     

    Kam made two major points in that review: 1. that the Leveretts steer clear of a fundamental critique of zionism; and 2. the Leveretts misperception of the attitude of Iranian-Americans.

     
    Re the first point:  Absolutely.  I have deep respect for the Leveretts, and try to attribute that decision of theirs to avoid discussion of zionism to their acknowledgement that in order to remain in the field, they have to play safe. 

     
    Much more can be said about this point, but I was more intrigued with Kam's comments about attitudes of Iranian expats/ Iranian Americans.

     
    My Iranian-American friends — the ones who introduced me to the special qualities of Iranian culture and mind set — are "East Coast" Iranian-Americans.  I've never met a "West Coast" Iranian American, but when my Virginia-based friend spent a week in Los Angeles on business and met with fellow Iranian Americans, she came back home to Virginia with only disgust for the materialism and shallowness of the West Coast contingent.   I recognize that that's a pretty categorical judgment to apply based on a short visit — it's just a snapshot, another facet in the kaleidoscope.

     
    Mashing these perspectives together — the experiences my Iranian American friends have related to me about their lives, for example,  about having been in USA in graduate programs when the Revolution occurred, and finding themselves without funds, without the ability to return to Iran, without the ability to remain in the US, without a home, and a country.  The ways that they reacted to this situation are even more different than East Coast vs West Coast.

     
    As I read Kam's assessment of how some Iranian Americans long for the reinstatement of the Shah, I couldn't help but think this was a form of grieving. 

     
    I've also been reading Joseph Massad, Omar Barghouti, and Sami Bahour's narratives on the Nakba (which gives rise to an entire dissertation! But that, too, is not what I want to talk about here.)  

     
    It doesn't take a great leap of imagination to perceive Iranians as having endured a kind of Nakba:  they feel they have been forcibly exiled, and they yearn for the "right of return." 

     
    Massad, Barghouti, and Bahour blame the Nazis for the Nakba! (THAT is the topic on which a dissertion could/must be written).
    Iranians blame the Islamic government for their "Nakba." Neither group will ever get what they want:  a return to life as it used to be, when they were "happy," in "modern, westernized Iran," under the Shah. It ain't gonna happen.

     
    Jewish holocaustism has taken the oxygen out of any and every assessment of the status and grievances of other groups who have been, or feel themselves to have been dispossessed.  Everyone on the planet has been reminded, ad nauseaum, of how "Jews were forced to flee Europe."  And everyone on the planet is forced to acquiesce to that narrative under criminal sanction in some cases, despite the FACT that the decision of Jews to leave Europe was voluntary, and was taken about a dozen years in advance of an alleged genocide of Jews. 

     
    But hardly anyone knows of the famine/genocide of Iranians in World War I, that cost the lives of about 40% of Iran's population.  M. Gholi notes that not until 1965 did Iran regain the population that it had in 1914, before the 1917-1919 famine/genocide.  Thus, most Iranian-Americans are part of that revitalized Iranian population tier.

     
    Two major differences emerge between Jewish relationship to migration, and Iranian relation to migration/dispossession:
    1. Jews have always been a migratory people.  Iranians have not. J. Rufus Fears points out in one of his series of lectures on Great Events in World History, from the time of Abraham, who was a failed agriculturalist (says Fears) to the present, the Jewish lifestyle is best understood as migratory: they go where the opportunities for survival are most salubrious. That's a fact.

     

    In contrast, as Trita Parsi has noted, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) represents the first generation of Iranians to have migrated in large numbers from the land of Iran. 

     
    I am the child of immigrants to the USA.  I was born here, I've always been and always knew that I am an American, but I never have felt 'planted' in this country.  When I was in Iran, I observed Iranian men, women, children — rich, poor; city dwellers and mountain-dwelling shepherds, as they 'interacted' with the very landscape of Iran.  It is not at all uncommon to see an entire Iranian family living in a tent in a grassy park outside a hospital in a major city, while another family member is in hospital for treatment.  It's a perfectly natural thing to do:  Iran's landscape it the living room for Iranian people.  They are comfortable there.  It must be very difficult for such a habit of interacting with one's natural environment to have to transplant it.  It's noteworthy that Hebrew scriptures (mythos) open with stories of being banished from the garden.  I'm not aware of a similar story in Iranian epic or mythos.

     

    2. That notion, of the mythos of exile, leads to another major contrast between Iranians removed from Iran, and Jews removed from Europe:  the Jewish pattern seems to be to complain loudly about their dispossession; to blame an outside force; and to disavow any moral agency of their own.  As a group, they seem to be the least-well-adjusted to their new circumstances.  Comparing Israel-born psychologist Avigail Abarbanel's diagnosis of "Israel's Trauma Psychology" with Wolfgang Samuel's "War of Our Childhood: Memories of World War II." 

     

    Abarbanel writes that

    "Fear of annihilation is at the heart of Jewish, not just Israeli, culture, and it pre-dates the holocaust. . . . The climate in Israel today . . .moves further to an irrational and fanatic position . . .
    When a person's perception of reality is completely out of touch with reality itself, we begin to get an uneasy feeling that something might be wrong with his or her mind."  — www dot avigailabarbanel. me.uk/growing-insanity/html.

     

     

    Jews who suffered in World War II have demanded and received massive reparations; yet, as accounts in this week's Jewish Daily Forward report, over at least the last fifteen years, millions of dollars have been fraudulently removed from reparations funds by the fund's managers.

     

    On the other hand, Samuel writes that, in spite of having grown up in an environment in which fathers were absent or dead; in which children may have witnessed the rape of their mothers and sisters, or watched their homes and perhaps siblings as be incinerated by Allied firebombing, or watched family members starve to death, children who grew up in World War II in Germany are, today, "well adjusted and productive members of society."

     

    What explains these starkly contrasted reactions to trauma, and where do Iranians fit on the continuum?

     

    My working hypothesis is that they inner dialog a person relies upon to explain and adapt to his situation is based upon a boundation of taught narratives.  The Jewish narrative is based on stories from Hebrew scriptures and celebrations in the Hebrew calendar, i.e. Passover, Purim, Hannukah.

     

    The German mythos is different from the Hebrew mythos.

     

    The Iranian mythos is, I hypothesize (from a rank amateur's point of view), based upon Iran's history dating back to Cyrus; to ethical principles dating to Zoroaster — Good thoughts, Good words, Good deeds; to the epic literature of Ferdowsi, The Shahnameh; to the poets that so many Iranians honor, and that, Rumpole-like, form the catch-phrases of their interior life.  Those elements that unify Iranians is the true WMD of Iranian society (I hope).  

     

     
    It is my perception that Iranians have a realistic awareness of the origins of their foundational myths and literature, and cultural narrative.  As Abarbanel emphasized, Israelis, and Jews, she said, do NOT have a reality-based assessment of their inner narrative.
    The quiet Iranians among us, on East Coast and on West Coast, and in between, have borne their trials in a way that is different from some other immigrant groups.  In the process, they have contributed a great deal to American culture and prosperity, without receiving the regard and acknowledgement from the rest of us Americans, that they richly deserve. 

     

     

    We can learn a lot from Iranians and Iranian Americans.

     

     

Leave A Response »

Copy this code

and paste it here *