February 1, 2010
The Middle East is Forever Interesting
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran will deliver "a telling blow" to "global powers" on February 11, and the United States sends ships and Patriot missile batteries to the Persian Gulf.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at February 1, 2010 12:00 AM
Comments
There's a Fox article as well
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/01/missile-shield-gulf-ups-ante-iran/
Posted by: crosspatch at February 1, 2010 12:28 am
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/01/missile-shield-gulf-ups-ante-iran/
I wonder whether this is just diversionary tactics. Say a veiled threat, and the enemy will spend millions of dollars on redeployments of forces. Do that again, the enemy spends another roll of cash... after several iterations, the enemy is no longer interested in your speeches and you can prepare for some real thing.
Posted by: Marian Kechlibar at February 1, 2010 12:29 am
Related, (even though it will provide endless entertainment to the usual suspects...).
But it is a glimpse (or more than a glimpse) of what will happen when the Zionist fruit is perceived by its neighbors as hanging sufficiently low (or if the Iranian regime finds its existence a wee bit threatened).
And if so, Europe's (but not only Europe's) Jewish communities had better brace themselves, as Al-Jazeerah and the Al-Jazeerah-ized MSM have done their work exceeding well.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at February 1, 2010 2:18 am
But it is a glimpse (or more than a glimpse) of what will happen when the Zionist fruit is perceived by its neighbors as hanging sufficiently low (or if the Iranian regime finds its existence a wee bit threatened).
And if so, Europe's (but not only Europe's) Jewish communities had better brace themselves, as Al-Jazeerah and the Al-Jazeerah-ized MSM have done their work exceeding well.
There's another possible motivation on sending Patriot coverage to the Gulf... it also PREVENTS Israel from attacking Iran's nuclear weapon development infrastructure, as Israel's jets would now be passing over areas with top notch US ground based air defense.
Note the Russians delayed delivery of the advanced SAM system they sold to Iran - so Iran's ground-to-air defenses are currently somewhat limited (or rather, out of date). However, with US Aegis ships in the Gulf, patriots in Kuwait, UAE, Abi Daubi, and Saudia Arabia - there's now a patriot wall between Israel and Iran.
If Iran fires a missile at Israel (G-d forbid), the US has now left Israel with the only possible response of FIRING MISSILES BACK rather than a pinpoint strike of jets.
Regional nuclear war anyone?
Posted by: Akiva at February 1, 2010 2:32 am
Note the Russians delayed delivery of the advanced SAM system they sold to Iran - so Iran's ground-to-air defenses are currently somewhat limited (or rather, out of date). However, with US Aegis ships in the Gulf, patriots in Kuwait, UAE, Abi Daubi, and Saudia Arabia - there's now a patriot wall between Israel and Iran.
If Iran fires a missile at Israel (G-d forbid), the US has now left Israel with the only possible response of FIRING MISSILES BACK rather than a pinpoint strike of jets.
Regional nuclear war anyone?
Akiva,
I don't believe Patriot missile batteries can be used against aircraft, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Most likely, I suspect, the administration is trying to calm Israeli nerves as well as defend our Arab allies.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 1, 2010 2:40 am
I don't believe Patriot missile batteries can be used against aircraft, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Most likely, I suspect, the administration is trying to calm Israeli nerves as well as defend our Arab allies.
Various insurgents and rogue regimes have rather outstanding capability of bleeding their enemies' money.
I must say that I am uncomfortable with the fact that the US response to 9/11 cost over trillion dollars. This is an indirect economic damage of huge proportions.
Being a superpower is very expensive these days.
Posted by: Marian Kechlibar at February 1, 2010 3:11 am
I must say that I am uncomfortable with the fact that the US response to 9/11 cost over trillion dollars. This is an indirect economic damage of huge proportions.
Being a superpower is very expensive these days.
Nuclear test? Hopefully just bluster or another missile test.
Posted by: John Lynch at February 1, 2010 3:56 am
MT,
In the last Gulf war Patriot missiles shot down british jet(s) due to a mistaken identity. I'm quite positive that Patriot was originally designed for cruise missiles and planes defense. Only the much later upgrade of block/model 3 was made to improve their abilities against the short range missiles. The Patriot 2 was basically useless against Iraqi missiles fired on Israel.
Posted by: marek at February 1, 2010 6:47 am
In the last Gulf war Patriot missiles shot down british jet(s) due to a mistaken identity. I'm quite positive that Patriot was originally designed for cruise missiles and planes defense. Only the much later upgrade of block/model 3 was made to improve their abilities against the short range missiles. The Patriot 2 was basically useless against Iraqi missiles fired on Israel.
