Today, I read a Fox News article entitled, “Iranian dissidents seeking meeting with Trump.” See: (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/23/iranian-dissidents-seeking-meeting-with-trump.html). According to the article, Iranian dissidents have penned a letter to Trump urging him to consider renegotiating the so-called, Iran Nuclear Deal. This alone was not a problem. The problem was when the article brings up the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) as one of the dissident groups. Allegedly, the NCRI was not involved with the letter, which I find to be a dubious claim, but according to Fox News, the NCRI is being pushed as a legitimate dissident group and stated, “The NCRI is widely seen as the most organized Iranian opposition group – and also is welcoming engagement with Trump.” Of course, there is just one small problem with this false narrative. The NCRI is not just some innocent dissident group oppressed by Iran. The NCRI is the polished up and renamed political organization of the same terrorist group formerly known as the PMOI and MEK. As mentioned in my previous article, Trump does not know the behind the scenes intelligence driving many foreign policy decisions and how it has been manipulated by special interests. As a result, he is dangerously at risk of falling victim to lies of “false news,” being misled, and making a disastrous decision with regards to Iran and the Middle East. Read more
Tag Archive for Iran
Russian transfer of S-300 Air Defense System may force Israeli to initiate war with Iran before winter
Over two decades ago, I began warning that United States’ policies in the Middle East could set the US and world on a trajectory for a major war. Unfortunately, every major policy decision the US has made has exclusively served the interests of the global elite to the detriment of humanity. The trajectory set by these policy decisions has moved the world closer and closer to a full blown world war. More recently, I have warned that the Obama Administration was walking a dangerous foreign policy line in the Middle East that if mismanaged, could lead to horrific consequences. Today, it is become blatantly clear to all but the most ideologically blinded that Obama and his amateur staff have chosen incorrectly and created a perfect storm in the Middle East that will likely lead to a full scale regional war. The culmination of these decisions, no matter their motivation, has set the stage for a showdown between Israel and Iran that is now most likely irreversible. This showdown is what I have previously described as the worst case scenario that must be avoided at all costs. The consequences of which will be catastrophic for not just the Middle East, but the US and the rest of the world. As recently as August, news broke that could finally force Israel into unilateral action against Iran, which will pull the entire region and the US into war, collapse the already sick global economy, and usher in the New World Order.
The event I am speaking of is the Russian announcement that it will move forward with the transfer of S-300 Air Defense Systems to Iran. These sophisticated air defense systems are capable of detecting and successfully interdicting aircraft flown by the Israeli Air Force (IAF) as well as ballistic missiles, drones, and cruise missiles. The potency of this air defense system will alternate the current military balance of the region and has Israel on edge. Read more
This week’s news that ISIL inflicted a heavy defeat upon Iraqi government forces is no surprise. Whether or not ISIL can hold the ground is yet to be seen, but it sends a strong signal Washington’s strategy in Iraq is failing contrary to the claims of Obama’s paid propagandists. Further, and more ominous for the world, it moves the Middle East one notch closer to an all-out regional war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. As I have predicted for years, this coming conflagration is now a near certainty. At this stage of the on-going proxy war there are simply no peaceful off ramps and it will be a winner takes all struggle. Either radical Sunni extremists aligned under Saudi Arabia or radical Shia extremists aligned under Iran will prevail, which in either case will trigger a global war that involves the US and Israel. For those of you saying, “Good, let them kill each other,” a lesson on the global economic implications of a sudden shut down of oil from the Middle East is in order. In short, outright chaos will ensue.
Those of you that read my work regularly are well aware that I predicted the failure of US efforts to curb ISIL and the fall of Ramadi well over a year ago and the growing regional conflict in the Middle East “years” ago. In fact, even my recent my global updates from April 20, 2015 speak specifically to Ramadi and ISIL, http://www.lastminutesurvival.com/2015/04/20/global-updates/. In the brief, I specifically called out the Obama Administration as misleading the US on our “success” against ISIL in Tikrit and said that ISIL had simply shifted its forces south to “Ramadi” where I expected it to achieve success. Below is the exact exert from my forecast. Read more
In addition to my more in-depth posts, I will be routinely adding short bulletized points to keep our readers up to date on global issues. If you would like more details on a specific issue, please post to comments or email me directly at LMS.
April 20, 2015
- US sending warships to “prevent” Iran from providing arms to Houthis in Yemen. The US has greatly contributed to the crisis in Yemen and engaging in a stand-off with Iran over support to each country’s respective proxies is a losing card for the White House to play. The US (aside from special interests) has nothing to gain from this conflict. The only possible winner will be AQAP (Al Qaeda). Yemen’s US backed “president” in exile will never be able to return to “effective” power after using foreign militaries to bomb and kill Yemeni civilians. Further, the Houthis, which pose no threat to the US will be weakened, but not pushed from power. The US will no doubt dupe itself into another disastrous conflict. The end result will be prolonging the chaos in Yemen and AQAP gaining significantly more power. Just as I warned, the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia/Qatar in Syria would eventually engulf the entire region and turn hot. If the US policy in Yemen was to create greater Middle East conflict, empower Islamic extremism, and further destabilize global oil markets, it has achieved its objectives.
- US arrests suspects attempting to join ISIL. The US acts as though this was a great crime fighting/anti-terrorism win; however, it is a sign of deeper problems that have been self-inflicted. Minnesota in particular is a hot bed of Islamic activity because of the suicidal domestic immigration policies that favor and actually import tens of thousands of people into the US annually from countries known for radical Islamism such as Somalia. In short, it is a self fulfilling prophecy that has been used to justify an unnecessary domestic spy/police state and draconian legislation such as the “Patriot Act.”
- Iraqi military backed by US and Iran fails to retake key cities from ISIL. Contrary to rosy claims by the Obama Administration, the Iraqi Army has only scored marginal victories against what appears to be a far more dynamic and better led ISIL force. Specifically, government forces were able to seize some key areas around Tikrit, but have so far failed to effectively secure the city. Further, while the Iraqi military was focused north in Tikrit, ISIL has appeared to have shifted its fighting strength to the Ramadi area where it has gained ground in recent weeks. As predicted, the violence and bloodshed in Iraq will continue and grow as long as the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia continues to burn. As one side gains ground, the other side will bolster its support for its proxy until the conflict has grown so big and so violent it will directly involve its original sponsors. The end result will be a disaster for both the Middle East and the US.
- Drought in California continues at record levels. If you haven’t planted a large garden this year, plan to pay more…a lot more, at the grocery store. As warned in previous articles last winter, food prices have continued to rise. This price inflation isno where near at its peak with beef prices skyrocketing. The conditions that continue to cause price hikes will persist. Crops largely grown in California will see some of the largest spikes such as nuts and lettuces.
- High taxes and over regulation finally ruining Virginia. Northern Virginia, an area historically known for its strong economy and growing population has begun to feel the pressure of increasingly socialist governmental policies. Naturally, the region draws on people working for the federal government and the big bureaucracy mindset has metastasized across the Potomac into the Commonwealth of Virginia. High taxes, oppressive regulations, and stifling over population have all been the result. This caustic bureaucratic recipe has led to a fed up population that is now leaving in droves. Ironically, many of these people leaving were responsible at the ballot boxes for the socialist turn in governance. Perhaps they learned their lesson and will not repeat their same mistake in the future, but that is doubtful. As the population growth levels out and then begins to drop, local governments will soon realize budget deficits are growing and they are unable to provide the services originally programmed. Without undoing what has become a socialist style of governance in the enclave, Northern Virginiais doomed to double down on its current failures and create another communist utopia on the banks of the Potomac.
By Guiles Hendrik
Last week I discussed why peace with Iran was the preferred option. I outlined a number of salient points uninformed talking heads in the media and well paid Israel lobbyists such as the former US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, will never bring up. In short, the costs of a war with Iran will far outweigh the costs of accepting a turbulent peace. Even a successful war against Iran will be a Pyric victory and cause an economic collapse in the US. Further, even if Iran did test a nuclear weapon, we would still have plenty of time to exercise the war option should it be necessary. Unfortunately, even if the US does manage to broker a peace deal with Iran, war is now close to a certainty. In the event of a war with Iran, there will be dire implications for the US. Today I will discuss why war is now imminent, how it will likely be initiated, and the catastrophic effects on the US you must prepare to endure. Read more
Over the last few years, I have written many posts and provided consultation on the situation I predicted would materialize in the Middle East and North Africa as a result of US policy blunders. In short, I predicted that our policies would lead to the creation of an even greater Islamist enemy that would destabilize the entire region and likely lead to a multi-front regional war for hegemonic dominance between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. I predicted we would be forced to recognize the Kurds, that Iraq would breakup and return to sectarian violence, that we would support false flag chemical attacks in Syria to try and ignite a war, and that our proxy army in Syria would back fire and become our worst enemy. Further, I detailed how this conflict would continue to increase in intensity until it no longer was proxy war, but a direct full-fledged war between the belligerents with global implications. As my previous analyses have come to pass and been proven accurate by current events down to the most specific details, it is time to expand and update what one can expect respective of the impact of Islamic extremism. Read more
President Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry have to be the laughing stock of the foreign policy world. In less than a year they have managed to draw two “Red Lines” only to have them almost immediately ignored, crossed, and forgotten. With this track record the word impotent comes to mind in reference to US Foreign Policy and particularly President (Carter) Obama. Not to be trifled with, President Obama and his partners within the EU managed to order the assets of a handful of Russians frozen, obviously leaving Putin quaking in his finely crafted leather shoes. The act is almost comical in that it seems to show even less resolve than if Obama and the EU had done nothing. After all, freezing the non-existent US assets of a couple dozen Russians long after they hid and/or offshored anything of value can only be viewed in one of two ways. Either the US is as weak as it appears or the US never intended to truly oppose Russia’s aims to annex Crimea and this is all political show so that they can say they “stood up to Putin.” Further, at least one of victims of Washington’s sanctions appears to have nothing to do with events in the Ukraine and everything to do with Russia’s Christian grounded stance against homosexuality, which at least someone high up in the Obama Administration took exception. This random list of targets unrelated to the events in the Ukraine undermines any shred of legitimacy the sanctions purportedly were imbued with. Either way, Putin has to be concluding that at this point the US and the EU have zero resolve when it comes to actually opposing Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Nonetheless, Putin, the same man that would order a former Russian defector assassinated with a rare radioactive isotope placed in his cocktail in a fine London bar, is not likely to take Obama’s cheap shot lightly.
