Discovering Iran: a travelogue

by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

Marcel Proust once said: “The voyage of discovery is not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.” During the past two decades, I visited Iran on numerous occasions staying 10-14 days at a time. This time around, I stayed for 2 months and heeding Proust, I carried with me a fresh pair of eyes. I discarded both my Western lenses as well as my Iranian lenses and observed with objective eyes. It was a formidable journey that left me breathless.

Part I - Women of the Islamic Republic of Iran
It is hard to know where to start a travel log and how to describe a newfound world in a few pages. However, given the West’s obsession (and the “Westernized” Iranians living abroad) to rescue Iranian women from their perceived “oppression” (while simultaneously imposing illegal and immoral sanctions on them!) perhaps it is appropriate to start with the women in Iran as I perceived them.

Western media with help from feminists and Iranians living outside of Iran portray Iranian women as being “oppressed” -- foremost because women in Iran have to abide by an Islamic dress code - hijab. Yes, hijab is mandatory and women choose to either wear either a chador or to wear a scarf. But what is crucial to understand is the role chador played in pre 1979 versus the post Revolution era.

Prior to the 1979 Revolution, the chador was indicative of a thinly veiled caste system. While a few distinguished women of high socio-economical background chose to wear the chador, the rest, the majority of Iranian women, were simply born into the habit. In short, the socio-economically disadvantaged wore the pre 1979 chador. In those days, the chador was a hindrance to a woman’s progress; she was looked down at and frowned upon. She could not move forward or up. She was oppressed. But Western feminists were blind to this oppression. After all, the Shah was modern and America’s friendly dictator.

The Revolution changed the status quo and chipped away at the caste system. A revolution, by definition, is a complete change in the way people live and work. And so it is with the Iranian Revolution. The post 1979 chador is no longer an impediment to a woman’s future. Today’s Iranian woman, the same (formerly) less privileged class, has found freedom in their chador. They have been unshackled and they march on alongside their (formerly) more privileged colleagues. This emancipation is what the Western/Westernized feminists see as oppression.

I myself come from yesterday’s tiny minority of “privileged” women, far too comfortable in my “Western” skin to want to promote hijab, but I will not allow my personal preferences to diminish the value of the progress made because of hijab. The bleeding hearts from without should simply change their tainted lenses instead of trying to change the lives of others for Iranian women do not need to be rescued, they do not follow – they lead.

On two separate occasions I had the opportunity to sit and talk with a group of PhD students at Tehran University’s Global Studies Department. Frankly, these young women charmed me. Their inquisitive and sharp minds, their keen intellect, their vast knowledge, their fluent English, and their utter confidence dazzled me. Western feminists would consider them “oppressed”. Seems to me that feminism needs rescuing, not Iranian women.

The inordinate success of women goes vastly beyond education; they participate in every aspect of society -- motherhood, arts and sciences, high tech, film and cinema, research, business, administration, politics, sports, armed forces, etc. Women’s prominent role in society is undeniable. What I found tantalizing was their role as cultural gatekeepers.

Women - The Cultural Warriors
Cultural imperialism is part and parcel of neocolonialism. The eradication of an indigenous culture and replacing it with a hegemonic one enables the hegemon to exert influence on the subject nation – to own it. And women are the nuclei. They hold the family together and pass on traditions. To this end, in every colonial adventure, regardless of geography, women have been the primary target (i.e. victims of rescue). Iran has been no different. While some have indeed abandoned their culture in order to embrace that of another, the vast majority have resisted and fought back with authentic Iranian tradition.

One group of these cultural warriors left a deep impact on me. I attended a dance ensemble at the famous Roudaki Hall (Talar Roudaki). Girls aged 6 to 18 sent the packed hall into a thunderous applause when they danced to various traditional songs from around the country. Their dance was not MTV stuff. It reflected the beauty and the purity of an ancient culture. Their movements and gestures were not intended to be seductive, they were graceful and poetic ushering in the ancient past and bonding it with the present, strengthening it. These were the women of Iran who would guard Iran’s precious culture and traditions against modern, Western culture deemed central to ‘civilization’ and ‘freedom’ by Western feminists.

It is not my intention to give the false impression that every woman in Iran is happy, successful, and valued. Like any other society, Iran has its share of unhappy, depressed girls and women. It has its share of women who have been abused and betrayed. It has its share of girls and women who turn to drugs, prostitution, or both. I came across these as well. I also confirm that laws in Iran do not favor women, be it divorce, child custody, or inheritance. But if and when the Iranian society decides to change its current laws (or maintain the status quo), it will do so without outside interference and on its own terms. I have no doubt that any outside interference will receive a negative and opposite reaction.

Part II – Esprit de Corps Washington Just Doesn’t Get It

Numerous visitors have travelled to Iran and brought back reports describing the landscape, the food, the friendliness of the people, the impact of the sanctions, and so forth. For the most part, these reports have been accurate -- albeit incomplete. I do not want to tire the reader by repeating my observations on these same topics; rather, I invite the reader to share my journey into the soul of the country – the spirit of the Iranian nation.

Washington’s missteps are, in part, due to the simple fact that Washington receives flawed intelligence on Iran and Iranians. This has been a long-standing pattern with Washington. Prior to the 1979 Revolution, a plethora of US personnel lived in Iran. Thousands of CIA agents were stationed there. Their task went beyond teaching torture techniques to the Shah’s secret police; they were, after all, spies. In addition to the military personnel that came in tow with the military equipment sold to the Shah by the U.S., there were official US personnel who worked at the American Embassy in Tehran. None got it.

They all failed miserably in their assessment of Iranians. These personnel were simply too busy enjoying a lavish lifestyle in Iran. As the aforementioned travellers have all repeated, Iran is beautiful, the food scrumptious, the people hospitable. These personnel attended lavish parties thrown by those close to the Shah (or other affluent Iranians) and lived the kind of life they could not have dreamt of elsewhere. American ambassadors doled out visas to the lazy kids of these same families who would not have otherwise been able to make it to the US under normal student visa requirements. These same Iranian people, the privileged elite, provided Americans in Iran with intelligence – inaccurate, flawed information which was passed onto Washington. To this end, Washington believed Iran would remain a client state for the unforeseen future. The success of the revolution was a slap in the face.

For the past several decades, Washington has continued to act on flawed intelligence. Today, Washington relies on the “expertise” of some in the Iranian Diaspora who have not visited Iran once since the revolution. In addition to the “Iran experts”, Washington has found itself other sources of ‘intelligence’, foremost; the Mojahedeen Khalg (MEK) terrorist cult who feed Washington information provided them by Israel. Previous to this assignment, the cult was busy fighting alongside Saddam Hossein. Is it any surprise that Washington is clueless on Iran. What Washington can’t fathom is the source of Iran’s strength, its formidable resilience.

Thanks to its ‘experts’, and the personal experience of some visitors, Washington continues to believe that the Iranian people love America and they are waiting to be ‘rescued’ from their rulers. True – Iranians are generous, hospitable, and charming. They welcome visitors as guest regardless of their country or origin. This is part and parcel of their culture. They also believe a guest is a ‘blessing from God’ -- mehmoon barekate khodast. Karime khodast. But they are not waiting for. This is what Washington is not able to grasp. Washington to rid them of their rulers – quiet the contrary.

