Perpetual Middle East Geopolitical Quagmire Megathread

[Lagunamadre 1975]

20 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It can be. But I’m comparing Shah v. Khomeini. Neither were democratically elected. 

Venezuela fucked their country with democratic elections. 

So did America. 

[David Dennison 18660]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Sadly, Democracy doesn’t really work well in the Middle East yet because the lines between the State and Religion are not well defined.

Some countries would elect Osama bin Laden types if they were on the ballot.

Point is we should probably push the liberal democratic values/ideals first before forcing free society style democracy by force or insurrection.

Thanks to the CIA, we never got a chance to find out if democracy could work in modern Iran.

 

[bolverk 29402]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You think Khomeini wasn’t authoritarian?  You think he tolerated dissent?

The Shah kept a lot of asshole religious zealots in line by oppressing them.  

Women were much better off

I didn't say - or mean - to imply any such thing. I'm only saying the average Mo was seemingly more unhappy back then.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, Lagunamadre said:

So did America. 

Yeah. We are doing awful.  Just like Venezuela. 

[David Dennison 18660]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yeah. We are doing awful.  Just like Venezuela. 

Did you pay attention during the Trump campaign? 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Did you pay attention during the Trump campaign? 

I am doing fine snowflake.  Are you struggling because of Trump?

It seems like most Americans have plenty to eat and are doing okay.  We are not Venezuela.  We are the richest country in the world.  And aside from some mean tweets you don't like, what exactly has Trump done to hurt you?

Edited May 2, 2018 by Johnny Sack

[David Dennison 18660]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

I am doing fine snowflake.  Are you struggling because of Trump?

It doesn't seem like you're fine. You seem angry and put upon.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It doesn't seem like you're fine. You seem angry and put upon.

You are projecting. 

[David Dennison 18660]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

You are projecting. 

You need a hug.

[DixonHur 11227]

Now I'm confused, where did we land on the whole, Iranians are terrorists and need to be killed versus, the Iranian people are good, but live under a brutal tyrant?

[David Dennison 18660]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Now I'm confused, where did we land on the whole, Iranians are terrorists and need to be killed versus, the Iranian people are good, but live under a brutal tyrant?

The former if you are MAGA, the latter if you are normal.

[LongestHorn 759]

Let's imagine a world with a nuclear Iran.  Is it really as bad for US interests as we have been told?  See Pakistan.

I can see Iranian evangelical leadership losing the nationalist support they now enjoy with their "Iran vs. the World" message.  Iranians will have to answer the existential question "whose finger is on the button".  Do Iranians want the nuts or the military?  

Israel has some very smart people, and I believe Bibi wants security for Israel.  But no one trusts him.  Fact is, if they could get a nuclear armed submarine for their trouble, Israel could get something they want - mutually assured destruction.  In the end, it's peace or they nuke each other.  They might just choose peace.

 

[DixonHur 11227]

On a related note, I always find it funny when NRA loving conservatives think no other country should have nukes.  Wouldn't it be safer if everyone had one?  I mean that's what they've said about guns.

Yes, on a macro level, nukes kill more people, but on a micro level they kill fewer as a percent of the relevant population.

For example, let's compare Iran nuking Israel, and vice versa, with the recent school shooting in Florida.

Iran and Israel have a combined population of about 88 million people.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki lost 26% and 20% of their populations respectively, when we nuked them...with a weighted average of 23%.

So assuming similar results, a bilateral nuke war between Israel and Iran would result in about 20.5 million dead.  But there are 7 billion people on the planet, so that would be about 0.3% of the world population.

In contrast, in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas world there are 3,100 students.  With 17 deaths, their death rate was 0.5%.

Edited May 2, 2018 by DixonHur

[atomheartbevo 89449]

1 hour ago, LongestHorn said:

Let's imagine a world with a nuclear Iran.  Is it really as bad for US interests as we have been told?  See Pakistan.

I can see Iranian evangelical leadership losing the nationalist support they now enjoy with their "Iran vs. the World" message.  Iranians will have to answer the existential question "whose finger is on the button".  Do Iranians want the nuts or the military?  

Israel has some very smart people, and I believe Bibi wants security for Israel.  But no one trusts him.  Fact is, if they could get a nuclear armed submarine for their trouble, Israel could get something they want - mutually assured destruction.  In the end, it's peace or they nuke each other.  They might just choose peace.

I’m not worried about Iran and Israel going at it. 

Im worried about what the Saudis are going to do.  

[DixonHur 11227]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Im worried about what the Saudis are going to do.  