Now that Washington has proved it couldn’t resist taking a cheap shot, what can we expect Russia’s response to be? First of all, Putin has shown that unlike Obama, his actions speak for themselves and he doesn’t need to talk. Since Washington and the EU attacked Russia financially, it is likely Russia will respond financially. Last week, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared that any sanctions introduced by Washington against Moscow will have a “boomerang” effect. Senior Russian Presidential Advisor, Sergey Glazyev, one of the individual’s sanctioned by Obama’s executive order, suggested Russia would dump US treasuries and walk away from the US Dollar as a reserve currency. It is questionable how much of an impact this would have, but it certainly wouldn’t help the US economically and add to the growing list of countries dumping the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency. American businesses operating in Russia may also suffer retaliation in the form of their assets being frozen, confiscated, or shutdown. Further, Russia has the ability to call in billions in debt from the Ukraine and cut supplies of gas to the Ukraine and EU. Cutting gas supplies to the EU would certainly hurt Russia too, but this logic is fundamentally flawed if one believes that it will deter Russia. Russia is renowned for its ability to suffer austerity. In fact, one of the critical failures in US-Russia policy has been the inability of our senior policy makers to recognize Russia’s ability to endure extreme hardships and willingly cut off its nose, leg and hand to spite its face if it means victory can be assured. The US and EU are not willing to go to those extremes so, by that fact alone, Russia will prevail in any developing economic stand-off.
Respective of Russian natural gas and oil, I produced a paper a half a decade ago that looked into the future political ramifications of Russian geopolitical power as Western economies waned and Asian economies waxed. What became apparent was that once Russia completed pipelines in its east that could link their large gas and oil fields to China and coastal ports in the Pacific, Russia would gain significant leverage in what had previously been a status quo relationship with Europe between supply and demand. Until recently, Europe has always felt safe in that at worst, Russia would only cut gas supplies during a political crisis for a short period of time because Russia needed the money as much as Europe needed the gas. However, with pipelines now directly extending supply to China, Russia is more than able to divert supplies from Europe, southeast to China. This is a game changer, which increases Russia’s geopolitical maneuver space. China welcomes this and is happy to buy all of the petrol resources it can obtain from Russia so that its supplies are more reliable. Further, China will be likely to back any move that drives Russia to sell to China at more favorable rates, which to date, have been below what Russia was willing to agree to sell at. China would also see the advantage of a marginalized Russia that dumps the US Dollar and is willing to trade directly in their respective currencies. Remember, China seeks to replace the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency and sees that transition as critical to achieving super power status and eclipsing the US. Considering the above, it is highly likely that China will not just quietly support Russia, but actively back Russia against the US and EU.
Russia also has the ability to increase the sale of military weapons to countries such as Iran and Syria. In particular, the S-300 air defense system would be a highly sought after leap ahead in technology for both the Iranian and Syrian militaries. This system alone would be penetrable by American airpower; however, it would significantly increase the complexities and cost of carrying out any type of air attack against either nation. Russia could also dangle the idea of selling an even more advanced S-400 air defense system, which if fielded, would mean that US would be at a high risk of losing significant numbers of aircraft in the event they attacked any nation using the system. Respective of countries such as Israel, the S-400 would make it all but impossible for them to successfully carrying out an air attack making any suggestion of the sale of the weapon system a serious threat. Respective of the civil war in Syria, Russia could begin sending ship loads of various weapons and even advisors and troops to support President Assad. This would tip the balance in favor of Assad just as his army is gaining ground on the rebels making it possible to achieve a decisive victory. Ensuring Assad’s victory would have the added benefit of snubbing Washington while stopping Qatari efforts to build a gas pipeline to Europe that would reduce the European reliance on Russian gas.
Finally, among numerous options for retaliation, Russia has the ability to make NATO’s withdrawal from Afghanistan extremely painful. First of all, Russia has the ability to shut down all supply routes to and from Afghanistan from the north. This would disrupt NATO’s ability to sustain the current forces in Afghanistan and retard efforts under way to retreat with all of its equipment in tow. Further, it would force NATO to pay premium prices to Pakistan to move all of its equipment out of the country via Karachi. The Karachi route is extremely dangerous and once it is clear that the US must use this route, the Taliban could concentrate its attacks along the entire stretch of this road network. Even darker is Russia’s proven, albeit very covert ability to provide the Taliban with substantial support and weapons. Should the Russians decide to really make life a living hell for the US, expect to see the Taliban suddenly supplied with more sophisticated weaponry capable of destroying armored vehicles from long range or even engaging NATO aircraft and drones. Imagine what NATO’s retreat from Afghanistan would look like as troop numbers dwindle and the remaining isolated outposts begin to be overrun, supply convoys are wiped out by sophisticated laser beam riding anti-tank weapons, and aircraft are suddenly being shot down by the modern Russian equivalent of the Stinger missile.
In truth, the US is far more exposed than many realize. Should Washington decide to ratchet up pressure on Russia by continuing to try and subvert Russia’s historic sphere of interest, expect Putin to begin playing cards he has so far politely held in reserve. Putin’s trump cards are for, let’s say, more uncivilized forms of diplomacy, which Washington now seems to want to engage. Obama’s thug style Chicago politics may have worked within the confines of the decrepit US political system, but Barry will be sorely mistaken if he thinks he even remotely approaches a match for Putin in the global arena. As Putin has repeatedly demonstrated with very little talk and decisive action, Washington is a paper tiger that not just lacks teeth, but a functioning brain.
By Guiles Hendrik
March 23, 2014
All rights reserved.
As We Predicted: Syrian and Iraqi Civil Wars Merge as President Obama’s Claims of a Defeated Al Qaeda Crumble
Disturbing news continues to poor out of Iraq as it appears Al Qaeda forces in Iraq have transformed from an insurgent force to conventional military force. This is considered the last stage of a guerilla war by Mao Tse-Tung’s guide to guerrilla warfare. The successful takeover of the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi by Al Qaeda forces prove they have continued to organize and gain strength contrary to the lies emanating from President Obama respective of Al Qaeda being nearly destroyed. None of this should come as a surprise. For years I have been tracking this trend and warning that the Islamic radicals fighting in Syria would soon destabilize Iraq and merge the wars. Reference:
If not already bad enough, the Sunni extremists have gained much of this power by way of Washington’s covert aid. Using arms and money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar funneled through Jordan and Turkey the CIA has covertly provided a host of supplies, equipment, and weapons to the rebels. Further, CIA officers on the ground are advising Al Qaeda affiliated rebel factions and providing them with command and control support. With this added lifeline the rebels have regrouped across the non-existent border in Iraq and gained a foothold by seizing the major cities of Anbar Province as well as numerous border towns in Northern Iraq. This sets the stage for a pan-Sunni front rising against Iranian backed Shia forces for a large scale outbreak of warfare in the Middle East.
Make no mistake, by no means is this Iraqi Al Qaeda uprising an organically generated situation. It is merely a symptom of much bigger strategic issues at play in the Middle East. These divisions are deep, complex, and overlapping. Some of these divisions are political, some are economic, some are religious, some are ethnic, but all are divisive. Sunni versus Shia; Saudi Arabia and Qatar versus Syria; Kurd versus Iraqi; Turkey versus Kurdistan versus Syria; Iran versus Israel versus the United States versus Saudi Arabia; the United States versus Russia; and so on. The Middle East has become a chessboard of pawns being manipulated by strategic players from around the world in a very dangerous high stakes game.
The result of this will be, as I have previously predicted, ever increasing violence and bloodshed across the Middle East. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki will most likely be forced to open up greater political and military cooperation with Iran to put down the Sunni uprising in the western portion of the country. This will allow the Kurds to further cement their autonomous nation to the north and possibly absorb Kurdish portions of Syria. This would ethnically redraw the map of the Middle East much to the fear of Turkey, which under those circumstances, might militarily intervene to prevent such a Kurdish unification. Contrary to Washington’s plans to weaken Iran by toppling Assad, the rise of Obama’s Sunni proxies will cause the plan to backfire. Maliki’s requests for support will actually lead to increased Iranian influence and potentially new and more direct military supply lines through Iraq to Iran’s besieged ally Bashar Assad in Syria. This will force Saudi Arabia to become even more overt in its support to Sunni extremists, which will fuel even greater global terrorism and bloodshed in Syria. Saudi Arabia will begin importing greater numbers of foreign jihadists for the fight and likely buy its own readymade nuclear arsenal from Pakistan, which will greatly increase world instability and increase the chances of a larger regional war. Nonetheless, Assad’s government forces will most likely continue to maintain the upper hand for at least the next six months dealing Washington a decisive strategic setback that will weaken Washington’s alliances with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, and Turkey. This will also weaken Washington’s negotiating position with Iran on its nuclear program forcing Obama to pursue appeasement. A peace deal with Iran is not in and of itself disastrous and likely good, but Israel will see this as the last straw and likely initiate unilateral strikes against Iran designed to set back its nuclear progress while forcing the US into an unwanted and unnecessary war. This will be an unparalleled disaster for the US. See:
As for the biggest players, the US and Russia, Russia will continue its unbeaten streak of foreign policy victories against the amateurish American lineup. Obama and John Kerry are simply outclassed by Putin and Sergei Lavrov. Specifically, Russia and its grand chess master Putin will continue to play all sides against each other for its maximum political and economic profit. Russia will continue to pick off long time US allies such as Egypt as Obama continues to alienate everyone. Russia will also handsomely profit and leverage any outbreak of war to further corner the oil and gas market while enjoying a spike in prices before global economies crash taking the price of oil to lows not seen in years. For Russia, losing Syria is not optional as long as the threat of a Qatari-Saudi gas pipeline through Syria to Europe exists. Russia would lose immense geopolitical leverage over Europe and billions in revenue in the event Assad was deposed without hard guarantees Washington is not likely able to deliver. In the event Obama doubles down and provides enough military support to bring about Syrian regime change, expect the Russians to triple down and bait the US into another disastrous war in the Middle East designed to economically break the back of the US and force us out of the Middle East.