While the Iranian people love people of all nationalities, including Americans, they see Washington for what it is. Washington and its policies have adversely affected virtually every single family in Iran for the past several decades. These include those whose dreams and hopes were shattered by the CIA orchestrated coup against their nascent democracy and its popular leader, Mossadegh, later, parents whose children were arrested, brutally tortured, killed or simply disappeared at the hands of the Shah’s CIA/Mossad trained secret police. And then there are the millions of war widows or orphans, the maimed soldiers, and the victims of chemical weapons supplied to Saddam Hossein by America to use against Iranians while the UN closed its eyes. Additionally, there are also the victims of American sponsored terrorism, including kosher terrorism – sanctions. Millions of Iranians have first hand experience of all that has been plagued upon them by Washington.

It is these victims, their families and acquaintances that fight for Iran’s sovereignty, that are the guardians of this proud nation. They are the source of Iran’s strength. They are not simply citizens of Iran, they have a stake in it. Victor Hugo once said: “No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come.” There simply is no army on earth which can occupy, by proxy or otherwise, the land the people have come to believe belongs to them not by virtue of birth, but because they have fought for it, died for it, kept it from harm.

I met many such families; one in particular was more memorable. During the Shah’s regime, this family worked on my father’s farm. The father and his sons worked the farm and the mother helped around the house. In those days, this family and future generations would have simply continued to work on the farm, remain uneducated with no future prospects. But the revolution rescued them.

The boys in the family all went to war. One uncle lost his life to chemical warfare. The rest survived – and thrived. They got themselves free education provided by the government America wants to dislodge. One of these boys, the man I met after some 35 years, Kazem, once condemned to be a ‘peasant’, had become a successful businessman. I spent hours talking to the family and to Kazem in particular. What impressed me was not just his affluence and his success in business, but the wisdom that only comes with age, and yet he had acquired in youth. He had intellect and dignity. A gentleman, I found his knowledge of internal and global affairs to be far superior to the average “Westernized” person living in Tehran (or outside Iran). He had experienced war, seen death. Iran belonged to him. He would fight for it over and over and die for it.

This is the Iran the Diaspora has left behind, the Iran that is unknown to them. This is a far superior country than the one I left behind as a child and visited throughout the years. Iran’s guardians, its keepers, are all Kazems. It has been said that the strength of an army is the support of the people behind it. The whole country is that army. This is what Washington is not able to grasp. As Khalil Gibran rightly observed: “Out of suffering have emerged the strongest souls; the most massive characters are seared with scars.” With every wrong policy, America adds to the scars, strengthens the character and spirit of this unbreakable nation. This is what Washington is not able to grasp.

Iran Trip: September - October 2014

Is a Syrian "domino effect" being used in a power struggle in the US deep state?

written specially for the Asia Times

Following the ratification by all parties of the recent Joint Plan of Action between Iran and the P5+1 countries, it is worth looking again at the official narrative explaining this "sudden breakthrough".  It goes something like that:

"Iran was ruled by President Ahmadinejad, a notorious anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, who did everything in his power to deny the international community the monitoring rights it demanded and to keep the Iranian nuclear program unimpeded in its progress.  Then the people of Iran elected Hassan Rouhani, a moderate, who accepted the terms of the P5+1 countries and a deal was finally signed."

That is pretty much the official version.

Of course, every sentence in the above paragraph is absolute nonsense. 

The new President of Iran

Iran is not ruled by its President, but by its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who selects the six of the twelve members of the Guardian Council which, in turn, vets all aspiring Presidential candidates before they can run for office and which also can veto any decision of the Iranian Parliament.  The Supreme Leader also appoints all the members of the Expediency Discernment Council which can resolve any disagreements between the Parliament and the Guardian Council.  Hassan Rouhani was appointed as a member of the Expediency Discernment Council by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his bid to run for President was also approved by the Guardian Council.  In other words, not only did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never have the political authority to independently take any crucial political decisions, but his successor has the 100% approval of the Supreme Leader.  Thus, while there is a very clear difference in style between Ahmadinehad and Rouhani, it is ridiculous to suggest that the replacement of the former by the latter is the real cause of the "sudden" breakthrough in the negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran.  The fact is that Rouhani has the full support of the Supreme Leader and that his election, while not trivial, cannot be considered as a real change in Iranian policies, including nuclear ones.

P5+1?

The media speaks of the P5+1 as if it was a body formed of more or less equal partners taking decisions together.  This is also nonsense.  Who are the P5+1?  The five permanent members of the UNSC plus Germany:  China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States (P5) and Germany (+1; officially added for economic reasons).  P5+1 is really a misnomer as it should be called "1+1(+4)":  Those who matter - the USA and Russia - and those who don't China (which is happy to follow the Russian lead on this issue) France, the UK and Germany  (who will pretend to have an opinion but who will let the USA deal with the serious stuff).  And since Russia under Putin is a strong ally of Iran, this really only leaves the "Big One" i.e, the USA as the negotiating counterpart to Iran.

So why this "sudden" breakthrough in negotiations between the USA and Iran.  Could it be that the big change which made it possible did not occur in Iran but in the United States?

I have a different interpretation to offer.

It is my belief that it all began in September when, following a few dramatic days which almost saw a US attack on Syria,  Barak Obama had to accept "Putin's gambit": the US would not attack Syria in exchange for the full destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal.  I believe that this absolutely tectonic reversal US foreign policy has now triggered what I would call a  "domino effect" which is still ongoing and which might result in  further unexpected changes in US foreign policy.

Let's look at this domino sequence of events one by one:

Domino 1: Barak Obama accepts Putin's gambit

Whether it was really Barak Obama himself or his puppeteers is really irrelevant here.  The President being the official Commander in Chief he is the person who had to announce that an agreement had been reached and that a US attack on Syria would be delayed/scrapped.  Let's set aside for a moment the exact reason(s) why the US took this decision (we will come back to this crucial issue later) and just say that this was a major change for the following reasons.

a) This meant that the US would have to delay and, in all likelihood, give up on its long-standing objective of "regime change" in Syria.
b) This also meant that the US would now have to negotiate with the Syrian government.
c) Since chemical weapons were completely irrelevant to the military dynamic on the ground and since US had committed not to strike government forces, this meant that the USA was essentially giving up on its plan to help the insurgency win the war.
d) This removed the last pretext(s) possible for the US to continue to stall and avoid a Geneva II conference.  From now on, the US had to get serious about Geneva II or lose it all.

Before this development the USA had two possible ways to deal with a Geneva II conference: to try to sabotage it or to try to use this opportunity to achieve something.  As soon as Obama accepted Putin's gambit only the second option remained.  Indeed, since regime change in Syria is clearly not an option any more, and since the US foreign policy in the Middle-East was predicated on regime change in Syria, the US now had to reconsider it all.  This meant that the best possible option for the US was  to try to use Geneva II to actually finally get something done.  However, there is one truism which the US diplomats had to take into account: no solution in Syria will ever be achieved unless Iran approves of it.  In other words, having accepted Putin's gambit, the US was not only committed to negotiations with the Syrians, but also with the Iranians.  This the real causes of the "sudden" breakthrough between the "P5+1 and Iran": the defeat of the US in Syria literally forced the White House to negotiate with Iran, at which point to continue to stonewall at the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program became counter-productive and, frankly, absurd.