Hi -
The Patriot missile system was developed primarily as a high-quality, hi-tech anti-aircraft missile system capable of distributed control and multiple attack profiles (simultaneous low and high attacks, high-speed and low-speed, any mixture). If you have multiple batteries set up, you can hand off attacks to any one of several radar systems, and can hence avoid both degradation of kill capability via anti-radiation missiles and reload time limitations.
It's a rather elegant, if expensive, solution for wide-area anti-aircraft missile command and control, and system software was upgraded to handle tactical ballistic missile defense. The relatively poor track record during GWI was the result of failing to change fuse parameters in the individual missiles, resulting in their warheads being detonated too late (due to the higher speeds involved), but this has been changed.
If multiple batteries are installed, there is very little that can happen within the covered battle space (airspace from basically 10 meters to 100 000 meters) without the system being able to see what is going on, even with passive countermeasures. Active countermeasures can blind the system for short periods of time (the time it takes for the system to shoot down the active measures), but this is significantly easier said than done.
What this really does, besides the political effects, is allow the US and those whom it chooses to inform to know exactly what is going on in Gulf air space. In other words, no surprises...
Posted by: John F. Opie at February 1, 2010 7:00 am
The Patriot missile system was developed primarily as a high-quality, hi-tech anti-aircraft missile system capable of distributed control and multiple attack profiles (simultaneous low and high attacks, high-speed and low-speed, any mixture). If you have multiple batteries set up, you can hand off attacks to any one of several radar systems, and can hence avoid both degradation of kill capability via anti-radiation missiles and reload time limitations.
It's a rather elegant, if expensive, solution for wide-area anti-aircraft missile command and control, and system software was upgraded to handle tactical ballistic missile defense. The relatively poor track record during GWI was the result of failing to change fuse parameters in the individual missiles, resulting in their warheads being detonated too late (due to the higher speeds involved), but this has been changed.
If multiple batteries are installed, there is very little that can happen within the covered battle space (airspace from basically 10 meters to 100 000 meters) without the system being able to see what is going on, even with passive countermeasures. Active countermeasures can blind the system for short periods of time (the time it takes for the system to shoot down the active measures), but this is significantly easier said than done.
What this really does, besides the political effects, is allow the US and those whom it chooses to inform to know exactly what is going on in Gulf air space. In other words, no surprises...
Mistaken identity, huh? I guess, even in war, Einstein was right. Most great discoveries aren't followed by "Eureka!", but rather, "That's odd..."
Posted by: gus3 at February 1, 2010 7:41 am
The Patriot system is primarily an anti-aircraft system, its role as missile-interceptor has been grafted onto it.
Posted by: Fnord at February 1, 2010 8:28 am
Iran has considerable air defense potential though how much of it is in any kind of working condition is a valid question. They did have the American Improved Hawk (IHAWK) and the Raytheon AN/TSQ-73 "Missile Minder" control system but those systems would be considered obsolete and I am not sure what condition they are in, particularly the control system.
The Russian systems would seem to be potentially ineffective if the operation to take out the Syrian nuclear facility some time ago is any indication.
My guess is the Patriots are being deployed in an anti-missile role rather than an anti-aircraft role. Possibly to ease anxiety of regional players concerning any stepped up Western sanctions on Iran.
Posted by: crosspatch at February 1, 2010 9:00 am
The Russian systems would seem to be potentially ineffective if the operation to take out the Syrian nuclear facility some time ago is any indication.
My guess is the Patriots are being deployed in an anti-missile role rather than an anti-aircraft role. Possibly to ease anxiety of regional players concerning any stepped up Western sanctions on Iran.
I'm not sure this is anything that is at all 'interesting' - if you read closely its clear that he merely means that the existence of the Islamic Republic is the 'telling blow' to the West and liberalism/marxism.
Posted by: David at February 1, 2010 9:19 am
EXCLUSIVE: US intelligence finds 5,000 Hizballah trained to seize Galilee towns...
What do you call 5000 dead Hezbollah in the middle of Israel? A good start! Har har. I know, old joke. And it only really works for lawyers, who seem to be a lower form of life than terrorists.
Novices at power projection always over-estimate their ability to fight in enemy territory. Even experts (like the US) make that mistake from time to time. Israelis should hope that HA is so foolish as to send its irregulars to fight in a hostile environment.
Posted by: Craig at February 1, 2010 9:21 am
What do you call 5000 dead Hezbollah in the middle of Israel? A good start! Har har. I know, old joke. And it only really works for lawyers, who seem to be a lower form of life than terrorists.