All considered, 2014 is shaping up to be a violent and climatic year across the Muslim Crescent. The civil war in Syria will likely reach a tipping point and Iran’s nuclear program will have to be accepted or destroyed. Iraq will descend into full scale civil war. Jordan will be weakened by growing unrest and Lebanon could once again be split by sectarian violence. As for Americans, expect an increase in Islamic terrorism against US targets. This is a near certainty since vast numbers of radical Islamists have been recently armed, trained, equipped, and organized to fight in Syria by our very own CIA. This latest generation of jihadists will be armed with much more advanced weaponry compliments of the US taxpayer and will ultimately go on to attack the US after they have had their fill of fighting in Syria. Specifically, expect to see the use of improvised nerve gas manufactured by Syrian rebels, man portable surface to air missiles smuggled out of Libya, and antitank missiles provided by Saudi Arabia against US targets. These are just some of the highlights to expect in 2014 so make sure you buckle your seat belts.
For further reading:
By Guiles Hendrik
January 10, 2014
All rights reserved.
On June 13, 2013, President Obama announced authorization for the arming of the Syrian rebels last week amidst a string of growing scandals rocking the White House. President Obama’s action authorized without congressional debate or public justification the United States’ entry into another war. Not only has the US now picked a side in a bloody civil war where both sides are hostile to the US, but committed the US to a war in a country where the US has little national interest. At best, this action is constitutionally unsound and a gross abuse of the powers prescribed to the Commander-in-Chief. At worst, this is an illegal war that will ultimately result in the single greatest foreign policy disaster of Obama’s administration to date and bankrupt the US.
Contrary to the Administration’s claims, the only security threat Syria poses to the US will be the one we create by arming Al Qaeda affiliated rebel groups that openly espouse destruction to the US and Israel. The White House rationale for this undeclared and unnecessary war was that President Assad used chemical weapons. In the midst of growing public scandals, does President Obama’s hypocrisy know no end? First, it was then Senator Obama that openly attacked the Bush administration’s entry into what he deemed an illegal war in Iraq on fabricated intelligence even though the international community did believe Saddam Hussein still possessed weapons of mass destruction. Yet now, President Obama wants the US to enter another war in the Middle East again on very dubious claims of chemical weapons and when no good argument for US interests exist. Not only is Obama’s “intelligence” on chemical weapons suspect, but the investigations done by the United Nations, which are available for public scrutiny conclude that “if” chemical weapons were used, they were used by the “rebels” and NOT Assad’s forces. This glaring contradiction to the Administration’s official spin was dismissed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. The White House departure from its long history of walking in lock step with the U.N. is certainly telling. The problem this time is even the Washington Post which, known for its overt support of liberal policy and President Obama, called the Administration’s claims into question. In the Post’s article it states; “Despite months of laboratory testing and scrutiny by top U.S. scientists, the Obama administration’s case for arming Syria’s rebels rests on unverifiable claims that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own people, according to diplomats and experts.” It goes on to say, “If you are the opposition and you hear” that the White House has drawn a red line on the use of nerve agents, then “you have an interest in giving the impression that some chemical weapons have been used,” said Rolf Ekeus, a Swedish scientist who headed up U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq during the 1990s.
Things are sounding an awful lot like the Bush-era false war propaganda about Iraqi chemical weapons with a touch of President Clinton’s policy of bombing “terrorist” targets at the height of the Monica Lewinsky Scandal. Hopefully, the American people have finally learned their lesson and will demand to see the actual evidence and be given a legitimate reason why war is “necessary” this time, what our strategy is, and what is the desired end state.
One need not be a fortune-teller to foresee how U.S. involvement in Syria will go down as one of America’s greatest foreign policy disasters. After being defeated in Iraq and now Afghanistan, the U.S. should have learned a few lessons about the folly of interventionist policy. In the least, it should not be committing the U.S. to another war before it has at least finished its fight in Afghanistan. In this regard, the hubris of the Obama Administration in this regard is staggering. Now, not only has the U.S. entered a war against a nation, but it has entered a sectarian war between Shia and Sunnis that has split Islam since the seventh century. This war extends far beyond Syria’s borders and is engulfing the entire Muslim world.
Currently, approximately 1,100 Marines and possibly up to a few thousand “advisors,” are in Jordan. This is in addition to a small cadre of Special Forces and CIA case officers working closely with rebel elements in and out of Syria. Further, U.S. forces are positioned to the north of Syria in Turkey and have been clandestinely supporting rebel training camps, NATO airbases, and air defense facilities. As Washington’s plan to arm the rebels fails to save their strategy to overthrow Assad, Obama will be forced to increase American intervention. This will likely involve the implementation of a “no-fly zone” and will be the next step towards a hot war with Syria and Iran.
Obama is no doubt in a dilemma. He foolishly thought the he could use proxies to topple Assad in order to destroy Iran’s fifth column in the preliminary phases of the ongoing cold war with Iran. The failure of the rebels means Washington must either face humiliation as its policy to remove Assad collapses or now openly enter into a war on the side of rebels previously known as terrorists, insurgents, and jihadists. Obama has doubled down on the rebels. Of the rebel forces, Jordanian intelligence estimates upwards of 80% of their combat power and front line fighters are jihadists that have avowed the destruction of both the US and Israel. In fact, even US allies in the Middle East have openly called into contention the notion the CIA can distribute advanced military weapons only to secular Sunni rebel forces in Syria. Supporting this skepticism is the fact the most powerful element within the Syrian rebel force is the al-Nusrah Front, which is allied to al-Qaeda. As such, the thought that the US can arm these jihadists turned rebels and not directly endanger American lives is so foolish; the mere suggestion is an absolute bald face lie. Therefore, the sudden policy shift and use of the chemical weapons rationale to arm the rebels exposes the true nature of Washington’s intent to use Syria as a stepping stone toward an ultimate showdown with Iran. As Obama’s administration is forced toward war with Iran by special interests, he will now have to demonstrate greater and greater involvement.
Moving forward, the US now owns the civil war in Syria. Obama has joined forces with known Al Qaeda terrorists to fight an equally nasty dictator. Neither of which support US interests. The newly armed and resurgent rebels will not hesitate to attack US interests at the first opportunity. American’s will die because of this policy disaster. Washington and by default, the American people, will now be blamed every time the rebels commit an atrocity. These Sunni extremists are the same brand that attacked the US on 9/11 and there is no reason to expect them to act any differently in the future. We are indeed creating our own enemies.
The violence has now fully spilled over into a regional conflict. Hezbollah in Lebanon has now committed fully to the war. Iran has committed to support Assad as well and has sent thousands of troops to support Assad’s military. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are sending billions in arms and equipment. Turkey’s streets are on fire with protests. Egypt is now warning of outright civil war. Israel is on high alert and dealing with daily cross border fire from the conflict in Syria. Iraq is now fully re-engulfed with sectarian violence as we previously warned would occur.
How President Obama believes that any good for the US can come of providing US military weapons and equipment to a motley collection of known terrorists, international jihadists, and Sunni extremists is beyond rational logic. No matter how the conflict ends in Syria, the party that takes or retains power will be openly hostile to the US. Not only are our analysts predicting greater bloodshed, but we now see all of the signs of a full-blown regional conflict that has the potential to rapidly draw the US back into a full-scale disastrous war that will likely be the final blow to America’s global economic and political dominance.
By Guiles Hendrik
June 26, 2013
All rights reserved
The Syrian Civil War is poised to explode into full scale sectarian violence that will engulf the region as a global proxy war is played out on Syrian soil. Recent news reports cite Iraqi Shia fighters trained by Iran have been joining ranks with Hezbollah militants in Syria. These combined forces are supporting Syrian President Assad’s legitimate government forces against a Syrian rebel army that is comprised mainly of Sunni Muslims. Like the Syrian government’s forces, the rebel army is also comprised of a large contingent of foreign fighters. As we have repeatedly warned, the vanguard rebel fighters are Sunni extremists from around the globe, which include a large contingent of Sunni Iraqis and others waging global jihad. These rebel fighters have sworn allegiance to Al Qaeda, support the Muslim Brotherhood, and have announced that when they are done fighting in Syria, the USA will be next. As such, one would think the US would want to see President Assad prevail. Ironically, though, this is not the case. This article will review the regional and global competitors in this conflict and why the US is worried Assad will defeat the Al Qaeda led rebels.
At the regional level, as discussed in part above, a Shia versus Sunni war has developed in the Middle East and Syria is ground zero. On the rebel side you have countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia sending large sums of money to finance the rebel army while they look the other way when their citizens leave their country to wage jihad in Syria. Jordan and Turkey are actively providing training facilities and logistical support to the rebel armies. Iraq’s population is split down sectarian lines in its support of the rebels. The US, Israel, and EU have all aligned against President Assad and have covertly been supporting the rebels by procuring weapons and medical equipment, was well as providing training and intelligence. Finally, you have countries from around the world like Chechnya and Libya whose citizens have flocked to Syria to fight with the rebels. These jihadists once united in combat become infinitely more radicalized, better trained and equipped, and very well organized. Ultimately, they become very dangerous terrorists that will attack the US and their former host countries. This same pattern played out during the Soviet War in Afghanistan where a little known Saudi named Osama bin Laden began financing jihadists and organizing what became known as Al Qaeda.
Opposing this rebel jihadist army are equally dedicated Shia fighters. This includes Iraqi Shia and perhaps Kurds and Lebanese based Hezbollah fighters. Hezbollah is backed by weapons and money from Iran. Specifically, Iran has provided state level support to Syria, which includes weapons, advisors, and most likely fighters. However, it is Russia that is ultimately President Assad’s most powerful and persuasive supporter. Russian President Putin has to date successfully prevented the US, Israel, and the EU from directly attacking Syria and has been providing advanced weapons systems to Syria.