Domino 2: the USA and Iran finally agree on the nuclear issue.

As I have written it many times in the past, nobody in the US (or elsewhere), really believes that the Iranians are secretly building a nuclear weapon right under the nose of IAEA inspectors (who are still working in Iran) while remaining a member in good standing of the NPT Treaty (no NTP member has ever developed nuclear weapons).  The real US objective has always been to prevent Iran from becoming a regional economic superpower and, if possible, to find a pretext to isolate and destabilize the Iranian regime.  By accepting to negotiate with Iran, the USA is not "making the world safe from nuclear-armed Mollahs" but accepting the reality that Iran is, and will remain, a regional superpower.  This is really what is at stake here, and all that talk about Iran nuking Israel in a "2nd Holocaust" is just a pious fig-leaf used to hide the real US policy objectives.  Now that the US had given up on the notion of attacking Syria it made no sense to continue to act as if an attack on Iran was still possible.  This left only two possible solutions: let the Iranians do whatever they want and appear to have failed to persuade Iran to take into consideration US objections, or actually find a mutually acceptable compromise which would be to the advantage of both sides.  The US, wisely, chose the second option.

So far, Dominos 1 and 2 have fallen, but let us take a look at what might be happening next if nothing stops the momentum generated by these two dominos.

Domino 3: the two big losers - Saudi Arabia and Israel

It is rather obvious that the Saudis and the Israelis have done literally everything in their power to prevent the fall of Dominoes 1 and 2 from happening and that they are now the big losers.  Both countries hate and fear Iran, both countries were deeply involved in the Syrian war and both countries appear to be outraged by the actions of the White House.   When all the signs indicated that a deal would be struck, the Saudis and the Israelis even sent their top decision-makers (Bandar and Netanyahu) not to Washington, but to Moscow in a (futile) attempt to prevent what they see as an absolute catastrophe from happening. 

Now that a deal has been reached, both Israel and the KSA are now showing all the signs of "loosing it" and are turning to crude forms of terrorism to lash out at their enemies: according to Hezollah, the Saudis are behind the bombing of the Iranian Embassy in Beirut while the Israelis are behind the murder of a Hezbollah commander, also in Beirut.  One can dismiss these Hezbollah accusations as politically motivated, but I personally find them very credible simply because they "fit the picture" perfectly (and Hezbollah does have an excellent record of making only truthful statements).  Whether one chooses to believe Hezbollah or not, nobody denies that there are now real and deep tensions between Israel and the KSA on one side and the USA on the other.  That would also explain the rather amazing "rapprochement" taking place between Israel and the KSA who now have a common problem (the USA) and lots of common enemies (first and foremost Iran, of course).

Considering the huge power of the Israel Lobby and the, more discrete but also very powerful, Saudi Lobby in the USA, it is by no means certain that the new KSA-Israeli alliance shall not eventually prevail over what I would call the "USA-firsters" (in contrast to "Israel-firsters").  I shall also come back to this topic later, but let us assume that the current US policies will not be revered and that the US will sign a long-term agreement with Iran in six months or so.  What could happen next?

Domino 4: goodbye US anti-missile "defense shield" in Europe?

Think about it: if the USA accepts the notion that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons, why insist on deploying an anti nuclear missile defense shield over Europe?  Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has already clearly said that much and that is likely to remain a Russian policy position for the foreseeable future: now that the putative "threat" from Iran has been dealt with by means of negotiations - why should the US still deploy anti-missile systems in Europe?

Of course, the US could plow ahead with this project as if nothing had changed, but would it not be logical to at least talk to the Russians to see if some modifications could be made to the US anti-missile system which would satisfy the Russian side?  Having agreed to negotiate with Syria and Iran, would it not also make sense to seriously sit down with the Russians and find a mutually acceptable compromise?

After all,  Russia (backed by China, of course) can easily prevent any deal between the US and Iran (by a UNSC veto for example) and that would leave the USA is a very vulnerable negotiating position: to be in a great need of a deal with Iran while Iran would not feel equally interested in negotiating.  And, of course, a breakdown in negotiations between Iran and the USA on the nuclear issue would mean very bad news for the USA in Syria.  The fact is that the USA will desperately need Russian collaboration to hammer out a long term deal with Iran.  And that, in turn, will have major consequences for a host of other issues, including European foreign policy.

Domino 5: an end to the European "Drang nach Osten"?

Not since the days of Hitler has Europe been so hysterically anti-Russian as in the last decade.  Of course, some of that russophobia has been fed by US propaganda needs, but one quick look at the European press and will show anyone that the worst of this Russia-bashing really comes from Europe, especially the UK.  As for the EU and NATO, their offensive to towards the East is really reminiscent of Hitler's, the only difference is that it is pursued with different means.  Of course, West European revanchism is only part of the picture.  There is definitely a desire by many East Europeans to become "true Europeans" combined with a hope that a EU+NATO combination would protect them from Russia.  Nevermind that Russia is not in the least interested in invading them - most east Europeans are generically afraid of what they perceive as a resurgent superpower in the East.  And if getting the "protection" of NATO and the EU means accepting a semi-colonial status in the US empire - so be it.  Better to be a serf of the US empire than a serf in the Russian one.  That is an ideological position which cannot be challenged by facts or logic.  Most east Europeans probably understand that Russia has no interest in invading them, and most of them must be aware that joining the EU has been disastrous in economic terms for countries like Bulgaria or the Baltic States.  Frankly, most people don't care.  They look at German highways, French stores or Dutch airports and want to get a share of that wealth even if that is only a pipe-dream.

As for the west Europeans, they shamelessly feed that illusion, promising much and delivering nothing.  As for NATO, it continues to follow Hitler's example and attempts to push its influence into the Caucasus.  As a result, the EU+NATO offensive now spans a "front" from Estonia in the Baltic to Georgia in the Caucasus - an exact copy of Hitler's strategy for his war on Russia.

Hitler and his promised "1000 year Reich", of course, was defeated in only 12 years and the EU is not doing too well either.  In fact, it is facing a systemic crisis that it has no idea of how to tackle.

The modern Kulturträgers

I am not even referring to the so-called "PIGS" (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain), but also to the supposedly "better off" nations of northern Europe.  Did you know that only 3 of the 17 nations of the Eurozone have a AAA credit rating or that while no fewer than seven of the world’s top rated nations are in Europe, most are either not in the Euro (Denmark, Sweden) or not in the EU at all (Norway, Switzerland)?  Anyone doubting the full magnitude of the social and economic crisis which has hit the Eurozone should read the report recently published by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies entitled "Think differently: humanitarian impacts of the economic crisis in Europe" (makes me wonder if anybody in the Ukraine has read this one!).  Europe is in a deep crisis and this begs the obvious question: can Europe really afford a new Cold War with Russia?  What about the US - does it need a new Cold War in Europe?  Isn't it about time to set aside this crazy Drang nach Osten and accept that a non-imperial Europe would have much more to gain from a partnership with Russia than from another Cold War?