Honest question...why?  Aside from oil prices, why should we care what the Saudis do?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

A catastrophically destabilized Middle East is horrible for everyone.

If you think ISIS is bad now, just see what emerges from the ashes of Israel, Saudi, and Iran going at it.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Artificial Iverson 107]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

A catastrophically destabilized Middle East is horrible for everyone.

If you think ISIS is bad now, just see what emerges from the ashes of Israel, Saudi, and Iran going at it.

hate to disagree with you since i agree with you 99% of the time .. but 

 

1. Israel is untouchable... they will easily destroy any enemy within a few days2

2. Saudi will never engage anyone in a real war. The are 100% pussies

3. Iran isn't going to fight anyone ... see 9 year Iraq war. Israel will easily destroy Iran's equipment as they routinely do to the Syrians. 

the worst of the mideast is over and we are unaffected as always. It's all hype really to us but not for the people actually living there and by that only the poor northern Arabs of Iraq, Syria and Palestine. No one else is affected. 

[DixonHur 11227]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

A catastrophically destabilized Middle East is horrible for everyone.

If you think ISIS is bad now, just see what emerges from the ashes of Israel, Saudi, and Iran going at it.

Why? There's absolutely no evidence that it would be worse.  The vast majority of the destabilization in the region is a result of U.S. involvement.  I think the result would be better if they hashed it out themselves.  The worst case scenario is the recreation of the caliphate, which would more likely decrease the risk of international terrorism rather than increase it.  Not to mention, we'd probably finally get serious about clean energy.

Obviously that would suck for many of the people living in said caliphate, but the truth is that I care much more about me, than I do about them. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think we’d get involved in any major Middle Eastern conflict.

It is nice to dream though.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[DixonHur 11227]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think we’d get involved in any major Middle Easrern conflict.

I'm sure we would.  That's the point....we always do and it's a colossal mistake each time...and one we keep making over and over and over again.

But we were talking in hypothetical terms, because you and I both know the scenario being talked about...i.e. nuclear war between Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia isn't going to happen either.  

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

I kind of enjoy watching the Muzzies bucking up against Israel every once in awhile. At some point you’d think they’d get tired of pulling on Super Man’s cape. But they have a lot of aggy in them. Delusional, losers, cowards and ineffective. 

Edited May 2, 2018 by Johnny Sack

[David Dennison 18660]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I kind of enjoy watching the Muzzies bucking up against Israel every once in awhile. At some point you’d think they’d get tired of pulling on Super Man’s cape. But they have a lot of aggy in them. Delusional, losers, cowards and ineffective. 

I'd love to see how ol' Israel would do if we said you're on your own, kids.

I'm sure they'd be fine.

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

55 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Honest question...why?  Aside from oil prices, why should we care what the Saudis do?

The Saudis are the sponsors and enablers of the ultra-conservative fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that gave us al Qaeda, 9/11, ISIS, and whatever offspring that comes next. They sponsor that ideology in order to protect the wealth and power that comes from sitting on top of an ocean of oil. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

27 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I'm sure we would.  That's the point....we always do and it's a colossal mistake each time...and one we keep making over and over and over again.

 

That’s one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is we’ve done a great job of preventing a unified Middle East over the years.

And a unified Middle East would be a fucking nightmare as an adversary.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Artificial Iverson 107]

9 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The Saudis are the sponsors and enablers of the ultra-conservative fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that gave us al Qaeda, 9/11, ISIS, and whatever offspring that comes next. They sponsor that ideology in order to protect the wealth and power that comes from sitting on top of an ocean of oil. 

all those groups want to behead the Saudi monarchy

[David Dennison 18660]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That’s one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is we’ve done a great job of preventing a unified Middle East over the years.

And a unified Middle East would be a fucking nightmare as an adversary.

Thankfully, sectarian hatred between Shia and Sunni will prevent this from ever happening.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

100 years ago.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

9 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I'd love to see how ol' Israel would do if we said you're on your own, kids.

I'm sure they'd be fine.

They were in 1948 when it was 5 on 1.

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

10 hours ago, Artificial Iverson said:

all those groups want to behead the Saudi monarchy

Yes, because the Saudi royals don't themselves live according to the creed they promote and because they're seen as puppets of the West. 

[hpslugga 4044]

4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Yes, because the Saudi royals don't themselves live according to the creed they promote and because they're seen as puppets of the West. 