Based on the nationality and religious allegiance of the fighters in Syria, one can clearly see how the entire Middle East is represented and could be pulled into the Syrian conflict. As we have previously reported, Iraq, the central lynchpin of the Middle East, is being ripped apart by this conflict. Sectarian violence has reemerged with a vengeance across Iraq as happened during their previous civil war and the one now raging in Syria will metastasize into one giant regional Sunni-Shia showdown. If President Assad is not successful in routing the Sunni jihadists, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia will without doubt become the next targets of this growing terrorist army. Make no mistake, this is a fight for keeps and the winner takes all. Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has stated publicly that the group’s existence depends on defeating the Sunni rebel army against Assad. “Hezbollah is fully engaged in the battlefield. And this is a major shift. It’s no longer them trying to protect villages along the border in Lebanon; it’s waging battle alongside the Syrian government forces … willing to sustain casualties and shoulder the consequences,” said Fawaz Gerges, director of the Middle East Center at the London School of Economics.
At the global level, Russia has moved naval forces into the region not seen since the height of the Cold War. The Russian show of force includes various warships and submarines armed with nuclear weapons. Russia is no doubt signaling to the US that it is not willing to accept a loss of its only warm water port in Syria and will back its most trusted regional ally. The EU wants a pipeline from Qatar to break the Russian monopoly on European energy supplies, so has at least tacitly thrown its support behind the rebels. China sees the US as a threat and realizes that another US war in the region will further weaken Washington. As such, China is positioning itself to exploit the chaos at the expense of the US. This includes making deals with both sides all while staying out of the fight.
However, the US has been the driving force behind the civil war that has led to the deaths of over 80,000 people. To accomplish this, the US has been covertly organizing, training, equipping, and advising the rebel forces from Jordan, Turkey, and now Syria proper. Per our previous reports, factions within the US are determined to attack Iran and recognize Syria as a critical stepping stone in achieving this war. As the war plan goes, Syria and Hezbollah must be taken out first to insulate Israel from counter attacks. When Syria and Hezbollah are seen as sufficiently degraded, a pretext would be used to launch an overt military strike on Iran, which would include using an air corridor opened through eastern Syria. However, this could not be achieved through a direct attack by the US, which would polarize the world against the US and be seen even by Americans as too egregious, so proxies were chosen to do the dirty work as per Cold War unconventional war doctrine. This plan has been implemented to assuage Israeli fears of the US doing nothing about a nuclear Iran in hopes of at least delaying Israel from striking Iran and sucking the US into a disastrous war. Ironically, it will make the situation far worse for the US and Israel. Nonetheless, the US has responded by moving its own naval forces into the region. The US has stationed an aircraft carrier battle group in the Mediterranean and recently deployed approximately 1100 Marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit into Jordan where they will meet up with Special Forces and other US military units already on the ground. This deployment is using the cover of being a routine annual military exercise with Jordan codenamed, Operation Infinite Moonlight. Further, in Turkey, the US has positioned Patriot II air defense missiles and set up CIA supported training camps for rebel fighters while threatening greater NATO escalation should Syria try to fight back. Finally, Israel has repeatedly provoked and flagrantly violated Syria’s sovereignty by launching repeated air strikes against various targets throughout Syria.
The combined Syrian government forces are winning against all the covert efforts of Washington and this scares the White House. In fact, the Syrian Army is now poised to launch a large scale counteroffensive around Damascus designed to route rebel forces and drive them out of the suburbs. “Planes are dropping off fully armed fighters from Hezbollah and the Iraqi Fadl Brigades,” said opposition activist Abu Yasser. Hezbollah is a Lebanon-based terrorist group and the Fadl Brigades are Iranian-trained Shiite Muslim militants from Iraq. According to USA Today, both groups are likely destined for the fight in al-Qusayr, a town near the Lebanese border that is at the center of the rebels’ supply routes for ammo and fighters, Yasser said. What one must understand from this is that Syria has now become the battleground for a proxy war being waged by regional and global competitors and Washington’s rebel army is not winning. This likely means the White House will need to execute more overt and risky interventionist strategies to bring about the desired rebel victory. The rationale is that failure for Washington to engineer a rebel victory will force a complete recalculation of the Iranian War Plan.
If Washington’s proxy army in Syria loses, the US will be forced to enter the war directly. To do this, Washington must engineer a situation that forces unilateral military action in Syria, which the American people are firmly against. This overt action will not only cause a violent regional response, but also trigger a Russian response. Even a limited Russian response such as providing increased military support to the Syrian army will make any US efforts incredibly costly if not futile. Already, repeated staged crises have failed to pull the American public behind any intervention. These attempts include Turkey trying to invoke a NATO response after provoking Syrian air defenses to shoot down a Turkish military jet violating its airspace and blaming the Syrian army for what likely was rebel mortar fire into Turkey. Further, Assad was blamed for using chemical weapons against the rebels until the truth came out that it was in fact the rebels that had used the chemical weapons. Other blatant propaganda such as staging and doctoring photos of the injured and dead have also failed to convince the average American that they have joint interests in Syria. As a result, the US and EU will likely begin massive covert arming of the rebels, which may or may not turn the tide of battle, but will certainly lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of people. If this too fails, Israel will likely demand direct US action in Syria or launch its own attack on Iran. This will be a choice of two evils. Both will ultimately be too costly for the US, which has painted itself into a corner. If the rebels win, Muslim extremists will control a large military with advance weapons on Israel’s border, which will destabilize the entire region and threaten the US. If the rebels lose, Iran will be firmly established as a regional player on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons capability.
Washington’s interventionist policies have created a situation where the US is in a lose-lose situation. Israeli interests have hijacked US foreign policy for the worst leading either to a disastrous war with Iran or the rise of extremist Muslim nations. In conclusion, we have passed a point in the Syrian Civil War where we could have cut our losses. Instead, we doubled down and are now in a position that virtually assures the US will be drawn into another costly war before the end of 2013.
By Guiles Hendrik
June 11, 2013
All rights reserved
Within the last 24 hours, North Korea has significantly escalated tensions on the peninsula by announcing it has entered a “state of war” with South Korea and closed key border areas. The statement, carried by the communist country’s KCNA news agency, says inter-Korean relations will be dealt with in a wartime manner. “From this time on, the North-South relations will be entering the state of war and all issues raised between the North and the South will be handled accordingly,” the statement said, according to Reuters. In addition, North Korea previously scrapped the armistice and in effect re-entered into an official “WAR” with the United States. The fact that the U.S. is now in “war” and little to nothing has been said by the U.S. to the public is not only unsettling, but appears to be dereliction on the part of the White House to take this threat seriously. This prompts the question, how serious is North Korea about re-igniting a shooting war? Further, what are the larger strategic ramifications of North Korea’s escalation? Our analysts believe the White House’s position is that this is just more rhetoric and is failing to appreciate the strategic situation as a real and developing threat.
The intelligence community and military is no doubt paying attention, even if quietly. Currently, it appears that no major military preparations in North Korea are underway. However, some activity around missile sites suggests that North Korea may conduct additional missile tests as soon as this weekend to further heighten tensions on the Korean Peninsula and to try and force negotiations for de-escalation. Although, propaganda photos distributed appear to show missile trajectories that target the U.S. and its interests, North Korea doesn’t possess a proven capability to effectively carry-out such an attack. Further, some speculate that North Korea’s boy dictator, Kim Jong Un, has not solidified his control over the military and this game of brinkmanship is designed to show his internal circle he is a capable military commander more than it has anything to do with the outside world. This has led analysts to again conclude North Korea’s threats are just more rhetoric designed to elicit aid to the starving and backward dictatorship.
The analysis above summarizes the general mood of the intelligence community and analysts toward North Korea. The problem is this analysis has remained static while the world has changed. It is true that North Korea has perpetually “cried wolf,” but one must consider the game board as larger than a single peninsula. The fact is that the position the U.S. has previously enjoyed for decades has been eroded to the point of signaling a major geopolitical power shift. As such, one must re-evaluate motives, assessments, and ground truths. The military and intelligence community have at least not projected outwardly they have grasped this global sea change setting the U.S. and North Korea up for potential miscalculations and disaster.
For starters, analysts haven’t grasped that how the world view of America has shifted for the worse. In short, the U.S. now appears weak and unable to react to foreign threats. The U.S. military has been exhausted over the last decade of constant war. Although the military now has a hardened cadre of combat seasoned soldiers and a conventional military unmatched globally, stock piles of supplies have been diminished, budgets have been cut, troop strengths have been slashed, and the appetite for further war is zero amongst both soldiers and citizens. Further, the U.S. is broke and the economies of Europe and the U.S. have remained weak and teetering on collapse. Even worse, the U.S. and NATO are seen as weak and as having been defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. Irrespective of whether or not the U.S. did or didn’t not “take the gloves off” and use its full might in those wars, the world perception is one of a country weakened and in retreat much like the Soviet Union circa 1989. Finally, the U.S. is seen as having tied itself down in a strategic struggle in the Middle East targeting Iran, while countries like China have rapidly built up their presence and military capabilities abroad. This sets the stage for drastic strategic miscalculation.
Our analysts are arguing that Kim Jong Un is not blind or ignorant to the capabilities of the U.S. as he was raised in the west. Instead, North Korea’s leader is dangerously over confident he can win a war of brinkmanship against a now weakened U.S. that is retreating globally. In particular, the U.S. has appeared weak in the Pacific against a growing Chinese dominance and has failed to check China’s moves against Japan and inroads in Taiwan. These areas are key to the collective perception of the U.S. by North Korea. Further, North Korea has witnessed what they consider a far inferior enemy in Iraq fight the U.S. to a hasty withdrawal and in Afghanistan to strategic defeat. Further, North Korea sees the U.S. military primarily focused on Iran and unable to deal with issues outside of the Middle East. Based on this, North Korea likely assesses the U.S. unwilling and unable to prosecute a full scale war on the Korean Peninsula. Add to the fact the U.S. economy is in shambles and the national debt is approaching default levels, one can see why Kim Jong Un suddenly has found his footing. Unfortunately, this doesn’t change the fact that the U.S. can marshal an overwhelming strategic and or conventional military force against North Korea should rounds begin to be exchanged. Herein lies the serious danger for strategic miscalculation. For the first time, North Korea and the U.S. “both” believe they legitimately can back the other down and win in the event of war based on miscalculations by analysts on both sides. In fact, this situation is so dire, that Russia, seeing the developing crisis from its vantage point, has strongly urged both parties to de-escalate. Considering the above from a detached perspective, we assess that a very real threat has emerged not from intent, but due to miscalculation that could quickly lead to events spiraling out of control should any side misstep.
