Russian Missile Sales to Iran May Raise Prospect of Israeli Strike
By Jon Perr Tuesday Dec 23, 2008 3:00pmComing in the wake of Russian warships passing through the Panama Canal and visiting Cuba, conflicting reports that Moscow intends to sell an advanced anti-aircraft missile system to Iran are ratcheting up tensions with the United States. But more worrisome still is the heightened prospect of a preemptive Israeli air strike against Tehran's nuclear infrastructure before the S-300 system would become operational.
On Sunday, Iranian official Esmail Kosari seemingly confirmed earlier rumors of the purchase, telling Tehran's IRNA news agency, "After a few years of talks with Russia, now the S-300 system is being delivered." But the next day, the Russian agency responsible for monitoring international defense cooperation denied plans for imminent deliveries of the S-300 to Iran, claiming the Iranian's revelation "does not correspond to reality." Yigal Palmor, a spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, also said a senior Russian official had "told Israel that the new report about delivery of the S-300 was false."
As the AP reported Tuesday, despite the Russian assurances American officials believe the sale of the SA-10 (as it is known in the West) is going forward. While protesting that the sophisticated anti-aircraft system would pose a threat to U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington's bigger concern is the prospect of dramatically improved air defense for the Iranian nuclear program. As the Washington Post detailed:
Israel and the United States fear that, were Iran to possess S-300 missiles, it would use them to protect its nuclear facilities, including the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz or the country's first atomic power plant now under construction at Bushehr by Russian contractors. That would make any potential military strike on the Iranian facilities much more difficult.
Make that much more difficult.
Following Tehran's recent acquisition of Tor M-1 surface-to-air missiles, the S-300 system would alter the calculus for the Israeli and American defense planners contemplating a strike against supposed nuclear weapons-making targets in Iran. As the Jerusalem Post noted in August:
[The S-300] is one of the most advanced multi-target anti-aircraft-missile systems in the world today and has a reported ability to track up to 100 targets simultaneously while engaging up to 12 at the same time. It has a range of about 200 kilometers and can hit targets at altitudes of 27,000 meters.
To be sure, the Israelis aren't standing still. In August, an Israeli defense official claimed his country was already developing electronic warfare devices to "neutralize" the S-300. Israel has also purchased 90 long-range F-16I fighter planes which can carry enough fuel to reach Iranian targets. And in June, Israel carried out a massive aerial exercise in the Mediterranean with 100 F-16 and F-15 fighters, a maneuver American defense officials viewed as part warning and dress rehearsal.
As for the outgoing Bush administration, its time and options are limited, if not its preferences. , The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh reported that as early as April 2006, the Bush administration was "planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran." In late 2007, Hersh claimed, the President gave the green light to escalating American covert operations within Iran. (That charge was denied by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker.) And despite the opposition of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen, Vice President Cheney is said to prefer that the U.S. and not Israel strike Iran, as "we'll be blamed anyway." (Hersh also reported in July that Cheney hoped to trigger a confrontation with Tehran by staging a shooting incident in the Strait of Hormuz with PT boats manned by U.S. Navy Seals dressed as Iranians.)
All of which mean Barack Obama can't enter the White House a moment too soon. Obama has pledged a diplomatic offensive to engage Tehran over its nuclear program. (Last week, the Washington Times reported that Obama plans to name an envoy for outreach to Iran.)
But he won't have much time to alter the trajectory of events in the Persian Gulf. The impasse with Medvedev over the U.S. missile defense system is aggravating Russia's defense of its aid to the Iranian nuclear program. While a recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded that Iran abandoned its plans for nuclear weapons in 2003, the IAEA announced in November that Tehran now has enough enriched uranium (if not the know-how) for one atomic bomb. And while upcoming elections in Israel may delay any decision to launch an assault against Iranian nuclear facilities before a deployment of the Russian S-300 systems is complete, a victory by the hard-line Likudnik Benjamin Netanyahu makes that prospect more likely.
(This piece is crossposted at Perrspectives.)








Login or Register to post comments.
it's all about weapons sales.
It will send the price of oil back to $100 in a week.
Today I was reading an article in National Geographic regarding Iran. This is an extremely beautiful country rich in history. The US and Britain are responsible for destroying democracy in Iran with the US and British backed coup of the elected President of Iran in 1953 and replacing him with the Shah that the people hated.
We all need to be concerned about India and Pakistan. Iran will not use a nuclear weapon on Israel. They are too close geographically. Besides, nuking Israel would place the Palestinians in grave danger.
Back in July, in Israel, he made that pretty clear...