And correctly so, because if the SRF was as principled as they like to pretend to be, they would be spearheading a Nasser-like Pan-Arab nationalist movement to unite the Arab world in an order that looks out for its own interests, starting with the nationalization of its natural resources and unwavering support for Palestinian statehood. Instead, they glad handle the United States, they do whatever they're told, and they couldn't be bothered to care less about the Palestinians, or any other Arab peoples for that matter. One doesn't need to be in ISIS/Al Qaeda, or to even sympathize with same, in order to be viciously against something like that. 

[David Dennison 18660]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

They were in 1948 when it was 5 on 1.

Then they should be fine. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Parliament 14138]

So, while they treaty was in effect, Iran moved weapons across 2 countries, and up to the Israeli border.  

And it's President Trump's fault?  Riiight

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Don’t be silly, Iran has proxy forces all over the Middle East from Yemen to Syria 

[bolverk 29402]

Worth the read. The following is a striking account of the battle between a few US commandos and a fuckton of Russian mercenaries (spoilered to avoid longcatting)

How a 4-Hour Battle Between Russian Mercenaries and U.S. Commandos Unfolded in Syria

WASHINGTON — The artillery barrage was so intense that the American commandos dived into foxholes for protection, emerging covered in flying dirt and debris to fire back at a column of tanks advancing under the heavy shelling. It was the opening salvo in a nearly four-hour assault in February by around 500 pro-Syrian government forces — including Russian mercenaries — that threatened to inflame already-simmering tensions between Washington and Moscow.

In the end, 200 to 300 of the attacking fighters were killed. The others retreated under merciless airstrikes from the United States, returning later to retrieve their battlefield dead. None of the Americans at the small outpost in eastern Syria — about 40 by the end of the firefight — were harmed.

The details of the Feb. 7 firefight were gleaned from interviews and documents newly obtained by The New York Times. They provide the Pentagon’s first public on-the-ground accounting of one of the single bloodiest battles the American military has faced in Syria since deploying to fight the Islamic State.

The firefight was described by the Pentagon as an act of self-defense against a unit of pro-Syrian government forces. In interviews, United States military officials said they had watched — with dread — hundreds of approaching rival troops, vehicles and artillery pieces in the week leading up to the attack.

 

The prospect of Russian military forces and American troops colliding has long been feared as the Cold War adversaries take opposing sides in Syria’s seven-year civil war.

At worst, officials and experts have said, it could plunge both countries into bloody conflict. And at a minimum, squaring off in crowded battlefields has added to heightened tensions between Russia and the United States as they each seek to exert influence in the Middle East.

Commanders of the rival militaries had long steered clear of the other by speaking through often-used deconfliction telephone lines. In the days leading up to the attack, and on opposite sides of the Euphrates River, Russia and the United States were backing separate offensives against the Islamic State in Syria’s oil-rich Deir al-Zour Province, which borders Iraq.

American military officials repeatedly warned about the growing mass of troops. But Russian military officials said they had no control over the fighters assembling near the river — even though American surveillance equipment monitoring radio transmissions had revealed the ground force was speaking in Russian.

The documents described the fighters as a “pro-regime force,” loyal to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. It included some Syrian government soldiers and militias, but American military and intelligence officials have said a majority were private Russian paramilitary mercenaries — and most likely a part of the Wagner Group, a company often used by the Kremlin to carry out objectives that officials do not want to be connected to the Russian government.

“The Russian high command in Syria assured us it was not their people,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told senators in testimony last month. He said he directed Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “for the force, then, to be annihilated.”

“And it was.”

Amassing forces
The day began with little hint of the battle that was about to unfold.

A team of about 30 Delta Force soldiers and Rangers from the Joint Special Operations Command were working alongside Kurdish and Arab forces at a small dusty outpost next to a Conoco gas plant, near the city of Deir al-Zour.

Roughly 20 miles away, at a base known as a mission support site, a team of Green Berets and a platoon of infantry Marines stared at their computer screens, watching drone feeds and passing information to the Americans at the gas plant about the gathering fighters.

At 3 p.m. the Syrian force began edging toward the Conoco plant. By early evening, more than 500 troops and 27 vehicles — including tanks and armored personnel carriers — had amassed.

In the American air operations center at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, and at the Pentagon, confounded military officers and intelligence analysts watched the scene unfold. Commanders briefed pilots and ground crews. Aircraft across the region were placed on alert, military officials said.

Back at the mission support site, the Green Berets and Marines were preparing a small reaction force — roughly 16 troops in four mine-resistant vehicles — in case they were needed at the Conoco plant. They inspected their weapons and ensured the trucks were loaded with anti-tank missiles, thermal optics and food and water.