Strategically speaking, the U.S. has far more to lose than North Korea. Should North Korea follow through with its rhetoric, even in a limited fashion, the hand of South Korean politicians to finally retaliate may actually engulf the peninsula in war. The fact thousands of Americans are stationed there assures large U.S. casualties in the opening hours of a major war, which would force the U.S. into a hot war. The entire geopolitical order will be undone, should this occur, as the U.S. will not have the ability to project force elsewhere and its debt will expand beyond sustainable levels making it quite possible the U.S. would collapse from within before any long term war is concluded on a battlefield. This frees China to force its hand in the Pacific realm and Iran to continue its programs without fear of retribution. Even if the U.S. was to prevail, it would be at best a Pyrrhic victory as the U.S. would likely lose its empire much as England did after incurring the crippling costs of World Wars I and II. It is now time for the White House to wake-up and recognize how the world order has changed and update its playbook before it is too late.
By Guiles Hendrik
Related new articles:
At first it might be hard to decide what candidate for president to believe, but the answer in truth is easy. NEITHER. Both have been part of the lies and corruption too long to provide any real positive substance to the debate. Beyond more of the same political spin on old failed policies, you will hear no new ideas, many excuses, lots of finger pointing, and most importantly, no real strategy that departs from the failings of at least the last 11+ years.
For almost four years President Obama has continued many of the Bush-era policies while adding his own flavor of failure. Libya is just one of the most recent examples of an Obama owned foreign policy disaster as the return of four dead Americans can attest. By arming and supporting known jihadists, he set the stage for greater bloodshed throughout Africa and the Middle East. Even worse, Obama also quietly sold American sovereignty down the river to push an internationalist agenda. By allowing the United Nations Security Council and not Congress to be the single authoritative body to send Americans to war and placing Americans under foreign command without objection, Obama intentionally set a new precedent in international law that further erodes American sovereignty. Obama just recently was stating how Al Qaeda was decimated, but unfortunately for him and his propaganda machine, reality reared its ugly head all across North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. To illustrate his colossal failure in the Middle East and beyond it is worthwhile to highlight some key events from just a couple short weeks in September. During this very short timeframe a US diplomatic motorcade was blown to pieces in Peshawar, Pakistan wounding an American diplomat, four Americans to include an Ambassador were assassinated in Libya, numerous NATO forces were killed and wounded in Afghanistan by “friendly” troops and the Taliban, our embassies and consulates were attacked and torched in countries like Egypt and Sudan, Syria continued to deteriorate, and bomb blasts ripped through Iraq to name just SOME of the major events that affected Americans. Moving beyond our unending wars with Islam, Japan and China moved closer to war, Russia reinforced units with elite combat troops on the border with Georgia, North Korea threatened America and South Korea with a nuclear attack, and the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant continued to release massive amounts of radiation…again, to just identify a few highlights. On the economic front a near imminent disaster is facing Europe that will certainly collapse the global economy and take the US down with it. Further, the US debt has spiraled past 16 Trillion and is picking up speed with no end or even cuts in sight for spending. The true magnitude of the impending economic disaster will only be seen after the election and the temporary Band-Aids placed on the world economy to support President Obama’s re-election fall away. No Mr. President, Al Qaeda is not on the run, we are. No Mr. President, the world is not safer. No Mr. President, our debt and spending have not decreased. No Mr. President, our economy has not recovered. No Mr. President, you do not deserve another term!
As for Romney, this is a man with no foreign policy credentials. He is the man who somehow managed to already offend even the British before he was in the U.K. for a day. This is a man who has already kissed the ring of Netanyahu and sworn allegiance to a foreign power in exchange for political support. This is a man who thinks the policy era of George Bush was a success and should be brought back. So much so, his advisors and potential appointees are all Bush-era retreads reshuffled. To think America would allow Bush-era policy “experts” back into the White House after what we already lived through and expect anything to improve is simply beyond comprehension and must be put squarely in the court of idiocy. In respect to Romney’s stated Middle East policy, war mongering would be an understatement. Even though Romney is nothing more than a well-endowed draft dodger, he apparently thinks nothing of putting your sons and daughters lives in danger as he plots an even more disastrous round of wars with Syria and Iran for Israel’s security. I guess he didn’t get the memo regarding how “well” the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq went. Nonetheless, he seems to think he can start a war with Iran and that somehow will benefit America although I would challenge him to justify this argument in the upcoming debates. Further, he somehow believes that by giving more tax dollars to the incredibly over funded Department of Defense and starting a war with Iran he can simultaneously balance the budget. In one of the rare cases of Bill Clinton being right, Romney’s numbers just don’t add up. As a purported businessman, Romney must know this flaw in his arithmetic so it is fair to conclude he is stupid or lying to the public. Beyond the Middle East, Romney has also managed to pick a premature fight with Russia and risks restarting the Cold War. If Romney can’t even understand the consequences of wars in the Middle East, he is woefully unprepared to take on the likes of Russia and China in strategic policy.
America, your candidates chosen for you by the elites will not return peace and prosperity as they claim. Instead, you will get greater debt, a worse economy, unending bloody and costly wars, and further destruction of your freedom and liberties at home. We have seen both parties’ policies and they are abject failures, ignore the rule of law, and trash the Constitution. Neither is acceptable. Only by ditching the two very unqualified candidates and their establishment parties en masse can America hope to avert total disaster during the next four years. The Democrats and Republicans do not represent your best interests unless of course you are an extremely wealthy donor, financial institution, or mega corporation. Whether you disagree or agree, you, the citizens of the United States of America, will get the government you collectively deserve come November so choose wisely.
Below are links to a few recent articles illustrating the US strategic failure in Afghanistan:
This article is one of a multi-part series on the immense folly of what appears to be an imminent war now with Iran. This article discusses the feasibility of a successful strike to stop Iran’s nuclear development. Naturally, if a nation is going to be led into another war, the public deserves in advance a vigorous debate on what it will take to accomplish the aims of the war. In previous exclusive articles, the Israeli offensive attack plan for Iran was exposed. In upcoming articles, the threat Iran actually presents will be debunked, the likely costs of an Iran War will be tallied, and alternative options to war will be presented.
Over a decade of continuous global wars should have shown Americans that there are no clean, quick, bloodless wars. American invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan have led to hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, trillions of dollars in debt, a virtual police state domestically, and anything but decisive and favorable ends to those wars. Yet, once again the United States sits on the edge of plunging head first into the dangerous waters of an even bigger war. War propaganda and poorly informed, but well spun rhetoric from the media, AIPAC lobbyists, and bought politicians would lead the public to believe a single strike or short lived military campaign against Iran would lead to a swift end of its alleged nuclear aspirations. Before American citizens and their shrinking capital are committed to another utterly disastrous war, the public deserves a fair accounting of the true situation from a military perspective on whether or not a military strike will achieve a decisive and favorable end for the United States.
To gain this understanding, it is essential to dismiss the rhetoric that a quick and bloodless campaign could achieve decisive results. Decisive results would require the military to achieve a permanent end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which most likely involves a concurrent regime change. This article will demonstrate that neither a decisive end to Iran’s nuclear capabilities nor a change in regime is even remotely likely or possible without a massive, long term, costly, and bloody war. The fact that decisive short term effects are neither possible nor expected should forewarn the reader that the military options respective of effecting U.S. strategic goals toward Iran are simply not viable. Short of an imminent threat to the United States homeland by a nuclear armed Iran, where a total war would both be necessary and justifiable, war will not solve this problem for America. As such, alternative, non-military options toward Iran must be sought.
Contemporary military history is an apt starting point for this analysis. American military disasters in both Iraq and Afghanistan simply do not justify any belief that the U.S. will be able to achieve decisive ends in Iran via a short surgical strike. For comparison, consider Iran’s neighbors Iraq and Afghanistan, which were far less militarily capable or technologically sophisticated when invaded. These two relatively weak countries have tied down the U.S. military for over a decade. To date, neither war has achieved decisive strategic ends favorable for the United States. Based on the significant expenditure of time, money, material, and lives spent to prosecute wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for a gain of nothing and loss of much, one must estimate that any future war with Iran would end up costing at least as much and likely significantly more than Iraq and Afghanistan. Even worse, the strategic planners and senior policy makers that left the U.S. military drifting aimlessly without real leadership or a winning strategy from the very outset are still occupying the halls of the Pentagon and government. Combined, it is difficult to conceive of a scenario short of a nuclear strike that would not lead to an even greater indecisive and costly war for the U.S. To be specific, neither regime change nor a permanent end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions will be achieved by a limited surgical strike. Iran is too big, too populous, too distributed, and too determined for a single limited strike to be effective.
Delving further into the viability of a military strategy respective of Iran, the timeline and details of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq provide even clearer evidence a strike won’t work or at least a more realistic view of the investment a war with Iran will require. The situation in Iraq is particularly telling. It began over two decades ago with Operations Desert Shield and Storm (The Gulf War), which were a massive coalition offensive using conventional military force numbers established for a war with the Soviet Union and a worldwide coalition. To put this in perspective, this war was begun before most of your young military recruits today were even alive! This war of limited objectives still required a massive military buildup, long term bombing campaigns, and then a massive land attack to achieve Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait. However, the Iraq war required another decade of lower level military operations enforcing embargoes and no fly zones that tied down immense military resources and then another full blown war to verifiably disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and remove Saddam Hussein. Even now, after more than 20 years, the U.S. is still embroiled in an Iraq; a country that is not permissive for Americans to walk without fear of murder on the streets, acts contrary to U.S. interests, and still may likely split into independent nations with Kurdistan being the most likely candidate to break away first. Iraq is not an anomaly as our tenuous and deteriorating situation in Afghanistan after a decade of war per the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessed. Those that believe the hollow cheers from the Obama administration that Afghans have taken the lead and things are improving in Afghanistan should take a moment to speak with returning ground soldiers or intelligence analysts. The all know the game is over and the U.S. is leaving the country in defeat just as the Soviets did over two decades earlier. Still skeptical believers might also consider reading a recent GAO study on the condition of Afghanistan’s military and police forces to operate on their own. According to the GAO study, barely 10% of Afghanistan’s military and police forces are capable of operations. Of these, they still require advisors and support. When the U.S. leaves, they will not be able to rely on the other 90% of units not capable of operation. Also, consider that the Taliban have been operating just fine against the U.S. and NATO forces without advisors or support for over a ten years and are actually gaining, not losing ground. It does not take Napoleon to see how this conflict will end after the U.S. retreat. The Afghan forces are simply incapable of defeating the Taliban on their own and the nation will break back down into the civil war that was ongoing at the time of the U.S. invasion once America completes its retreat. Now again, consider that Iran is a much larger, more populous, and much more technologically sophisticated country than either Iraq or Afghanistan. One would have to be ignorant of reality to thing a short lived attack on Iran would work.