Novices at power projection always over-estimate their ability to fight in enemy territory. Even experts (like the US) make that mistake from time to time. Israelis should hope that HA is so foolish as to send its irregulars to fight in a hostile environment.
I must say that I am uncomfortable with the fact that the US response to 9/11 cost over trillion dollars. This is an indirect economic damage of huge proportions.
I generally agree with you, Marian, but in the case of naval assets and surface to air batteries the US already has these assets and they are deployed someplace at all times anyway. I don't believe it significantly adds to the cost to deploy them one place rather than another. Also, it doesn't detract much from the ongoing efforts in Afghanistan or Iraq since those assets aren't of much value there. That said, I don't really understand what we are trying to accomplish. The Islamic Republic has many thousands of missiles and it's unlikely we'd be able to down any significant portion of them in the case of an all-out attack.
Posted by: Craig at February 1, 2010 9:33 am
I generally agree with you, Marian, but in the case of naval assets and surface to air batteries the US already has these assets and they are deployed someplace at all times anyway. I don't believe it significantly adds to the cost to deploy them one place rather than another. Also, it doesn't detract much from the ongoing efforts in Afghanistan or Iraq since those assets aren't of much value there. That said, I don't really understand what we are trying to accomplish. The Islamic Republic has many thousands of missiles and it's unlikely we'd be able to down any significant portion of them in the case of an all-out attack.
"The Islamic Republic has many thousands of missiles and it's unlikely we'd be able to down any significant portion of them in the case of an all-out attack."
It can sometimes be more about selecting the ones that are on a trajectory to do the most damage rather than trying to get them all.
So you have to prioritize targets based on some criteria and assign interceptors according to priority. This might mean that many go through the screen. Trying to simply shoot them all down is rather pointless when you have more targets than interceptors.
Posted by: crosspatch at February 1, 2010 10:15 am
It can sometimes be more about selecting the ones that are on a trajectory to do the most damage rather than trying to get them all.
So you have to prioritize targets based on some criteria and assign interceptors according to priority. This might mean that many go through the screen. Trying to simply shoot them all down is rather pointless when you have more targets than interceptors.
Either way, Sunni Arab regimes in the Gulf are not going to shoot down Israeli planes on their way to stop Persian Shias from getting the bomb. Israel is not any kind of threat to Saudi Arabia, but Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are, and the Saudis know it.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 1, 2010 10:20 am
The current Iranian regime is clearly in trouble. Obviously they are trying to provoke a confrontation in order to present themselves as the defenders of Iran to the Iranian people. This is the "rally around the flag" effect and is the oldest trick in the book. Other than placing anti-missile missiles in the gulf states as defense measure, the best response is to not respond to the provocation at all. I think Obama is handling this well.
The falling camel attracts many knives. The Iranian regime is clearly a falling camel.
Posted by: Lindsey Abelard at February 1, 2010 10:52 am
The falling camel attracts many knives. The Iranian regime is clearly a falling camel.
"Sunni Arab regimes in the Gulf are not going to shoot down Israeli planes on their way to stop Persian Shias from getting the bomb."
Agreed. It would be in their (the Sunni and secular states along the path) interest to look the other way. It wouldn't seem likely that they would give active support of such a thing, but it wouldn't seem to be in their interest to actively impede such a thing either.
Posted by: crosspatch at February 1, 2010 10:53 am
Agreed. It would be in their (the Sunni and secular states along the path) interest to look the other way. It wouldn't seem likely that they would give active support of such a thing, but it wouldn't seem to be in their interest to actively impede such a thing either.
Looking at Ledeen's blog, it looks like the general economic situation in Iran is deteriorating and there might be something of a run on the banks.
Posted by: crosspatch at February 1, 2010 10:54 am
If you're the praying type, pray for those kids who take to the streets on the 11th.
Posted by: Kevin at February 1, 2010 11:02 am
[...] By datechguy but I have a funny feeling that the bluster from Iran getting the headlines is simply to draw a reaction A feint to see what we will [...]
Posted by: I have no evidence to support it… « DaTechguy's Blog at February 1, 2010 1:13 pm
Michael,
As several other commentors added, the Patriot is an anti-aircraft system that had anti-missile capabilities added (though the Gen-3 has a complete redesign for anti-missile focus).
Putting Patriots in the Gulf DOESN'T HELP ISRAEL AT ALL. The Patriot anti-missile missile (PAC-3) has a range limit of 15km, and for defense against high speed objects like ballistic missiles has to be fired at a reasonable incoming target angle to the inbound missile.