At 8:30 p.m., three Russian-made T-72 tanks — vehicles weighing nearly 50 tons and armed with 125-millimeter guns — moved within a mile of the Conoco plant. Bracing for an attack, the Green Berets prepared to launch the reaction force.

At the outpost, American soldiers watched a column of tanks and other armored vehicles turn and drive toward them around 10 p.m., emerging from a neighborhood of houses where they had tried to gather undetected.

A half-hour later, the Russian mercenaries and Syrian forces struck.

The Conoco outpost was hit with a mixture of tank fire, large artillery and mortar rounds, the documents show. The air was filled with dust and shrapnel. The American commandos took cover, then ran behind dirt berms to fire anti-tank missiles and machine guns at the advancing column of armored vehicles.

For the first 15 minutes, American military officials called their Russian counterparts and urged them to stop the attack. When that failed, American troops fired warning shots at a group of vehicles and a howitzer.

Still the troops advanced.

From the horizon, a barrage of artillery
American warplanes arrived in waves, including Reaper drones, F-22 stealth fighter jets, F-15E Strike Fighters, B-52 bombers, AC-130 gunships and AH-64 Apache helicopters. For the next three hours, American officials said, scores of strikes pummeled enemy troops, tanks and other vehicles. Marine rocket artillery was fired from the ground.

The reaction team sped toward the fight. It was dark, according to the documents, and the roads were littered with felled power lines and shell craters. The 20-mile drive was made all the more difficult since the trucks did not turn on their headlights, relying solely on thermal-imaging cameras to navigate.

As the Green Berets and Marines neared the Conoco plant around 11:30 p.m., they were forced to stop. The barrage of artillery was too dangerous to drive through until airstrikes silenced the enemy’s howitzers and tanks.

At the plant, the commandos were pinned down by enemy artillery and burning through ammunition. Flashes from tank muzzles, antiaircraft weapons and machine guns lit up the air.

At 1 a.m., with the artillery fire dwindling, the team of Marines and Green Berets pulled up to the Conoco outpost and began firing. By then, some of the American warplanes had returned to base, low on either fuel or ammunition.

The United States troops on the ground, now roughly 40 in all, braced their defenses as the mercenaries left their vehicles and headed toward the outpost on foot.

A handful of Marines ran ammunition to machine guns and Javelin missile launchers scattered along the berms and wedged among the trucks. Some of the Green Berets and Marines took aim from exposed hatches. Others remained in their trucks, using a combination of thermal screens and joysticks to control and fire the heavy machine guns affixed on their roofs.

A few of the commandos, including Air Force combat controllers, worked the radios to direct the next fleet of bombers flying toward the battlefield. At least one Marine exposed himself to incoming fire as he used a missile guidance computer to find targets’ locations and pass them on to the commandos calling in the airstrikes.

An hour later, the enemy fighters had started to retreat and the American troops stopped firing. From their outpost, the commandos watched the mercenaries and Syrian fighters return to collect their dead. The small team of American troops was not harmed. One allied Syrian fighter was wounded.

Who led the ill-fated attack?
The number of casualties from the Feb. 7 fight is in dispute.

Initially, Russian officials said only four Russian citizens — but perhaps dozens more — were killed; a Syrian officer said around 100 Syrian soldiers had died. The documents obtained by The Times estimated 200 to 300 of the “pro-regime force” were killed.

The outcome of the battle, and much of its mechanics, suggest that the Russian mercenaries and their Syrian allies were in the wrong part of the world to try a simple, massed assault on an American military position. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States Central Command has refined the amount of equipment, logistics, coordination and tactics required to mix weapons fired from both the air and ground.

Questions remain about exactly who the Russian mercenaries were, and why they attacked.

American intelligence officials say that the Wagner Group, known by the nickname of the retired Russian officer who leads it, is in Syria to seize oil and gas fields and protect them on behalf of the Assad government. The mercenaries earn of a share of the production proceeds from the oil fields they reclaim, officials said.

The mercenaries loosely coordinate with the Russian military in Syria, although Wagner’s leaders have reportedly received awards in the Kremlin, and its mercenaries are trained at the Russian Defense Ministry’s bases.

Russian government forces in Syria maintain they were not involved in the battle. But in recent weeks, according to United States military officials, they have jammed the communications of smaller American drones and gunships such as the type used in the attack.

“Right now in Syria, we’re in the most aggressive E.W. environment on the planet from our adversaries,” Gen. Tony Thomas, the head of United States Special Operations Command, said recently, referring to electronic warfare. “They’re testing us every day.”