Dems and Reps have the same line of BS on almost all global issues it seems.
well when your candidates, at least the major players, are all vetted by the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and others... and heavily financed by the MIC and AIPAC,
what do you expect?
That's because Dems and Reps are party 1a and 1b. There are a few minor differences, but in most things they are the same.
"Obama told reporters during a visit to Israel that if elected, he would take "no options off the table" in dealing with the Iran issue and said tougher sanctions could be imposed." Now if I or we knew why he felt that way, Now that would be saying something! Thanks
tougher sanctions?
like the ones the M Albright pushed for against Saddam's regime that ended up leading to 500,000 childrens deaths needlessly, but was "worth it?"
whom did M Albright end up supporting?
I'm not familiar with that? Though I do know there is not 10,000,000,000,000 women dressed in white standing in wait.
watch Madwoman Albright say it herself during a 60 minutes interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4
Iraq is a long way from the U.S., but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
"Madeleine Albright"
There is nothing to fear but fear itself.
"Franklin D. Roosevelt"
A true human? monster.
to hear what your alternative policy to sanctions would have been.
Obama`s proposed Sect. of State Hilary stated she would " obliterate Iran " at one point during her campaign. Very very comforting. I can`t wait for this individual to start throwing her weight around.
Israel hates the idea that it won't be the only power in the region. Iran having nukes is like Pakistan having them. No one will use them because nobody wants mutually assured destruction. Fear, pride, greed, and paranoia are what drive the Israelis and Zionists in the United States in this disgusting sabre rattling.
to ensure that nukes won't be used.
are just that.
Act on threats, and be stupid.
First time any country launches a missle, last time that country exists.
I hope they work.
Iran has a right to defend itself against preemptive attacks.
tsk tsk tsk imagine a country wanting to have weapons of self defence , my god we cant have any of that shit, wtf do the iranians think thier fucking with, youd think they dont trust us israelie loveing pricks!
So on one hand we have an undisclosed nuclear power, militaristic state that has a history of oppression (Palestinians) and invading it's neighbours (1967 anyone?). On the other hand, we sabre-rattling from the most powerful military force in history, the only to ever nuke an enemy and only recently engaged in an act of aggression with Iran's neighbour.
Why the hell WOULDN'T Iran want to set up a nuclear deterrent? From their perspective, it would be irresponsible of the Iranian government not to.
We are in this shitty situation by being subservient to the fucking Zionists and Neocons. Thank God Putin is calling the shots because they are scared silly about the Russias not to mention the Chinese.
Wait 'till Netanyahu is elected. Then the real fun begins.
obamas going to shit when afganistan buys the same weapons!
n/t
I have many jewish friends, and I'm not against israel persay, but why are we defending them again?
They haven't really done anything to further the middle east peace process, they were extremely greedy in choosing the holy land as their state. And seem to treat the palestinians as badly as the arab countries treat them.
OLMERT:
"the dream of Greater Israel -a homeland for the Jewish people from the Nile to Euphrates- which inspired the founding fathers of Zionism, was already dead."
Their IMPERIAL fantasies is what we are supporting!
pretty hefty goal for a a lot of religion-adoptee Khazars with scant hereditary claim to the land.
the Greek city state empire of Alexander.
but I don't think we're "defending" Israel.
They're useful to us.
When they are no longer of use to us, they will get thrown under the bus.
Please explain how and or why they are useful. Because as far as I`m concerned the Zionists and their Neocon buddies are just a bunch trouble makers.
you have some final solution in mind. Let's hear it.
the US doesn't have to launch the missiles on Iran.
It would love to, but there is not much political will to actually do it.
But Israel can do it for us.
Why don't you re-read the history of the first Gulf war if you want some more instances.
Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.
"Joe Lieberman"
Sorry :-(
[Deleted. Interesting, but off topic on this thread. Please take it to an Open Thread. Thank you. Site Monitor]
taking out sadaam was the worst thing we could do
without the threat of a madman next door, iran stepped up both its nuke and missle program
and have you been paying attention to what the palestinians have been doing?
guess shooting missles into israel proper on a daily basis doesnt bother you any
with friends like you...who needs enemies
oh, and some of my best friends are jew hating dicks.....
Ya know, it's been a long, long time since we've had to worry about East Vs. West and the old Nuclear Hammer.
Thanks, George! Thanks for everything, you useless, warmongering, cronyist asshole. You've set this country back in every single way it can be possibly set back.
Worst President Ever? No. Try worst leader in the world, ever.
Ever.
It's just business, Sonny.