Time will show whether this last domino will also fall.  What matters for our purposes here is not to accurately predict the future, but to look at the opportunities such a different future would offer.  Let's ask a key question: if all the dominoes above did fall, would the USA be better or worse off?  My personal reply is that the USA would be far better off, as would be Europe.  And if that is the case, one can wonder, did the US really stumble into a situation which triggered a domino effect or what this the plan all along?  Could it be that some forces of the USA have decided to use the failure of the US policy in Syria to trigger a much larger change?

A project of the "USA-firsters"?

As I have written in a recent article, I believe that the Presidency of Barak Obama has resulted in a shift of power in the US "deep state" which had the previously almighty Neocons pushed aside from the Executive Branch and replaced with what I call "old Anglo imperialists".  They could also be called "USA-firsters" (as opposed to "Israel-firsters").  As a rule, they are far more sophisticated actors than the Neocons.  Typically, the USA-firsters are better educated, more cautious in their discourse and methods and, unlike the Neocons, they can count on the support of patriotically-inclined Americans in the armed forces, State Department, CIA, and elsewhere.  Finally, they enjoy the big advantage over the Neocons in the fact that they have no need to hide their real agenda: in their foreign policy they care first and foremost about US national interests (internally, of course, both the USA-firsters and the Neocons are the prototypical "one percenters" whose real objective is to defend their class interests while keeping the remaining 99% in serf-like conditions).

So could it be that this "domino sequence" was deliberately initiated by Anglo USA-firsters who seized the opportunity to promote their agenda while pushing the Neocon Israel-firsters aside?

Let's look at "domino 1" again.

I think that there is a preponderance of evidence that Obama accepted Putin's gambit against a background of absolute chaos both in Syria and in the USA.  Iranian forces were covertly entering Syria to fight, a powerful  Russian naval task force was positioned right off the coast of Syria, the British Parliament had refused to support an attack on Syria, demonstrations were taking place all over the USA - and elsewhere - against an attack, and all the signs were that Congress would not approve a military operation.   It is hard to prove a negative, of course, but my sense is that the first domino fell pushed by all these factors and not a result of a deliberate change in US policies.

What about "domino 2" then?

In contrast to domino 1, there is strong evidence that domino 2 clearly "fell" as a direct result of a political decision made in Washington.   If we accept that the only change in the Presidency of Iran was mainly a cosmetic one, then we also have to agree that the USA deliberately decided to open negotiations with Iran.  Could it be that somebody in the White House or in the US deep state realized that the fall of "domino 1" presented real opportunities for the USA and the interests of the USA-firsters and decided to deliberately add momentum to  "domino 1" and also push "domino 2"?

I believe that the sequence of events in Syria and Iran does offer a fantastic opportunity for the USA to finally rid itself from the disastrous legacy of many years of Neocon rule (in my opinion from 1993-2009).  I should immediately stress that I am not saying that the Neocons are "out" as they still control the US corporate media and Congress with an iron hand.  I am only saying that I am detecting the signs of a major change in US foreign policy which appears to be breaking free from the "Wahabi-Zionist alliance" of the combined lobbies of Saudi Arabia and Israel.  Again, the fact that both Netanyahu and Bandar felt the need to travel to Moscow to stop Washington is absolutely unprecedented and amazing and I have to interpret that as a real sign of panic.

How far can the US really go?

A shift in the power equation inside the US does not mean regime change, far from it.  In most circumstances US politicians will continue to mantrically repeat "there is no light between the U.S. and Israel”, the constant verbal genuflection before everything Jewish, Israeli or Holocaust-related will continue and it is quite possible that the next Israeli Prime Minister to address Congress will also get more standing ovations than the US President.  However, it is also quite possible that between closed doors the Israelis and the Saudis will be told to "tone it down or else" and that the US support for these two regimes will become contingent of them not doing anything crazy (such as attacking Iran).

Let's look again at dominos 4 and 5 (basically, a stop in anti-Russian policies) from a non-Zionist and non-Wahabi point of view:  would the USA gain or lose from such a development?  It could lose some money if the European missile defense "shield" was scrapped, but the Russians are offering two alternative solutions: either let the Russian military become full partner in this system (thereby removing the threat to Russia) or move the entire system to western Europe away from the Russian borders (thereby also removing the threat to Russia).  Since the Russian asymmetrical response (special forces, relocation of launchers, special missiles) will defeat the proposed system anyway - why not accept either one of the Russian offers?

Politically, such an agreement would open the doors for far more important collaborative opportunities (in Central Asia and the Middle-East) and it would remove the USA from the "collision course with the rest of the planet" it has been on since 9/11.

Clearly, a deal with Russia would be very beneficial for the USA.

What about Palestine?

Here, unfortunately, I have to remain as pessimistic as ever.  As so many times in their history, the Palestinians have again committed something of a "strategic suicide" when they decided to support the anti-Assad forces in Syria.  Just as with Saddam, the Palestinians are yet again with the losing side and, which is even worse, their only halfway decent resistance movement - Hamas - has now been taken over by Saudi interests which basically puts them under Israeli control no less than Fatah.  The last "real" resistance movement in Palestine is now the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but it is comparatively small and weak and cannot be a partner in any real negotiations with the USA and Israel.  In this context, it is likely the Israelis will simply impose whatever "solution" they want on the ground without having to negotiate with any Palestinians at all.  This is very sad and this did not have to be, but the Palestinians really did it to themselves and they only have themselves to blame now.

Bottom line: no domino effect in Palestine.

Conclusion: a real window of opportunity

The future is by no means certain and the Israel-firsters and their Saudi allies have many options to reverse this process (just imagine Hillary as President!!).  And yet it is also possible that the USA might shift away from the disastrous course it has been following for the past two decades and return to a more traditional, pragmatic, foreign policy: it will remain an imperial power with global imperialist goals, but at least it will be driven by pragmatic - if cynical - considerations and not foreign ideological interests.  In contrast to what the USA has been doing for the past two decades, it is possible that the developments in the Middle-East will convince the USA that negotiations and compromise are more effective foreign policy tools than threat and military actions.

Historically, Republicans have had a comparatively better foreign policy record than the Democrats and senile psychopaths like McCain are not typical of Republican leaders.  In contrast, US Democrats have often provided the most ideological and arrogant leaders and the very real possibility of Hillary running for the Presidency is a frightening indicator that what appears to be the current phase of pragmatism might be short lived.  The good news is that both parties have an opportunity to seize the moment and nominate halfway sane candidates for the next Presidential election.  Of course, if what we end up with is a Sarah Palin - Hillary Clinton race all bets are off and the world will be in for some very, very bad times.  But if the USA-firsters can give the boot to the Israel-firsters currently controlling the key positions inside both parties (folks in the model of Rahm Israel Emanuel) then there is a real possibility that the US could break free from its current subservience to Zionist and Wahabi interests and resume a more pragmatic, reasonable, foreign policy.