9

I got curious and found the Conoco plant on Google .

Edited May 25, 2018 by bolverk

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Parliament 14138]

17 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

On 5/1/2018 at 10:24 PM, DixonHur said:

Honest question...why?  Aside from oil prices, why should we care what the Saudis do?

Thank you. They don't do shit for themselves. They're scared shitless of a wahabist revolution.

[atomheartbevo 89449]

They must think they learned their lesson earlier this year, when Americans slaughtered hundreds of Russian mercenaries, and that they can handle us.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/06/politics/syria-russia-attack-warning-pentagon/index.html

Quote

Russia has warned the US military twice in the last week that its forces, along with Syrian regime units, are prepared to attack in an area where dozens of US troops are located, according to several US defense officials. 

Russia claims that there are militants in the area protected by US troops.

Moscow's declaration has sharply raised US commanders' concerns that American forces would be at risk if a Russian attack goes forward, CNN has learned. And it has sparked US warnings to Moscow not to challenge the US military presence. 

Several US defense officials have told CNN that concerns center on a US-led anti-ISIS coalition base at At Tanf. US troops help monitor a 55-kilometer (34-mile) exclusion zone around At Tanf. Given its location near the borders of Syria, Jordan and Iraq, the At Tanf garrison is seen as a key strategic location as the US, Iran and Russia compete for influence in the region.

Quote

There is concern the Russians could use aircraft or their naval warships in the eastern Mediterranean to launch a missile attack against what they say are militants, sparking a confrontation that could inadvertently draw in US forces if Russian targeting is not precise. 

So far, no buildup of Russian ground forces has been observed in recent days, officials said.

US officials would not say how Moscow conveyed its warning to Washington. 

Defense Secretary James Mattis and Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are aware of the latest intelligence, officials said. US troops in the area, as always, have the right of self-defense if they are attacked and would not need to ask permission from higher levels of the government before acting.

While the situation is described by one US official as "concerning," there clearly is US interest in discussing Moscow's warning to ensure the Russians have a clear view of any potential US military response. 

"We have absolutely advised them to stay out of At Tanf," one US official said. "We are postured to respond."

"The United States does not seek to fight the government of Syria or any groups that may be providing it support. However, if attacked, the United States will not hesitate to use necessary and proportionate force to defend US, coalition or partner forces," a defense official told CNN. 

US officials, however, are stopping short of discussing what military weapons and measures are in place for the protection of US troops.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

I’d hate to see anymore dead Russians.

[atomheartbevo 89449]

Shit getting real or Putin giving Trump something to distract the public.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/07/politics/us-military-exercise-syria-russia/index.html

Quote

More than 100 US troops began an unexpected exercise in southern Syria on Friday in direct response to a series of Russian military threats, according to a US defense official. 

The exercise was detailed in a statement from the US Central Command but did not mention that the command ordered the exercise specifically after a September 1 warning from Russia that it was going to enter a restricted area of southern Syria where US troops are located, the official said.

The exercise, which may last for several days, involves US troops flying into the coalition's At Tanf garrison by assault helicopter and conducting live fire drills. 

"Our forces will demonstrate the capability to deploy rapidly, assault a target with integrated air and ground forces and conduct rapid exfiltration," said Capt. William Urban, the chief Central Command spokesman. The exercise is specifically designed for Russian and regime units in the area to see the activity and understand US capabilities, defense officials say.

Quote

Russia on Thursday, via a note, had warned the US for the second time it was going to attack the At Tanf area to go after militants there. But the second warning specified Moscow would use "precision strikes," according to Cmdr. Sean Robertson, a Pentagon spokesman. The use of the wording "precision strikes" in a written note to the US sparked alarm with US commanders that the Russians are signaling their intent to strike with aircraft firing precision weapons, or missiles launched from Russian ships in the Mediterranean, US defense officials tell CNN.

Attacking with those types of weapons in a specific campaign against the US protected area at At Tanf would be a significant escalation in the sporadic violence in the area. The Pentagon has been unusually public in disclosing the potential Russian threat, in hopes that its statements will warn the Russians off the area.

The first Russian warning came via the US Russian deconfliction line that has been used for the last several years to ensure both sides have visibility on what is happening in the area. In turn, the US used the deconfliction line to tell the Russians the ongoing US military activity is an exercise.