Iraq and Afghanistan also should have taught policy makers and military planners a thing or two about how a population could be expected to react to being attacked or invaded. Iran’s population that maintains pro-western leanings is not insignificant and concentrated in the urban centers of Iran. Iran and the United States pre-1979 had good relations and many Iranians have over the generations moved to the U.S. and become fine citizens serving in the military, intelligence, and commercial realms with distinction. However, no matter how “noble” our excuse for war this time will be, just as in Iraq and Afghanistan, the population will turn decidedly against the U.S. and rally around the current regime should any attack take place. To plan or believe differently is to totally disregard the most basic of human natures. Further, even Iran’s pro-Western population also happen to overwhelmingly support Iran’s nuclear ambitions making any U.S. plans for winning popular Iranian support for an attack near zero. To the east in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the U.S. has also witnessed a steadily growing anti-American sentiment that has coalesced around a still vigorous Taliban centered resistance. This coupled with the sustained combat casualties, increasing Taliban control of regions, and growing calls for the withdrawal of the occupiers throughout the country should make it clear Americans are persona non grata in the region and will leave in defeat. If a policy goal of the U.S. is to replace the current Iranian regime, an attack alone would be significantly counterproductive and actually bolster the Iranian regime. It is important to note the case for regime change in Iran is fundamentally different than the support provided to Libyan rebels after a full scale civil war had already broke out with sides pro-regime and anti-regime. Nonetheless, one need not debate the questionable benefits of supporting a rebel force, be it in Libya or Syria, comprised of Islamic extremists that have committed numerous atrocities and are still fighting amongst themselves with tons of extremely dangerous weapons left unaccounted for and now fueling insurgencies, terrorist actions, and conflicts from Nigeria to Turkey. This should illustrate that even in the “best” of cases; things don’t ever work out as planned with regime change. On this note, one should also consider how one could possibly secure all of Iran’s military weaponry without an occupation force. Imagine the effect of the proliferation of millions of weapons ranging from surface-to-air missile to chemical weapons on the region and world for decades to come.
The historical evidence is convincing enough that the U.S. will again fall into the trap of an indecisive quagmire if it initiates a war with Iran, but is alone not enough to close the case. Going beyond dismissing the rhetoric of the viability of a swift strike on Iran being feasible based on past experience, one should consider today’s specific military implications and hurdles. To begin, statements from those in the know, leaders of military and intelligence communities, think a military option against Iran is in short, a bad idea. These statements from both American and Israeli leaders regarding how bad the idea of war with Iran is range from “not feasible” to “stupid.” These leaders include former U.S. Secretaries of Defense, Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, senior Israeli politicians, and even the former head of Mossad. They all say an attack is a bad idea and should be avoided.
In defense of the “surprise surgical strike” option, mislead and ill-informed people often point out how successful the surprise Israeli strikes on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility and Syria’s allegedly nuclear facility were and suggest this could be duplicated. The problem with this logic is that these operations are not even remotely comparable in scope, complexity, difficulty, and risk. For starters, Iran has an unknown number of nuclear related facilities spread across the entire country to ensure continuity of operations even after an expected attack. These sites range from major gas/oil fields and remote mountain facilities, to downtown Tehran. This means that any attack will cause significant collateral damage to both civilians and world petroleum production. An attack would also result in a major environmental disaster. Radioactive clouds of debris (fallout) would spread throughout the Persian Gulf region if sites like the nuclear fueled and operational reactor at Bushehr are hit. For those that doubt this, look at the elaborate precautions the Department of Energy has taken to fortify and defend U.S. nuclear facilities. This is necessary because very bad things happen when you bomb a fueled nuclear reactor…like meltdowns. Next, most of these sites are hardened facilities buried underneath mountains and are ringed by layers of air defense systems. Finally, any credible attack will obliterate Iran’s infrastructure. There is no doubt the damage and chaos this will cause will extend beyond Iran’s borders. One can expect it to include disruption to regional power generation, disruption of oil and gas deliveries necessary for industry in India and China, global economic failures, massive regional ethnic unrest and upheaval, millions of refugees, empowerment of even more extreme Sunni regimes taking power throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and massive proliferation of former state controlled weapon systems throughout the region and world.
Beyond the nuclear related facilities, Iranian deterrence and defense capabilities have evolved greatly over a decade of watching and learning from American follies and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most visible is Iran’s mines that could be used to choke off the Straits of Hormuz. Supporting any mining operation is a large number of anti-ship missiles, fast attack boats, and naval attack aircraft. Much of this Iran has taken great effort to clandestinely emplace. Of course the U.S. military could mitigate and or destroy most of these capabilities, but it would require a massive sustained operation to first destroy Iran’s air defense systems and command and control nodes. This could take many months and will cost billions of dollars to speak nothing of the global economic fallout from a disruption in oil supplies…even if short term. Some will no doubt argue that our F-22 Raptors and Stealth bombers, to include drones, could penetrate Iran’s air defenses and successfully attack many of Iran’s nuclear sites. This is true, but is reckless in the fact it completely disregards Iran’s ability to counterattack, which would still be fully intact. Until Iran’s counter attack capabilities are neutralized, the ability to overcome its defensive systems is a moot point. This is especially true if the U.S. Navy is expected to quickly clear the Straits of Hormuz of mines and open it to oil shipments without significant naval losses. Any ship in the Straits or the Persian Gulf is within range of Iranian anti-ship missiles, which can be volley fired and overwhelm ship anti-missile defenses. It is hard to imagine the American public agreeing that a strike on Iran would be worth the loss of an aircraft carrier, but the risk is very real. Even if America used highly secretive and technical electronic warfare capabilities to neutralize or destroy Iranian electronic hardware in its air defense and missile systems, it is doubtful that they would be effective enough across all spectrums to not leave exploiting gaps. It will also require wide spread destruction of Iran’s electrical grid creating a massive humanitarian crisis.
Iran also maintains a large land army capable of attacking Americans and American interests in the region either directly or by surface to surface missiles. These missiles would no doubt inflict serious casualties on military installations in the region and could carry chemical or biological weapons as retaliation if Iran was hit by Israeli tactical nuclear weapons. Iran’s largest missiles are capable of reaching as far as Europe and anywhere in the Middle East so it is doubtful our missile defense systems, even as advanced as they have become, would stop every missile over this large area before it hit its target. Domestically, Iran has invested heavily in training and equipping what amounts to a very dispersed standing civilian guerilla army with a decentralized command structure to augment its active duty military forces in the event of invasion. These forces have been provided a host of nasty weapons that would inflict unsustainable casualties on American ground forces should an attack become an occupation of any Iranian soil. These weapons include a range of anti-armor weapons proven against Israel in the 2006 War in Lebanon that are capable of destroying American armor vehicles to include the vaunted MRAP trucks deployed to protect against roadside bombs and even main battle tanks. Specifically, these include modified rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) and anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) using tandem warheads and bombs designed to produce an explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), which cuts through armor like a hot knife through butter.
Iran also has the ability to massively increase its support to insurgent groups around the world to attack American interests. There is little the U.S. could do to stop this short of an occupation so the costs of this Iranian retaliation option must be calculated. Insurgent groups in Afghanistan will probably be the first to benefit from this. Iran’s 5th column, Hezbollah, is also prepared to cause havoc. In the event of an attack, Hezbollah is likely to bombard Israel with an array of rockets and carrying out terrorist style attacks against Americans and American interests globally. This would effectively open an entirely new front to the “War on Terror” with an organization that is much more capable and sophisticated than Al Qaeda, but to date, has only focused its attacks on Israel. The notable exception to this was when the U.S. attempted to militarily occupy Lebanon and take sides in an ugly civil war. The results of this American folly resulted in the Marine Barracks and the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon being bombed by Hezbollah linked militants and the U.S. forces retreating out of the country.
The above are just some of the known military capabilities Iran possesses, which it is likely to deploy in the event of an attack. However, Iran may have a number of other devastating secret weapons. One valid offensive capability Iran has demonstrated is the ability to launch a satellite into orbit. Given this ability, Iran also has the ability to detonate a weapon in orbit in close enough proximity to critical U.S. satellites that it could effectively destroy them with a debris field. Depending on the extent of these anti-satellite operations, Iran could inflict serious damage on not just the U.S., but global tele-communications, positioning, and reconnaissance capabilities. Iran also may have developed an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapon. A strong EMP has the ability to destroy electronics by inducing a current that essentially burns out the micro chips and their miniature circuitry. Such a weapon would be impervious to our missile defenses and most likely disable many of them if used. Even worse, it would be capable of destroying much of the computerized oil pumping and distribution infrastructure in the region. This would cause an immediate global economic collapse, fuel shortages, and massive unrest abroad and domestically. Much more remote, but still possible would be for Iran to deploy and detonate an EMP over North America. If Iran was able to successfully accomplish this, life as we know it in America would cease and we would be thrown back into a literal dark age. Disturbingly, this possibility is actually feasible and within Iranian capabilities and has been briefed to Congressional members, policy makers, and the military.