Do these USA-firsters really exist?  Honestly, I don't know.  I hope that they do and I want to believe that the fact that the fall of the Syrian domino was followed so soon by the fall of the Iranian domino might be a sign that somebody inside the US deep state has decided to use this opportunity to try finally rid the USA from the foreign interests which have literally hijacked the country. 

If after six month a permanent deal is agreed upon and signed by the P5+1 and Iran and if more or less at the same time the US begins serious negotiations with Russia such a scenario will become credible.  At this point, it is too early to tell. 

The Saker

CrossTalk: Obama vs Rouhani

Important development: Iranian President Rohani will meet Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping on September 13th

Russian and Iranian sources are reporting that Iranian President Rohani will meet his Russian and Chinese counterparts during the upcoming meeting of the SCO which will take place in Kyrgyzstan at the end of the week.  The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the situation in Syria.

A credible report about what happened at the recent meetings between Russian officials and Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan

First, here is the report as published by Information Clearing House translating As-Safir.  I have just bolded out the particularly important parts.  This is the text in-extenso:
-------
A diplomatic report about the “stormy meeting” in July between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan concluded that the region stretching from North Africa to Chechnya and from Iran to Syria — in other words, the entire Middle East — has come under the influence of an open US-Russian face-off and that “it is not unlikely that things [will] take a dramatic turn in Lebanon, in both the political and security senses, in light of the major Saudi decision to respond to Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian crisis.”

The report starts by presenting the conditions under which the Russian-Saudi meeting was convened. It states that Prince Bandar, in coordination with the Americans and some European partners, proposed to Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz that Bandar visit Moscow and employ the carrot-and-stick approach, which is used in most negotiators, and offer the Russian leadership political, economic, military and security enticements in return for concessions on several regional issues, in particular Syria and Iran.

King Abdullah agreed with the proposal and contacted President Putin on July 30. In a conversation that lasted only a few minutes, they agreed to Bandar’s visit and to keep it under wraps. Bandar arrived in Moscow. The visit was secret. The Saudi Embassy did not follow the usual protocol for Saudi officials visiting Russia.

In Moscow, a preliminary session was held at Russian military intelligence headquarters between Bandar and the director of Russian Military Intelligence, Gen. Igor Sergon. The meeting focused on security cooperation between the two countries. Bandar then visited Putin’s house on the outskirts of the Russian capital, where they held a closed-door bilateral meeting that lasted four hours. They discussed the agenda, which consisted of bilateral issues and a number of regional and international matters in which the two countries share interest.

Bilateral relations

At the bilateral level, Bandar relayed the Saudi king’s greetings to Putin and the king’s emphasis on the importance of developing the bilateral relationship. He also told Putin that the king would bless any understanding reached during the visit. Bandar also said, however, that “any understanding we reach in this meeting will not only be a Saudi-Russian understanding, but will also be an American-Russian understanding. I have spoken with the Americans before the visit, and they pledged to commit to any understandings that we may reach, especially if we agree on the approach to the Syrian issue.”

Bandar stressed the importance of developing relations between the two countries, saying that the logic of interests can reveal large areas of cooperation. He gave several examples in the economic, investment, oil and military arenas.

Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values ​​and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. ... As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

Putin thanked King Abdullah for his greetings and Bandar for his exposition, but then he said to Bandar, “We know that you have supported the Chechen terrorist groups for a decade. And that support, which you have frankly talked about just now, is completely incompatible with the common objectives of fighting global terrorism that you mentioned. We are interested in developing friendly relations according to clear and strong principles.”

Bandar said that the matter is not limited to the kingdom and that some countries have overstepped the roles drawn for them, such as Qatar and Turkey. He added, “We said so directly to the Qataris and to the Turks. We rejected their unlimited support to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere. The Turks’ role today has become similar to Pakistan’s role in the Afghan war. We do not favor extremist religious regimes, and we wish to establish moderate regimes in the region. It is worthwhile to pay attention to and to follow up on Egypt’s experience. We will continue to support the [Egyptian] army, and we will support Defense Minister Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi because he is keen on having good relations with us and with you. And we suggest to you to be in contact with him, to support him and to give all the conditions for the success of this experiment. We are ready to hold arms deals with you in exchange for supporting these regimes, especially Egypt.”

Economic and oil cooperation

Then Bandar discussed the potential cooperation between the two countries if an understanding could be reached on a number of issues, especially Syria. He discussed at length the matter of oil and investment cooperation, saying, “Let us examine how to put together a unified Russian-Saudi strategy on the subject of oil. The aim is to agree on the price of oil and production quantities that keep the price stable in global oil markets. ... We understand Russia’s great interest in the oil and gas present in the Mediterranean Sea from Israel to Cyprus through Lebanon and Syria. And we understand the importance of the Russian gas pipeline to Europe. We are not interested in competing with that. We can cooperate in this area as well as in the areas of establishing refineries and petrochemical industries. The kingdom can provide large multi-billion-dollar investments in various fields in the Russian market. What’s important is to conclude political understandings on a number of issues, particularly Syria and Iran.”

Putin responded that the proposals about oil and gas, economic and investment cooperation deserve to be studied by the relevant ministries in both countries.

Syria first

Bandar discussed the Syrian issue at length. He explained how the kingdom’s position had evolved on the Syrian crisis since the Daraa incident all the way to what is happening today. He said, “The Syrian regime is finished as far as we and the majority of the Syrian people are concerned. [The Syrian people] will not allow President Bashar al-Assad to remain at the helm. The key to the relations between our two countries starts by understanding our approach to the Syrian issue. So you have to stop giving [the Syrian regime] political support, especially at the UN Security Council, as well as military and economic support. And we guarantee you that Russia’s interests in Syria and on the Mediterranean coast will not be affected one bit. In the future, Syria will be ruled by a moderate and democratic regime that will be directly sponsored by us and that will have an interest in understanding Russia's interests and role in the region.”

Russia’s intransigence is to Iran’s benefit

Bandar also presented Saudi Arabia’s views about Iran’s role in the region, especially in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Bahrain and other countries. He said he hoped that the Russians would understand that Russia's interests and the interests of the Gulf states are one in the face of Iranian greed and nuclear challenge.

Putin gave his country’s position on the Arab Spring developments, especially about what has happened in Libya, saying, “We are very concerned about Egypt. And we understand what the Egyptian army is doing. But we are very cautious in approaching what’s happening because we are afraid that things may slide toward an Egyptian civil war, which would be too costly for the Egyptians, the Arabs and the international community. I wanted to do a brief visit to Egypt. And the matter is still under discussion.”

Regarding Iran, Putin said to Bandar that Iran is a neighbor, that Russia and Iran are bound by relations that go back centuries, and that there are common and tangled interests between them. Putin said, “We support the Iranian quest to obtain nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And we helped them develop their facilities in this direction. Of course, we will resume negotiations with them as part of the 5P+1 group. I will meet with President Hassan Rouhani on the sidelines of the Central Asia summit and we will discuss a lot of bilateral, regional and international issues. We will inform him that Russia is completely opposed to the UN Security Council imposing new sanctions on Iran. We believe that the sanctions imposed against Iran and Iranians are unfair and that we will not repeat the experience again.”