So who'd you think the worst world leader:
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/1500/Bus...
http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/01/2008-01...
http://bshistorian.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/vladtepesportrait.jpg
Why does the US waste its time trying to block Iran's nuclear weaponry? It might be different if there were no other nuclear countries in the midEast, but of course Israel's right next door and has made threats about attacking Iran. I agree that neither Israel nor Iran makes any sense to talk about nuking each other -- they'd blow THEMSELVES to kingdom come. But they could certainly put a hurt on each other with other weapons.
At any rate, once Israel secretly developed nuclear weapons, the die was cast for Iran to follow suit. The US would spend its time better by trying to broker peace among all the countries in the midEast, though not many countries are going to listen to the US if Obama follows GW Bush's "occupation" policies. But someone could do it, and it would ease many many of the tensions in that part of the country.
Israel wouldn't pop a wet fart without an OK from The U.S.
The demonizing of oil rich countries has to stop.
ask the crew of the USS Liberty if the Israeli's wouldn't attack without a US green-light.
you might want to read up about Iraq's Osirak reactor. This was technically beyond the range of the strike aircraft and the US would not supply conformal wing tanks. So the Israeli's developed their own.
His dumb-assed missile deal with Poland infuriated Russia. As well it should.
I can't imagine how we would react to Russia placing a similar piece of sh-t on the Canadian border.
What makes me pessimistic is that Obama is FOR it.
And he has been spewing the same Iran=Evil rhetoric as Bush.
And Clinton is in the pocket also - Biden too.
So - where we really need change - our foreign policy - our way of relating to other countries - seem to be settling into the same cesspool into which Bush flushed it.
This - plus Obama's kiss on the rump to that idiot, Warren, makes the advent of the new year a little less than a happy prospect.
not to mention that little proxy war between Georgia and Russia.
and to compound your Obama pessimism...
Obama expounds the Neocon line about what they say happened, not how it really went down.
Since we were informed of Warren, what has come of it from a Positive vs Negative reaction?
PS. That we did not know before. Hang in there...
Who even said that Iran has nuclear weapons?
From the folks who gave us "WMD" and "North Korea".
A Brand New Menace.
Playing soon on 24 Hour NewsChannels everywhere.
What they're building is a nuclear power plant, but of course Israel doesn't want them to have that, either, in case they ever DO decide to build a weapon.
Bush wiped Iraq off the map and wanted to wipe Iran off the map but failed to get that project underway. Nothing like accusing others of what you're guilty of.
He even fucked up the fuck up Iran plan.
We should expect no less.
Please note that the linked NY Times article says that Iran has enough nuclear material for one bomb with further purification. Reactor grade uranium is enriched from 0.7% to 3% or 4%. Weapons grade uranium is enriched to 90%. The Times article is not claiming that the Iranians have enough weapons grade uranium to make a bomb. Every indication that I've seen is that they have not enriched above the level needed for a power plant.
And how many do the Zionists have?
Which is amazing for a country the size and population of Israel.
They had open and covert help from the French and the US.
Back in the 90s a El Al freight plane crashed into a Dutch apartment block, they announced (to the horror of the European public) that it had DU CoG balance weights in the aircraft, which explained the people in white suits with geiger counters wandering around the crash site.
Everybody assumed they used lead CoG weights like everybody else.
The half ton or so of compressed DU broke up and was never recovered.
be absolutely right. The Iranians have enough Uranium to make hundreds of bombs. It is mostly still underground and mixed with rock at concentrations that range as high as 500 ppm. Even if the Iranians are working towards weapons grade enrichment it is still many years away. They don't have enough cascade capacity to do much more than low level enrichment right now. There's plenty of time for diplomacy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW6OrdLkCLU
Thanks to Chimp our military is stretched thin, our budget is busted and our allies are alienated so there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. Gotta love those "national security Republicans" keeping America strong.
Hey, but we weren't attacked since 2001! Anybody feel safer yet?
And what do you suggest our military do about it?
Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow.
"Barack Obama"
Secrets from a scientist from Pakistan did help several countries develop in their desires to aquire nuclear weaponry. And that scientist is named A.Q. Khan and he's been a nuclear proliferator for years and all the while the US government knew about it.
Somewhere, Joe Lieberman had to change his underpants.
Hey, this would be a great topic for Joe's committee! There's the fire, we just need the gasoline.
Various reports have regularly claimed that the S-300 is destined for Iran for a few years now but I'll believe it whan it happens. All trace back to either Israeli intelligence or Iranian boasting (along the lines of their claimed but non-existant supersonic torpedoes and stealth aircraft). It's true that both sides' hardliners use the threat of the other to keep their grasp on power.