Discussion of Israel on this matter has been intentionally minimal since it is critical to divest U.S. interests from Israeli interests. No matter how much propaganda is generated to the contrary, Israeli and American interests do not align in a mutually beneficial way. Those that believe they have a biblical obligation to start wars and die for Israel are welcome to renounce American citizenship, move to Israel, and join the Israel Defense Forces, which are hurting for quality recruits from even their own people, but please, please, leave the rest of us out of it. However, before embarking on a crusade, one should consider that the majority of Israeli Jews do not want a war with Iran and rightfully consider it bad for their country. Coming back to the issue at hand, the U.S. can’t hope to ignore the situation either. It is bad for the U.S to attack Iran, but even worse if Israel attacks Iran without coordinating with the U.S. Hoping to avert a war by pawning it off to Israel will not work. Israel will act and it will pull America into the war without an overt and radical policy shift to prevent both Iran and Israel from attacking each other. The notion that any initial attack by Israel would be a clearly attributable air attack that would provide the United States with the “option” to become involved is just not realistic. Any Israeli strategy that didn’t attempt to achieve U.S. entrance into the conflict as a primary goal is not consistent with Israeli doctrine, capabilities, or national strategy. Short of a plan reliant on U.S. entry, Israel would be pressed to use nuclear weapons against Iran if its initial attack did not achieve decisive effects, which in and of itself would be a global disaster. For this reason alone, the U.S. should act quickly and decisively to prevent either Iran or Israel from entering into war.
It is important to note the political effects of an attack as well. Whether or not Iran actually was seeking a nuclear weapon before any attack, and the releasable intelligence right now is clear that Iran is not, the case for a nuclear weapon after an attack as a defensive capability would be easily justified from an Iranian perspective. This incidentally would achieve the opposite of desired U.S. goals. Iran, like Iraq, would almost certainly close down its known nuclear operations to inspections making any further information regarding Iranian nuclear developments even more rare and unreliable. Further, Iran would likely withdraw from international treaties on nuclear weapons. To then attempt to force inspections and disclosure would, like in Iraq, involve further, sustained, and ultimately costly military operations over a massive area. Politically, Iran has not missed the fact that U.S. policy toward adversarial nations with a nuclear weapon such as North Korea and Pakistan is decidedly less hostile than against nations without a weapon such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Iran has also correctly identified that the American public’s appetite, military capability, and money for another decade long conflict of occupation and massive financial debt is simply not existent. The U.S. military is in a period of fiscal debt crisis and budget cutbacks. It is simply not capable of projecting the necessary force for any sustained period of time across what amounts to North and Central Africa, the entire Middle East, South West Asia, and the Pacific to include South Korea. Whether or not the U.S. decides to call Iran’s bluff will not change the ground truth inside the U.S. military that cutbacks to personnel coupled with current heavy overseas demands and an unfinished reset of the forces leaves the U.S. dangerously overextended. It also will not change the fact that a war could add another trillion dollars or more to the U.S. deficit, which is just not affordable.
Finally, an attack prior to clear cut evidence made available for public review that overwhelming proves Iran is developing a nuclear “weapon” with the “intent” and “ability” to “effectively” use it “offensively” against the “U.S.” would become a lightning rod for further domestic and international condemnation and resistance to any war. The abuse of the public trust in the run-up to the Iraq War has not been repaired. Through propaganda, hyped fear mongering, special interest lobbying, and false intelligence, claims of a continued Iraqi pursuit of weapons of mass destruction with the intent to pass them to terrorist organizations were used to justify a war against Iraq that would have never been justified on the grounds of regime change alone. The cost in dead, wounded, and dollars was too steep and shouldered by too few to follow this course again. The case being built against Iran has an all too familiar ring of a classic case of the boy that cried wolf. Thus, the case for war must be absolute and never again should the American public believe the government when it tells the public that you have to “trust” us because the evidence is “classified.” No, the U.S. government must present its full case to the public for analysis and debate before another war is begun.
Now, if anyone is still thinking that an attack on Iran is going to be easy, short, or bloodless, they are officially ignorant of the facts. Further, if one thinks a war with Iran will achieve the desired objectives, they probably also own ocean front real estate in Arizona or are being heavily subsidized by AIPAC and like lobbies. Only through a long term, sustained, and costly full scale war of attrition or a nuclear strike can the U.S. achieve the stated goals of regime change and destruction of Iranian nuclear capability development. In conclusion, allowing America to be led blindly into a war with Iran will prove to be the capstone foreign policy disaster of American history and may well be the event historians point to as what led to the collapse of our Republic.
Media and intelligence reports suggest war between Israel and Iran appears imminent within the coming months, but in fact, has already begun. Perhaps, this reality has been completely missed because the media convinced itself and the public the opening salvos for an Israeli attack on Iran would look like an air force bombing raid of Iranian nuclear installations. We have pointed out for years this air force centric battle plan has been a deception operation as a true bombing raid would be too likely to fail and not achieve decisive long term effects. Further, a limited Osirak type raid would leave the Israeli homeland completely vulnerable to organized and sustained retaliatory strikes. Contrary to how the ill-informed pundits thought this war would play out, Israel has a much better war plan to support “its interests” that is unfolding as you read this piece. Whether or not the United States willing joins the war will affect this battle plan and impact “how bad” it will be for the U.S. The best case would be an immediate move by Washington to decisively prevent war between Israel and Iran, but that seems highly unlikely now. As such, one must assume the U.S. maintains its current policy towards Iran and will attempt to stay on the sidelines “hoping” Israel won’t attack. Under those conditions, the following Israeli battle plan will likely be executed within the next 4-8 weeks.
The basic plan is as follows:
- Phase I: Prepare the populace and the military for war. Obtain needed intelligence of the battlefield and attempt to build war sentiment inside Israel and the U.S. Finalize acquisition of weapons systems and ordnance. Place the military on a war footing.
- Phase II: Reduce the near border threat and open a safe flight path to Iran. Using asymmetric means, degrade Hezbollah and Syria to a minimal threat incapable of sustained, coordinated, state level military operations. Attempt to leverage the presence of chemical and biological weapons as well as friction with Turkey, a NATO member, to draw the U.S. into the war early.
- Phase III: Launch a surprise false flag attack on Iran that appears to emanate from the Americans. The strike will include initially non-attributable electronic attacks, cyber warfare, and submarine launched missiles. Limited commando raids may also take place.
- Phase IV: Using the plausible deniability of who conducted the initial attack, leverage the Iranian confusion to bait them into attacking the U.S. and forcing America into the war if it hasn’t already joined.
*Note: If Iran responds discriminately only against Israel and the U.S. is not pulled into the conflict, this will be the signal for immediate, large scale follow-on attacks. This is necessary to mitigate the potential damage inside Israel from retaliatory strikes.
- Phase V: Bring war to rapid closure and hand-off the conflict to the U.S military within 30 days. If Iran continues to retaliate against Israel, Israel will respond with further massive missile strikes with follow-on strikes by the air force using manned and unmanned platforms. The Israeli military will relentlessly attack Iran to inflict maximum damage and casualties so as to force U.S. intervention and or the U.N. to broker a cease fire.
*Should Iran, Hezbollah, or Syria attempt to or actually retaliate using chemical or biological weapons, if Iran is able to heavily attack Israel successfully, or if Israel is unable to achieve its goals in the reduction of Iranian nuclear facilities, Israel plans to use nuclear weapons to achieve victory and protect its homeland.
To understand Israel’s actual battle plan formulation, one must first turn the chessboard around and understand Israel’s goals, perceptions, and capabilities in the manner Israeli decision makers see the pieces. Foremost in their minds has to be the preservation of the Jewish State. Any limited attack that achieved indecisive goals, but risked the homeland would not be suitable. Second, Israeli leadership, specifically, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, perceives Iran as an existential threat that must be destroyed at all costs. However, Netanyahu is clever and cunning enough to know better than getting into a fair fight with Iran.
Israel’s national capabilities, which relative to other Middle Eastern countries are immense, include a first rate military and renowned air force. Their navy has also made great strides and has spent a massive amount of money acquiring latest generation retrofitted German-diesel submarines capable of launching long range missiles. Respective of strategic weapons, Israel has what is believed to be a significant stockpile of nuclear weapons that could provide deterrent, first, and second strike options during a war. These nuclear weapons could be delivered by aircraft, drones, or missiles launched from the land, sea, or air. Further, Israel has demonstrated an advanced technological arsenal that includes electronic and cyber warfare capabilities, missile defense systems, surveillance and reconnaissance assets, and is a world leader in the design and production of drones and other autonomous systems. Nonetheless, Israel still has a very limited power projection capability beyond its shores. It also has limited natural resources, finances, and industrial capabilities. Perhaps most worrisome when assessing a war of attrition with Iran, Israel is acutely aware it has relatively limited land area and a small population. This means any successful deployment of Iranian weapons such as missiles and rockets are more likely to cause significant casualties and damage and quickly reduce the public will and support for a sustained. In short, Israel can’t domestically endure significant military damage and neither can its elected leaders. Netanyahu is keenly aware of the fate of former Prime Minister Olmert after the failed 2006 Lebanon War. Finally, Israel has a powerful international support base of wealthy elites and routinely demonstrates the significant power of its lobbying infrastructure to maneuver political will inside the United States.
Next, one must understand Iran’s capabilities in a similar manner. Iran’s regime is most afraid of losing power and inversely, is most concerned with maintaining power. Maintaining power, much like in other countries is predicated on polarizing the masses and using religion as a patriotic call to national defense. In Iran’s case, painting Israel and the U.S. as the enemy is a relatively easy case in light of the repeated wars on Muslim lands and peoples, three decades of crippling sanctions, assassination of its scientists, and repeatedly addressing Iran as an existential evil threat that must be destroyed. This demonization of Israel and the U.S. is woven intricately into the fiber of Iran and has no doubt radicalized much of its population. Iran has used this fervor to build up a substantial military that has grown more and more independent of foreign assistance and military hardware sales. This has been the result of adapting to decades of sanctions and has to some degree inoculated Iran from further effects of sanctions. Iran’s large population and land area make it more able to endure and absorb repeated attacks. Iran also has significant reserves of both oil and gas and enjoys the disproportionate political sway it gains by influencing the global economy. Regarding Iran’s military, it has a large pool of conscripts, a substandard air force, and inferior weapons technology. However, Iran has learned from the U.S. and Israeli wars over the last decade and has made itself a much more capable enemy. It has developed a dispersed, decentralized, civilian militia capable or harassing any occupying military endlessly. It has also developed robust anti-access technologies to include many anti-ship missiles, naval mines, small fast attack missile boats, significantly improved air defense systems, and surface to surface missiles with significantly improved targeting and range. Iran also maintains stockpiles of both chemical and biological weapons that could be used in retaliation for an attack. Most worrisome to Israel though is Iran’s development of a 5th column in Lebanon consisting of Hezbollah, which is reportedly to now be rearmed with hundreds of thousands of shorter range rockets and anti-tank weapons and a client state in Syria with a fully capable conventional military sitting on Israel’s border.