Erdogan to visit Moscow in September

Regarding the Turkish issue, Putin spoke of his friendship with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan; “Turkey is also a neighboring country with which we have common interests. We are keen to develop our relations in various fields. During the Russian-Turkish meeting, we scrutinized the issues on which we agree and disagree. We found out that we have more converging than diverging views. I have already informed the Turks, and I will reiterate my stance before my friend Erdogan, that what is happening in Syria necessitates a different approach on their part. Turkey will not be immune to Syria’s bloodbath. The Turks ought to be more eager to find a political settlement to the Syrian crisis. We are certain that the political settlement in Syria is inevitable, and therefore they ought to reduce the extent of damage. Our disagreement with them on the Syrian issue does not undermine other understandings between us at the level of economic and investment cooperation. We have recently informed them that we are ready to cooperate with them to build two nuclear reactors. This issue will be on the agenda of the Turkish prime minister during his visit to Moscow in September.”

Putin: Our stance on Assad will not change

Regarding the Syrian issue, the Russian president responded to Bandar, saying, “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters. During the Geneva I Conference, we agreed with the Americans on a package of understandings, and they agreed that the Syrian regime will be part of any settlement. Later on, they decided to renege on Geneva I. In all meetings of Russian and American experts, we reiterated our position. In his upcoming meeting with his American counterpart John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will stress the importance of making every possible effort to rapidly reach a political settlement to the Syrian crisis so as to prevent further bloodshed.”

As soon as Putin finished his speech, Prince Bandar warned that in light of the course of the talks, things were likely to intensify, especially in the Syrian arena, although he appreciated the Russians’ understanding of Saudi Arabia’s position on Egypt and their readiness to support the Egyptian army despite their fears for Egypt's future.

The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation.”

At the end of the meeting, the Russian and Saudi sides agreed to continue talks, provided that the current meeting remained under wraps. This was before one of the two sides leaked it via the Russian press.
-------
Commentary:

OK, this time I hope that what I call the "Russia-skeptics"  will read this very carefully and finally admit to themselves that Russia under Putin is not Russia under Medvedev, much less so Russia under Eltsin or the old Soviet Union.  To the "Russia-skeptics: I want say this:

Guys, I do really understand that the present and the future have to be judged based on the experience provided to us by the past, but only as long as lesson from the past are clearly applicable.  In a fundamentally new situation focusing solely on lessons from the past can lead you to overlook crucial changes and developments.

While I have no idea how/where As-Safir got this report, I will say that judging by its contents this is the real thing, or something very close to it.  Besides, all this report does is put in words what we have seen Putin do ever since he came back to power.  So while the source is impossible to rate, this report is fully consistent with all the other information sources I have.  And the key element here is this: Putin and the "Eurasian Sovereignists" are *not* interested integrating Russia into the Anglo-lead unipolar international system.  This is why all the 'carrots' offered by Bandar do not tempt them.  It is absolutely crucial that anybody wanting to understand what the Kremlin does be fully aware of that.  Yes, Eltsin was 100% a US puppet.  And Medvedev was "sort of a 60/40% pro-US" too.  With Putin we are dealing with a solid, firm and highly principled 100% anti "US New World Order" leader.  What Putin - and China's Xi Jinping - want is a multi-polar international order under the rule of law and without any central hegemon.  This is why Russia (and China) will not, repeat, not yield on Assad.  This is not about Syria any more, its not even about Syria as a first step towards Iran and Iran as a first step towards the Caucasus.  It's about a much bigger picture in which both Russia and China have concluded that the current international order is an existential threat to both of these countries and that it is therefore absolutely and categorically not acceptable.

Then, of course, on a operational level it is also about Syria as a first step to Iran and Iran as a first step to Russia.  And, on a tactical level, it also about Syria itself, seen as an ally of Russia which Russia cannot simply dump.  But on a macro - or strategic level - is about the right (or not) of a single power like the USA to intervene wherever the hell it wants and remove any regime it does not like.

However, there is one thing which Russia will not do to support Syria and that is go to war for it.  Frankly, Syria is not worth a war between the USA and Russia.  Russia will only go to war if it is directly threatened or attacked.  The choice is much harder for Iran which fully understands and shares Russia's and China's desire for a different international order, but for which the outcome of the war in Syria has a much more immediate importance.  Not only has Hezbollah clearly and unambiguously indicated that it will never allow Assad to be replaced by Wahabi liver-eaters, but one could make a good case that since a Assad defeat would signal an inevitable war on Iran, the Iranians might want to defend the Syrians and not let the US take them one by one.  My personal feeling is that Iran would be willing to intervene in Syria if the US/NATO aggression becomes strategically meaningful.  Should that happen I am certain that Russia will put all its capabilities short of an overt military intervention to come to the aid of Iran.

The Syria->Hezbollah->Iran->Russia de-facto alliance is a very interesting one.  It is an alliance of relatively weak countries against one hyper-power, but one which makes the progress along this axis harder and harder as you go along, thereby deterring any action against the weaker one.  This is a very sophisticated defense posture and it has, so far, been very effective.  The problem is that the US foreign policy is quite literally hijacked by absolutely crazy folks, intoxicated by delusions of power and who just cannot walk away from a struggle they cannot win in the long term.  Sadly, this probably means that the resilience of this alliance will be tested.  My personal prediction is that it will hold.  I am frankly not all that confident about Assad himself, though he has done far better than I expected, but I have a great deal of confidence in Hassan Nasrallah, Ali Khamenei and Vladimir Putin.  I also expect Xi Jinping to deliver if things get ugly.

While very bad events are probably imminent, I hope that all of you will maintain some degree of hope for the mid to long term.  Simply put: the Resistance has never been stronger than now, and we can count on some truly exceptional leaders to do the right thing.

The Saker

Syrian Army tactics and few examples of how Russia, China and Iran could help

The Abhazian Network News Agency ANNA (http://anna-news.info/ and http://www.youtube.com/user/newsanna) and its editor in chief, Marat Musin (http://maramus.livejournal.com/) have recorded some truly fantastic coverage from the frontlines of the war in Syria.  Alas, the video commentary is always in Russian, hence I do not show these videos here, but their latest video shows a good example of the new tactics adopted by the Syrian army.  Take a look at this photo:

It shows a Syrian Army T-72 using its smoke-generation capability not to hide itself as much as to hide the soldiers behind it from sniper fire while advancing into a covered position.  Just a few minutes after the moment shown here, a solider was still wounded by a sniper shot, which tells you how much of a problem these snipers are.  The sniper, by the way, was spotted and killed using a rocket.

Now check out this photo:

It shows you a wider angle of the same battle scene.  Notice the third armored vehicle behind the two tanks?  This is a a Syrian Army BMP-2, an infantry fighting vehicle.  To see tanks supported by infantry fighting vehicles is typical, but in this case the BMP-2 is used as a rapid and safe evacuation vehicle for wounded soldiers.  Again, a very nice adaptation of available resources to different circumstances.

