Russia's Missile Wall in Iran
By Tony Cartalucci, Information Clearing House
The
popular narrative surrounding the conflict between the West and Iran
has always been one of a dangerous rogue state bent on obtaining nuclear
weapons before triggering a nuclear-fueled Armageddon aimed at Israel.
Underneath this elementary propaganda, lies a more complex truth
underpinning a proxy conflict between East and West.
Just
as had been the case during World War I and II, the strategic position,
resources, and population of Iran constitute a necessary prerequisite
to first overcome before containing and eventually overrunning the
political order in Moscow. This time around, in addition to Moscow, the
Western axis also seeks to eventually encircle and overrun Beijing as
well.
Unlike
during the World Wars, vast wars of attrition and mechanized invasions
are not a possibility today. Instead, a concerted campaign of proxy
wars, covert political subversion, sanctions, and other non-military
instruments of power are being employed in what is for all intents and
purposes a global conflict.
Increasingly
defining the fronts of this conflict, in addition to political and
economic alliances, is the presence of "missile walls," or national
missile defense programs being erected by both East and West.
Where
these missile walls end, is generally where the West's overt military
aggression begins. In Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, where such missiles
systems are absent, the West has or is bombing these nations with
absolute impunity. The United Nations, in theory, should have prevented
armed aggression against Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, but has
categorically failed to do so. In nations possessing formidable missile
defenses, direct Western aggression has become more or less unthinkable,
leaving less efficient proxy wars and political subversion to do the
job.
The
presence of missile defense systems capable of checking Western
military aggression may be what is needed to establish both a balance of
power globally, and the global stability the UN has promised but has so
far failed to deliver.
Iran, the Last Watchtower
In
places like Iran where proxy wars cannot easily be waged, and
foreign-backed political subversion has been checked, the West has for
years planned military options to achieve regime change in Tehran.
Encapsulated in the Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" report,
these options include the use of diplomatic negotiations, particularly
in regards to Iran's civil nuclear program, as a means to justify
military strikes on Iran's nuclear research facilities. The strikes will
surely not lead to regime change in and of themselves, but Western
policymakers hope the attacks will provoke an Iranian retaliation the
West could then use to expand military operations to include regime
change.
Written
in 2009, "Which Path to Persia?" includes multiple scenarios that have
now demonstrably been tried, and have failed. Remaining is the use of
positive nuclear talks initiated by the United States in what is meant
to appear as an act of good faith toward Iran. Israel is tasked with
unilaterally attacking Iran's nuclear facilities,claiming America's "betrayal" left them with no other choice.
Again, in hopes that Iran retaliates, or in the wake of a false flag
attack meant to appear as an Iranian retaliation, the US would step in
to assist Israel.
In
other words, the nuclear deal is a canard, with the West not only
having no intention of honoring it, but planning to use them as
justification first for an attack on their nuclear facilities, followed
by a joint coalition aimed at removing the Iranian government by force.
What
"Which Path to Persia?" may not have counted on, was, however, Russia's
growing influence in the ongoing conflict and its ability to exploit
the window of opportunity opened briefly by the West's disingenuous
"good will" it has shown Tehran with its alleged "rapprochement."
The
West claiming that it is satisfied with Iran's terms and commitment to
the nuclear deal, has pushed it forward for formal signing in upcoming
months. Predictably, while this satisfaction should in theory lead to
the lifting of sanctions, the West has made no gesture of good will to
do so yet.
Russia
for its part has begun lifting sanctions. This includes an
oil-for-goods deal it has established with Iran, as well as delivery of
several S300 anti-air missile systems. The missiles in particular, left
undelivered for 5 years, may significantly complicate any attempts by
the West to betray Iran in the signing and honoring of the current
nuclear deal. With the procurement and effective deployment of S300
missile systems, Iran will find itself behind a "missile wall" that will
drastically raise the stakes for an already potentially risky act of
military aggression against Tehran by either Israel, the US, or both -
or Saudi Arabia who has recently begun unilaterally bombing its neighbor
Yemen.