Using the above as a general framework to begin piecing together assumptions about an Israeli war plan, it should be clear that a prolonged war is not in Israel’s interests, an invasion or occupation of Iran would be impossible, and Israel can’t afford to endure prolonged attacks domestically. Defensively, although Israel’s missile defense systems could likely shield it from most long range Iranian missiles, it would likely be overwhelmed by a massive launch of rockets and missiles from Hezbollah. A Syrian supported front on Israel’s border would also open a fight bigger than Israel is willing to undertake and allow Iran to continuously resupply Hezbollah. Iran’s anti-access technologies are not much of a threat to Israel since Israel is located far beyond the range of these weapons, but Iran’s air defense system must be contended with if a manned strike is to be successful. Israel also can’t afford risking the possibility of an Iranian chemical or biological retaliation. As such, Hezbollah and Syria must be neutralized before any attack could take place to remove the immediate threat to Israel’s homeland and Iran’s retaliatory capabilities in respect to Israel must be eliminated. Israel must also seek out a plan that enables its piloted aircraft to successfully make round trip sorties to and from Iran. Note that how Iran’s response affects “Israel” in this calculus is not the same as how Iran’s response affects the “U.S.” This is an ominous observation for the U.S.
Moving forward and building out the attack plan, a basic order of operations can be established. First, the homeland must be prepared to endure retaliatory strikes and the military assets must be in place. This includes generating the propaganda and domestic support for a war as well as developing and procuring the proper military technology, equipment, and weapons. Jointly, diplomatic avenues must be exhausted and low-level covert war options must have had a chance to work. Finally, a thorough intelligence preparation of the battlefield must have been completed. Second, Hezbollah and Syria’s ability to jointly wage war on Iran’s behalf must be at least neutralized in a way to not spark an outright kinetic war with Iran. Israel cannot prosecute a war with Iran successfully without first eliminating this close border threat. Third, Iran must then be attacked violently by surprise in a total fashion that prevents any possibility of it being able to respond with missiles capable of striking Israel. Fourth, Israel must leverage this initial surprise attack to pull the U.S. into the war. This will be necessary to achieve more decisive long term effects on Iran’s nuclear development and minimal expense to Israel in manpower and money. Finally, Israel must bring the hostilities to a rapid closure. This means either handing off the sustained large scale campaign to the United States or prosecuting further attacks against Iran to increase the amount of damage done and forcing a peace treaty or ceasefire. This final phase could go as far as delivering a final decisive blow using nuclear weapons (or the threat of it to make sure the U.S. finishes their fight) if Iran has somehow managed to inflict severe damage on Israel proper.
Now that a clear order of operations has been established, it is a relatively simple process of plugging in Israel’s capabilities to their proper place and adding a dash of strategy and deception to achieve surprise. To be specific, this war plan has already been implemented and is under way. In fact, we are nearing the end of Phase II. The destabilization of Syria is the Phase II answer for how to take down Iran’s capabilities to threaten Israel at its border without immediately provoking a war. Rest assured, under no other lesser circumstances would Israel allow Sunni backed jihadists to overthrow Assad, a ruler that Israel has maintained an awkward détente with for years. This would be trading a tolerable for horrible. Phase II will now continue until Syria is assessed to have been rendered incapable of organized, state level, sustained military operations against Israel. The residual jihadists fighting amongst themselves like in Libya for power will be used as an excuse later to deal with Syria in totality after Iran is attacked and the U.S. is suckered into the war (assuming the U.S. can’t be suckered into the war sooner using Syria as a pretext). Still though, Israel doesn’t believe Hezbollah will be completely neutralized by this. Instead, they project that Hezbollah’s ability to sustain combat operations will be extremely degraded without Syria to funnel supplies and support from Iran to them, but still will have the ability to launch attacks for 3-4 weeks. To mitigate the residual threat from Hezbollah, Israel has implemented Iron Dome, an air defense system capable of shooting down rockets and missiles launched from Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon and Syria. Israel has also developed in-depth civilian preparedness programs to include alert systems, bunkers, drills, and rapid response capabilities to mitigate any damage from any attacks that are successful.
Phase III of the war is yet to begin, but will likely correlate with the neutralization of Syria before the fall elections in the U.S. This window is critical because Netanyahu knows that any strike before the election essentially forces President Obama to support it or risk losing the election. Obama has to pull votes of Southern Baptists and conservative Christians from Romney, and most importantly, must have Jewish support in the form of money and votes; especially, in a swing state like Florida, to win. Should Obama leave Israel hanging, it will open him up to massive attacks from the neo-conservative Zionist Romney as weak and not supportive. As such, Obama could be cornered into either actively taking part in a war or unwillingly being forced into Israel’s war. Both situations are catastrophic for the U.S., but good for Israel. If Netanyahu waits, he risks losing his opportunity to pull the U.S. into the war; especially, if Obama is reelected, which looks to be the case based on current polling numbers.
Phase III will begin the actual kinetic phase of operations against Iran. It will start with an unprecedented electronic attack that includes wide spread cyber-attacks, disinformation and deception operations, jamming, and potentially the used of targeted electronic pulse weapons to blind and destroy the situational awareness of Iran’s command and control elements. Nearly simultaneously, Israel will launch its largest missile attack in the nation’s history. It will include the full range of missiles launched from the air, ground, and sea. Jericho ballistic missiles with modified heavy payloads and submarine launched missiles will be some of the primary weapons used. Submarines will likely launch first. Israel has secretly poured billions of U.S. tax dollars into the development of its submarines and their launch capabilities. This has not been by accident. In fact, tracking the location of Israel’s submarines will be one of the best indicators for when Israel is about to strike. The U.S. should put a premium on shadowing these subs over any other submarine missions currently on-going. In fact, there is a reasonable argument that the U.S. should use whatever force is necessary to prevent Israeli subs from launching an attack due to the dire consequences it will have for America. Israel will also likely use a mix of attack drones to carry out some of the initial wave of attacks. Israel may also use an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapon to destroy Iranian electronics and black out their grid. This could come in the form of a high altitude nuclear detonation.
Phase IV will be executed in parallel with Phase III and leverage the ambiguity and the violence of the initial phase of electronic warfare and submarine strikes to hopefully bait Iran into incorrectly assessing the attack as coming from the U.S. This is likely as it will be a very advanced attack, primarily submarine launched, and have no humans initially involved. This looks like a classic sterile American type attack and gives Israel plausible deniability while confusing the Iranian decision cycle. This false flag, deception operation is classic Israeli military doctrine and emblematic of Israel’s past military operations. If Iran perceives the attack to be from the U.S., its response is much more likely to be extreme in that it either does nothing and capitulates or retaliates broadly at American and Arab interests in the region instead of Israeli targets. Military bases, American warships, and oil infrastructure are the most likely targets for Iran and would bring both the U.S. and Iran’s neighbors such as Saudi Arabia into the war against it. This would allow Israel to bow out of the fight it started successfully. Further, the operational pause in the Iranian decision cycle allows Israel to assess how it completes Phase III and moves to Phase V. If Iran does nothing, mission accomplished. If Iran retaliates against the U.S. and it is clear the Americans will enter the war, mission accomplished. However, if Iran retaliates against Israel selectively and or the U.S. doesn’t get immediately into the war, Israel must immediately move to mitigate any possible retaliatory damage Iran can inflict. This means that Israel will complete Phase III with clearly attributable Jericho missile strikes and strikes from drones against a much broader range of targets to include Iranian missile sites, command and control centers, and oil infrastructure in addition to nuclear facilities.
Moving into Phase V, Israel will again attempt to pull the U.S. into the war if it did not succeed in Phases III and IV. They will most likely threaten to have to use nuclear weapons to finish it or start a bigger war with Syria that risks entire regional destabilization. In exchange for Israel restraining its attacks, America will enter. If not, Israel will move into their least desirable portion of the entire operation and begin manned airstrikes against Iranian targets by transiting Syrian airspace. Israel must plan on losing some of its aircraft and crew during this phase, but ultimately, they will be able to successfully hit targets in in the north and west of Iran. Jericho missiles will have to attack the more distant targets if the U.S. failed to enter the war. Once Israel has exhausted its target list and U.S. supplied heavy ordnance penetrators, Israel will enter into United Nations peace negotiations, which undoubtedly will be in full swing to try and stop the “humanitarian suffering.”
The ominous caveat to this five phase war plan comes if from the outset, Israel knows that the U.S. will not get involved, is unable to achieve mission goals, or if Iran, Syria, or Hezbollah appears to be about to retaliate with chemical or biological weapons. In any of the three scenarios listed, Israel may very well use nuclear weapons to achieve its goals. The saying no plan survives first contact is absolutely gospel and for Israel, that means they must have a worst case scenario plan at the ready. Dangerously, their worst case also equals our worst case from an American perspective. Any war in the Middle East is going to be awful, but a nuclear war will be catastrophic. Nonetheless, the Israelis see it as acceptable for their nation’s survival even though it probably also means the end of life as we know it in the U.S. as the global economy collapses and we are forced to try and contain the literal fallout of “their” war.
The above war plan is the baseline for Israel’s planning against Iran that they have desperately tried to keep secret. What Americans must realize, including both the President and his challenger Mitt Romney, is that Israel’s plan for war is fundamentally designed for Israeli interests. The battle plan does not take into account any equities that the U.S. or other Arab countries may have when it comes to getting caught in the crossfire. Should the U.S. voluntarily involve itself from the beginning, the battle plan will decidedly shift to take into account American interests and capabilities, but will still be horrible for the U.S. and not achieve decisive long term results. Still though, the hope that we could control the chaos better may be enough to sucker America into the fight unilaterally on Israel’s behalf. President Obama, if seriously threatened by Romney, may also opt to create a convenient crisis before the election to distract the voters and spin it to his benefit. However, should the U.S. be forced into a surprise war with Iran through Israeli deception and a potential false flag attack, the U.S. would suffer much worse and achieve even less decisive results. Either way, the cost of a war is much too great for Americans to accept. This is not America’s war. American policy MUST look out for American interests first. This means Israel must be stopped from starting a war that will cause global disaster for the U.S.