What is also curious is what is not shown on this footage:

1) no helicopters or aircraft
2) no use of artillery
3) the infantry assault groups are rather lightly armed

I suppose that the very close proximity of the two fighting sides can explain the lack of airstrikes (they are close enough to toss hand grenades at each other).  I suppose that tanks could be considered as more accurate than, say, mortars, but they can only shoot in a direct line of sight way whereas mortars can be used to strike target hidden behind obstacles.  Yet the Syrian only use tank and rockets, both direct fire support means.  I am not sure why.

As to why the Syrian assault groups are so much more lightly armed than the Russian assault groups were in Grozny I suppose that this indicate that the Syrian Army simply lacks that kind of weapons and maybe that is something which Russia could deliver to them.  I am thinking of the following weapons:

The RPO-A Shmel rocket launched infantry flamethrower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPO-A_Shmel)
The GM-94 grenade launcher (http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rus/gm-94-e.html)
The PP-19 submachine gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PP-19_Bizon)
The VSS Vintorez special sniper rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Vintorez)
The AS Val special assault rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS_Val)
The Pecheneg machine gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecheneg_machine_gun)
The OSV-96 special sniper weapon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSV-96)

I want to stress here that all these weapons have been used by Russian assault teams in Chechnia and that they are not some kind of supermodern unique weapon that only Russian Spetsnaz forces have access to (for an example of that, check out the VKS "Vykhlop" silenced heavy sniper rifle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdvuZZOhW2U).

Judging from the ANNA news footage, the Syrians are only using regular AKM-74 assault rifles and SVD sniper rifles.  While these are extremely reliable and effective, they simply do not provide the assault groups the kind of tactical flexibility which modern weapons designed for urban warfare do.   And that means that Syrian soldiers have to take extra risks to compensate for their small choice of equipment.

Furthermore, the beauty of the gear I listed above is that it is small in size and can be delivered by land, sea and air without triggering any suspicion.  Equipment like that can be loaded in the cargo bay of any civilian aircraft and delivered without anybody noticing anything.

Finally, there is no need to deliver large amounts of such weapons as these are not primary, general purpose, infantry weapons, but rather specialized weapons needed in small number to support the larger infantry force.

In conclusion, I would add that there is a lot of non-lethal gear which Russia, China and Iran could give to the Syrians, including modern encrypted radio systems, compact field-hospitals and medical gear, RPVs for intelligence collection, electronic warfare equipment, etc.

If this situation drags on, as I think it will, I hope that Russia, China and Iran will start delivering a steady flow of key equipment to the Syrians which really could make a difference in this war.

The Saker

PS: I wanted to add here that according to Russian military experts who spent some time observing the Syrian Army operations the typical casualty ratio between the Syrian Army and the Wahabis is 1:8 on average (meaning 8 Wahabis killed/injured for every one Syrian solider) and much higher when the Syrian manage to surprise the Wahabis.  One can only dream of the ratios the Syrian could achieve if given better urban warfare weapons!

Obama makes a strategic mistake in Syria and now its "GAME OVER" for the US stragegy for the Middle-East.

In a recent post I wrote the following:

And so once the "shock and awe" phase has failed to produce any signs of shock or of awe - what happens next? (...) an Anglo invasion of Syria might well trigger an influx of Shia volunteers from Iran, Iraq and Lebanon; that would also offer Iran the perfect opportunity to "send in volunteers" (remember that the students who took over the US embassy in Tehran were also 'volunteer civilian students' and that the revolutionary government denied having any control over them) (...) consider the following: the fact that the US or NATO cannot send troops hardly means that the Iranians, the Iraqis or Hezbollah could not do that.  In fact, what could the US do if, say, Moqtada al-Sadr decided to send some of his followers to fight the Takfiris in Syria?  Protest and threaten, but there is really nothing much else they could do (...) This is the huge weakness in the US/NATO posture: while the US/NATO/CENTCOM capabilities to engage in a massive bombing and cruise missile strikes are truly formidable, they have nothing else to follow up with.   Everybody in the Middle-East knows that the Americans do not have what it takes to go tow-to-toe against an insurgency.  These are the folks who used B-2 stealth bombers over Afghanistan but who a full decade later failed to even control most of Kabul in daytime.

As is so often the case, the events on the ground actually developed even much faster than I thought. 

I can confirm on the basis of information received from three different sources that the Iranians have begun moving a large military force into Syria.  One of these sources I can quote: Robert Fisk who wrote the article "Iran to Send 4,000 Troops to Aid President Assad Forces in Syria" for the Independent.  There is also evidence of volunteers from Lebanon.

I think that we can safely make the assumption that the 4000 Iranians sent to Syria are just a beginning and that Tehran can send as many

soldiers as needed.  I can also add here that we are not talking about well-meaning civilians here, but highly trained Pasdars - you can think of them as "the people who trained Hezbollah".  One of my best sources tells me that this entire operations is closely coordinated with Russian specialists while another source even mentions Russians on the ground with the Iranians.

It therefore appears that Tehran has decided to preempt a US/NATO attack on Syria by moving in forces even before the shooting start.  I have to sincerely say that this is nothing short of a brilliant move as there is nothing at all the Anglo Empire can do to stop this at this point in time and once the full force is in place it will be impossible to target it separately.

I can add here that the idea of sending in "international brigades" has been discussed in specific Russian and Ukrainian military circles, but that it is likely that the Russian authorities want to keep the visible presence of ethnic Russian to a minimum.  What they can do is send it Russian ethnic groups which do not externally appear as Slavs.  I am thinking, believe it or not, of anti-Wahabi Chechens who are fully integrated into the Russian military intelligence service GRU (the Russians already did something similar once in Lebanon).

Both Russian and Iranian sources confirm that the two government are very closely cooperating on this entire operation and that uninterrupted close consultations are taking place.

In the meantime, most Hezbollah units are withdrawn from Syria and repositioned to defend Lebanon from a possible Israeli attack.

Bottom line: it is already becoming clear that Barak Obama made a huge - strategic - mistake with his "crossing the red line" nonsense about a "limited use of chemical weapons" by the government forces.  Obama probably wanted to give the insurgency a better bargaining position for the Geneva II negotiations, but all he succeeded in doing is fundamentally changing the strategic balance on the ground.  It is one thing to fight the Syrian military, it is a qualitatively other one to fight the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.  By committing these forces already now, the Iranians are sending a chilling message to Washington: "we do not fear you, and our commitment to Syria is open ended".

As a military analyst specializing in strategic analysis I have to marvel at the superb elegance of the Iranian move because it essentially checkmates the USA's entire strategic plan for the Middle-East.  When I wrote that there is no way the US would put any boots on the ground, I assumed that they would not dare to do that against the Syrians.  But, at least, some really naive Americans could have hoped that with enough bombing of Syrian civilians (a la Kosovo) the regime would eventually have to give in.  With thousands of Iranian Pasdars on the ground this is categorically not an option.

This development, apparently only noticed by Robert Fisk, is really a game changer.  What this means for the USA/NATO/CENTCOM/Israel/al-Qaeda is this: "GAME OVER!".