I agree with the LA Times take (you link above) that Russia is being deliberately obscure right now to pressure the US in other negotiations such as those on missile defense and the replacement for the START treaties. "Screw us over and we'll arm Iran."
Regards, C
the supersonic torpedos are more believable than their stealth claims.
the torpedo is just a special rocket with a water displacement nose attachment. basically an underwater missile.
This caught my eye, as I use to build MK-48's in the Navy. :-P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Klub
I was thinking more along the lines of the Squall, or Shkval.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
Supercavitating torpedo, nuclear capable, last resort weapon. Intended to cause attacker to rapidly turn and snap torpedo guide line
I was lookin at the "supersonic" capabilities, but that one would hurt. :-)
funny i used to fire torpedoes , but they didnt have any wings on them !but that was when they had iron men and wooden ships!
Hit the beach... :-P
sorry son but we got stores comeing aboard , all libertys canceled get them dungarees on and turn to
But I had a Chit!...
orders is orders take your problems to the chaplin ,
Tue, 12/23/2008 - 19:26 — Truth_Critic
But I had a Chit!...
Hope you wiped afterwards.
I've got some securitized sub-prime mortgages that you'll want to invest in. A basic physics course might help as well. FYI the drag in water increases with the cube of velocity. There ain't no such animal as a supersonic torpedo.
Though When ya can pump these out of a sub, the thoughts still there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Klub
How deliberately obscure is the Caspian Basin Security Pact? The numerous announcements by senior defense officials close to Putin that Russia is prepared to use nuclear weapons "preemptively"? Was Russia being "obscure" when they preempted a false flag by the US to provoke Iran and subject them to Invasion in April 2007? Were Russia's War-Games with China following the "missing-nukes" of Minot-Barksdale obscure, their War Exercises with Venezuela last month? China's shoot-down of a deep-space satellite? How "obscure" does Russia have to be to convey the sense that the Neocons are finished?
I like so much of what you write, I just wish you'd get to the point and nail War Criminals as War Criminals, sometimes. In chess, it's not what you say, it's what you do, in life, it's not what you do, it's whether you live.
amazing...
someone says false flag...
good post btw
...but as I've already read from your other enties, you're not just playing-blogs either.
Peace On Mars, I guess
A useful bargaining chip but I doubt if the Russians are going to hand over their latest technology to a bunch of unstable religious loonies with a history of making overtures to their northern neighbors with an eye to exporting Iran's fundamentalist revolution.
why not we did it for mangossssssssssssssssssssss
...when there's a nuclear umbrella covering Iran's back as overtly dictated in the Caspian Basin Security Pact? The "Iran NIE" was released by Cheney's cold-dead-hands following Russia's agreement with Iran a year ago summer!
They have evolved. :-) as the Mark 37 torpedo, Mark 46 torpedo, Mark 48 torpedo, ADCAP program, which would bring significant modifications to the torpedo and BGM-109 Tomahawk. They all kill no matter what ya call'em. :-)
guess they dont use pink lady in em either , shame it tastes like moonshine!
Is it not amazing that with all this worrying about rogue states, and terrorists, it is our own government and our political representatives with their banker buddies, oil companies, media networks and justice system that are fucking us up more than anything.
look at how much "our" (ahem) government has done in propping many of those so-called rogue states and terrorists.
heck, we basically trained the nine eleven hijackers here in the US at various installations.
and that's just the terrorists (on our side) that we know about.
The major rogue state in the world for the last century or so has been and continues to be the United States of America. Look back at the last 100 years and you'll see that the US has been the most destabilizing force in the world. The US has supported the most evil dictators imaginable. Pinochet, Suharto, Saddam, the Shah, Somoza in Nicaragua. The list is a long and sordid one. The cost in human lives and suffering is unfathomable. If it would benefit the US in any way they would gladly support the most violent, virulent monster to ever walk the earth. If said dictator was "against communism" then the president of the US would say, "he's our man, sell that country lots and lots of military weapons, and we'd better get the army to train his troops in the best and newest torture techniques. We'll also want to teach those troops how to spot a subversive and the best way to kill him". Of course the US isn't alone in this policy. They've had lots of company, the UK, Germany, France, Israel. People do not matter in the minds of the leaders of the world. Money is GOD. If it's good for business, it's good for us.
don't forget,
Hitler was our boy too. His regime received a LOT of US industrialist support and had such notable US political names such as Harriman, Bush, Dulles, and many others providing much financial and material support to resuscitate his military growth.
I bet my missle's bigger than your missle.
Login or Register to post comments.