"The United States does not seek to fight the Russians, the government of Syria or any groups that may be providing support to Syria in the Syrian civil war. However, the United States will not hesitate to use necessary and proportionate force to defend US, coalition or partner forces, as we have clearly demonstrated in past instances," Robertson said.

The exercises come as the Trump administration continues to deliver increasingly strident warnings over an assault on Idlib.

Quote

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley warned Friday that if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Russia, and Iran carry out an assault on Idlib, "the consequences will be dire."

"The United States has been very clear," she said at a UN Security Council meeting, "with Russia and with the broader international community: we consider any assault on Idlib to be a dangerous escalation of the conflict in Syria."

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

[atomheartbevo 89449]

Oh Syria!

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/17/politics/syrian-regime-shoots-down-russian-plane/index.html

Quote

A Russian maritime patrol aircraft with multiple personnel on board was inadvertently shot down by Syrian regime anti-aircraft artillery on Monday after the Syrians came under attack by Israeli missiles, according to a US official with knowledge of the incident. 

The US official said the regime was actually trying to stop a barrage of Israeli missiles. A second official confirmed that Israel was responsible for the missile strikes on the Syrian regime.

The Russian state news agency TASS reported that a Russian IL-20 military aircraft with 14 personnel on board disappeared over the Mediterranean on Monday. According to TASS, the ministry of defense specified that "the mark of IL-20 went off the radars disappeared during the attack of four Israeli F-16 aircraft on Syrian targets in the province of Latakia."

 

[InkaUtexas 25523]

There are floating reports France fired into Syria as well. saw this late last night. 

[InkaUtexas 25523]

1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

There are floating reports France fired into Syria as well. saw this late last night. 

Seems Russians are retracting the French role. 

It made no further mention of a French frigate the Russian defence ministry had earlier claimed also opened fire from the area on Monday.

The French army had denied any involvement and Syria state media had reported late Monday that air defences had intercepted missiles targeting Latakia.

 

https://www.france24.com/en/20180918-syria-downs-russian-plane-moscow-blames-israel

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Lots of confusion and finger pointing as always in Syria, especially when it involves Russians.

Here’s Israel’s take:

 

Overnight, IDF fighter jets targeted a facility of the Syrian Armed Forces from which systems to manufacture accurate and lethal weapons were about to be transferred on behalf of Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

These weapons were meant to attack Israel, and posed an intolerable threat against it.

The IDF and the Russian army have a deconfliction system, which was agreed upon by the states' leaders, and has proven itself many times over recent years. This system was in use tonight as well.

An initial inquiry of the incident suggests:

1. Extensive and inaccurate Syrian anti-aircraft (Surface to Air missile) fire caused the Russian plane to be hit and downed.

2. When the Syrian Army launched the missiles that hit the Russian plane, IAF jets were already within Israeli airspace.

3. During the strike against the target in Latakia, the Russian plane that was then hit was not within the area of the operation.

4. The Syrian anti-air batteries fired indiscriminately and from what we understand, did not bother to ensure that no Russian planes were in the air.

Israel will share all the relevant information with the Russian Government to review the incident and to confirm the facts in this inquiry.

[HenryJames 65890]

 

[realgreggym 833]

On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 7:51 PM, LongestHorn said:

Let's imagine a world with a nuclear Iran.  Is it really as bad for US interests as we have been told?  See Pakistan.

I can see Iranian evangelical leadership losing the nationalist support they now enjoy with their "Iran vs. the World" message.  Iranians will have to answer the existential question "whose finger is on the button".  Do Iranians want the nuts or the military?  

Israel has some very smart people, and I believe Bibi wants security for Israel.  But no one trusts him.  Fact is, if they could get a nuclear armed submarine for their trouble, Israel could get something they want - mutually assured destruction.  In the end, it's peace or they nuke each other.  They might just choose peace.

 

They already have them.

[Hamttx 419]

On 5/1/2018 at 8:42 PM, David Dennison said:

The former if you are MAGA, the latter if you are normal.

Curious, how much time have you actually spent in that region?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Last pocket of ISIS surrounded. 

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/10/03/last-pocket-of-isis-fighters-surrounded-dod-official-says/

 

U.S. troops and their local partner forces have surrounded what has been called the “last pocket of ISIS resistance,” according to military officials involved in the campaign.

The final push, known as Operation Roundup, is in its third week. It is occurring in the Middle Euphrates River Valley’s Deir ez-Zor province, close to the Iraq-Syria border.

Syrian Democratic Forces, backed by the Operation Inherent Resolve coalition’s fire support, have dialed back the Islamic Stateprecipitously over the past few years.