The Russian/Iranian alliance has done what it does best: it has responded asymmetrically to the US moves.  While the entire world was focusing on S-300s deliveries and Russian Navy moves, it essentially negated the entire US strategy by qualitatively changing the facts on the ground before the US could even react.

US options at this point are extremely limited.  Yes, it can still engage in an orgy of civilian killings just to punish the Syrians and prevent elections.  It can also denounce the Iranian intervention, but since the entire planet by now knows that the insurgency is largely foreign and supported by the USA's own admission (!), this would be rather hollow.  It can also do the wise thing and strenuously look away from the Iranian presence on the ground and pretend like nothing happened.  If it decided to do that, it could even try to get some kind of face saving deal at Geneva II.  Attacking Iran is not an option (even less so after the beautiful elections the Iranians just had).  Blaming Russia is not an option either as there is exactly zero proof of Russian involvement.

The war itself is, of course, not quite over yet.  This will all take time to play itself out.  But yes, this is most definitely the beginning of the end.  To the disgraceful defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq the US can now add a no less disgraceful defeat in Syria.  Good.

The Saker

Has Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made an empty threat? (UPDATED)

If this is not yet another case of mistaken translation, as there have been many in the past, then it appears that the Iranian Supreme Leader,  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has made a completely empty threat towards Israel.  According to RT,

Iran’s most powerful authority, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the Islamic Republic would raze the cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa “to the ground” if Israel launched a military strike against it. “At times the officials of the Zionist regime [Israel] threaten to launch a military invasion, but they themselves know that if they make the slightest mistake the Islamic Republic will raze Tel Aviv and Haifa to the ground,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said during an address on live state television.

Sure enough,  the Zio-media turned that into yet another "proof" that the Iranians are hell-bent on genocide.

The biggest problem with all that is that this threat is nonsensical.  Never in the history of warfare has a city been razed by missile attacks.  From the Nazi V-1/V-2 strikes on London, to Saddam's strikes on US forces in the Persian Gulf and on Israel, missiles were never effective in striking cities.  In fact, unless they carry nuclear warheads, missiles are not at all suited for that task simply because of the relatively small payloads they carry.  For example, the throw-weight of the Iranian Shahab-4 is reportedly less than 1000kg.  Sure, 1 ton of high-explosives or cluster warheads will result in a huge explosion, but that is no bigger than the old V-2 rocket were capable of.  It will bring down any building, or even a street block, but you would need a huge number of missiles to really raze a major city.  Frankly, there are only three ways to raze a city: nuclear warheads, carped bombing from the air, or a massive and sustained artillery barrage.  Iran can deliver none of these.

Iran does have an impressive missile force, and Iran's missiles can painfully strike Israel, these missile can destroy key buildings in Israeli cities, which will create a panic and chaos, and if Hezbollah joins in these strikes with its own missiles the panic in Israel will be total, but even in these conditions no city in Israel will be "razed to the ground".

The Iranian leadership should be very careful to avoid making bombastic but empty threats as these only damage Iran's credibility and serve Zionist interests.

The Saker

UPDATE: alas, the translation has been confirmed by PressTV.  This is most unfortunate and, I would add, rather uncharacteristic of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 

The new Iranian "stealth"(?) fighter: more questions than answers

Iran has unveiled its latest indigenously built fighter, the Qaher-313.  Check out the Press TV report:


When I saw this video I was rather baffled as many things just looked *wrong* to me.  I then contacted one of my readers who knows a great deal about military aeronautics (thanks C.!) to compare notes, and it rapidly turned out that he also had many unanswered questions.  So let's take them one by one:

The aircraft is amazingly small.  How can a fighter-bomber be so small and have enough fuel and weapons on board to be useful?  Keep in mind that the Iranians claims that this is a low radar visibility aircraft, in which case not only can not carry external fuel tanks under its wings (which are very visible on radar), it has to carry its weapons inside a special weapons bay.  Where does this aircraft fit all this?

The Iranians told us nothing about the engine, but this is clearly a single engine aircraft which I would consider a poor choice for any combat aircraft, but this is a particularly bad choice for a fighter-bomber.  What kind of thrust-to-weight ratio can this aircraft develop, in particular when loaded up with fuel and weapons?

The Iranians say that this aircraft is designed for low flight, but that then begs the question of the extreme vulnerability of any single engine aircraft to missile and gun fire.  And if you add armor to protect such a penetrator, you add lots of weight, but that means even more engine power!  That also means a much bigger aircraft, something like the Russian SU-34.

The radar radome on the of the Qaher-313 is also tiny.  While you could, in theory, probably fit a radar like the Kopyo in there, the Iranians have never, as far as I know, produced their own radars, nevermind one capable of both air-to-air and air-to-surface modes.

Then there is the issue of the canards.  To me, they appear to be both very big (which increases radar reflectivity) and, worse, fixed.  If my later supposition is correct, then this will increase lift, but at the cost of drag, and this would indicate very old avionics.

The engine is fully covered by a red plastic shield, but it is clear that the exhaust is really small.  Combine that with a small aircraft size, and tells me that this bird could probably not even fit a MiG-29 type of engine (the RD-33).  And since we are on the engine topic, Iran has never, as far as I know, developed its own advanced engines.

The cockpit has two nice features: the pilot is reclining and seems to have an excellent view and the cockpit it has large multi-functional displays.  What is entirely missing is a head-up display (HUD). Also, the canopy does not appear to have any sealing.  Weird.

Finally, in some angles the paint job appears to be terrible, even in the crucial front part of the plane.

So if I had to conclude something, and I am basing that only on the few videos and photos I have seen, I would say that this is a mock-up, not even a real plane.  However, there is at least one video out there which appears to show this aircraft in actual flight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPUqSmrNhIc

Since don't speak Farsi, I do not know what the commentary says, but on the grainy images this does appear to be the same aircraft.

Strange no?

Now, assuming the real fighter is much bigger, and assuming it has something like an RD-33 inside and a Kopyo radar does not solve the riddle either: the Iranians claim that this is an entirely indigenous aircraft.  Or are they referring only to the airframe?

There are original features to this aircraft for sure, the wings have a unique shape and no apparent leading-edge extensions (LEX) while the canards are almost as big as the wings.  The engine intakes are tiny, and placed high near the top of the aircraft, right behind the cockpit.  All this is rather unique and very different from what has been done in the USA, Russia or China.

I find this absolutely fascinating.  Even if we are dealing only with a pure proof of concept aircraft, or a testing platform like the SU-47, this still shows that the Iranians are way ahead of all their neighbors and that they are working on interesting and original solutions.

Still, Iran supporters (like myself) should remain very realistic.  As far as I know, Iran has never developed any indigenous advanced fighter engine, Iran has never developed an advanced military radar and Iran has never developed the type of advanced fly by wire avionics needed to fly a low radar visibility aircraft.  Bottom line - while Iran is probably making much progress in many fields, I don't see it developing an aircraft in the same league as what the USA have already deployed or even what Russia and China are working on. At least not in the foreseeable future (next 5-10 years).

The Saker