The Hand-Wringing Begins
In
the wake of Russia's decision to deliver the S300 systems, German
Chancellor Angela Merkel pleaded that the sanctions be lifted "as
cohesively as possible." In other words, at the same time, and only when
the West says so.
One
must wonder, if the West was truly committed to rapprochement with
Iran, then why hasn't it, as an act of good faith, lifted at least some
sanctions to relieve the socioeconomic punishment it has been
inflicting on the Iranian people for years? One must also wonder why the
West has reacted negatively to Russia's own lifting of sanctions, as
well as the delivery of a purely defensive weapon system.
The
West, one might suspect, would only berate Russia for delivering a
defensive system to Iran, if the West planned treachery all along. Just
as the US did with Iraq, Syria, and Libya, with various phases of
rapprochement with each respective nation achieved before the US either
annihilated them or attempted to do so, these is every reason to believe
it will likewise betray Iran.
The
negative response by the West regarding the delivery of the S300
missile systems also rings particularly hypocritical, since the West is
well on its way to erecting its own "missile wall" around both Russia
and China. Assurances by the West that neither Russia nor China have
anything to fear by these purely "defensive" missile systems is now
being reciprocated by Moscow in regards to Iran's now augmented missile
defense capabilities.
How Strong is the Wall?
The
S300 is, according to various sources including the US-based
International Assessment and Strategy Center (IASC), one of the most
formidable missile defense systems being fielded. According to one IASC
report titled, "Almaz S-300 – China's “Offensive” Air Defense," it states:
The
S-300 SAM systems remain one of the most lethal, if not the most
lethal, all altitude area defence SAM systems in service, with a range
of more capable derivatives entering service in Russia, or in
development.
The
report points out that the missile systems not only defend a nation's
airspace, but could deny neighboring air forces the ability to defend
their own airspace. This might explain why NATO, led by the US, has been
erecting missile networks around Russia and China for years.
 However,
there are no known instances of an S300 being fired in actual combat.
The deterrence the S300 poses is only as good as the forces employing
the system and the actual capabilities of the missiles themselves. It is
known that NATO has already conducted exercises in Europe focusing
specifically on circumventing Russian-made air defense systems. One such
exercise conducted in 2005 called "Trial Hammer" involved what is
called ‘Suppression of Enemy Air Defense’ (SEAD). Such exercises may
already be working on ways to circumvent or neutralize systems like the
S300.
However,
the risk is, should Israel or the US launch an attack on Iran once the
S300s are in place and significant numbers of aircraft are lost, not
only will the operation fail and an expensive and humiliating blow be
dealt to the forces involved, but the veil of invincibility of Western
military might, especially its airpower, will be lost forever triggering
a cascade of rebellion across the "international order" the West has
created primarily under the threat of military force.
Additionally,
should Iran down a significant number of aircraft involved in any
unilateral act of military aggression against its territory, it will
have fulfilled a proportional "retaliation," negating the need to
respond further, and making a false flag attempted in Iran's name appear
all the more obvious. The West would have a failed operationally,
strategically, and geopolitically.
Because
of this, perhaps, regardless of the true capabilities of the S300, the
risk will be too great to attempt this last gamble left to Western
policymakers attempting to stop Iran's establishment as a permanent
regional power, for all intents and purposes immune to Western military
aggression.
As suggested by other analysts,
this may not remove altogether the threat of US designs against Russia
via Iran. If forced to accept normal relations with Iran, and by
actually removing sanctions, Iranian hydrocarbons would begin flooding
the market and dropping prices Russia has long benefited from and
depended on. Whether that option appeals to Western policymakers more
than potentially dashing a half century of perceived military
invincibility against Iran's missile defense systems remains to be
seen.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“NewEastern
|
No comments:
Post a Comment