Meaning, unlike firing at a passing plane where the missile can catch the plane from behind, the Patriot anti-missile missile has a lower likelihood of being able to catch a ballistic missile in mid-flight. Which is why you don't just station a Patriot or two in a country, you put them near the most likely targets - the closer to the incoming angle the higher the chance of an intercept.
So a Patriot missile battery in UAE doesn't have a high chance against a Shahab-3 missile going from Iran to Israel (G-d forbid).
The Israel's Arrow (if it's been deployed), India's Prithvi, and maybe the Russian Gazelle could do it, though angle still plays a part. If the US wanted to reassure Israel, they'd ship over another 6 PAC-3 Patriot batteries stocked with the new 16-cell anti-missile boxes, and park an Aegis in Haifa and Ashdod ports.
No, this is purely oil supply protection under the assumption that either Iran will take a shot at breaking world oil deliveries, and/or to prevent Israel from taking a nuclear prevention shot at Iran and an Iranian response of...breaking world oil deliveries.
Interestingly, the Aegis ships in the Gulf could probably shoot down an Israeli missile if fired at Iran in response to an Iranian attack!
Posted by: Akiva at February 2, 2010 1:44 am
As several other commentors added, the Patriot is an anti-aircraft system that had anti-missile capabilities added (though the Gen-3 has a complete redesign for anti-missile focus).
Putting Patriots in the Gulf DOESN'T HELP ISRAEL AT ALL. The Patriot anti-missile missile (PAC-3) has a range limit of 15km, and for defense against high speed objects like ballistic missiles has to be fired at a reasonable incoming target angle to the inbound missile.
Meaning, unlike firing at a passing plane where the missile can catch the plane from behind, the Patriot anti-missile missile has a lower likelihood of being able to catch a ballistic missile in mid-flight. Which is why you don't just station a Patriot or two in a country, you put them near the most likely targets - the closer to the incoming angle the higher the chance of an intercept.
So a Patriot missile battery in UAE doesn't have a high chance against a Shahab-3 missile going from Iran to Israel (G-d forbid).
The Israel's Arrow (if it's been deployed), India's Prithvi, and maybe the Russian Gazelle could do it, though angle still plays a part. If the US wanted to reassure Israel, they'd ship over another 6 PAC-3 Patriot batteries stocked with the new 16-cell anti-missile boxes, and park an Aegis in Haifa and Ashdod ports.
No, this is purely oil supply protection under the assumption that either Iran will take a shot at breaking world oil deliveries, and/or to prevent Israel from taking a nuclear prevention shot at Iran and an Iranian response of...breaking world oil deliveries.
Interestingly, the Aegis ships in the Gulf could probably shoot down an Israeli missile if fired at Iran in response to an Iranian attack!
Akiva: Putting Patriots in the Gulf DOESN'T HELP ISRAEL AT ALL.
Probably not, but that's not what they're there for.
a Patriot missile battery in UAE doesn't have a high chance against a Shahab-3 missile going from Iran to Israel (G-d forbid).
Israel isn't the only country threatened by Iran in the Middle East. The missile batteries in the Gulf are there to protect the Gulf.
the Aegis ships in the Gulf could probably shoot down an Israeli missile if fired at Iran in response to an Iranian attack!
But they won't.
The reason I said reassuring Israel might be a secondary reason for this is because if Iran is deterred somewhat in a general sense it will help every country on its enemies list, Arab and Israeli alike.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 2, 2010 1:55 am
Probably not, but that's not what they're there for.
a Patriot missile battery in UAE doesn't have a high chance against a Shahab-3 missile going from Iran to Israel (G-d forbid).
Israel isn't the only country threatened by Iran in the Middle East. The missile batteries in the Gulf are there to protect the Gulf.
the Aegis ships in the Gulf could probably shoot down an Israeli missile if fired at Iran in response to an Iranian attack!
But they won't.
The reason I said reassuring Israel might be a secondary reason for this is because if Iran is deterred somewhat in a general sense it will help every country on its enemies list, Arab and Israeli alike.
It's been interesting to see Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran turn from a brief positive to negative on the Obama administration - even though the administration was more open to such countries than perhaps any previous US administration.
Though as an American I would consider the Obama admin. much much less likely to take military action than the Bush admin., and therefore this move was a surprise (which leads me to believe it's MUCH more serious than reported), what's the impression from the Arab nations and/or Iran? Given their turning on the openings the administration made, I'm guessing that they believe any such openness and less interest in a military approach is a fake?
In other words, my question is, does Iran believe Obama would take a military stand? And do the Gulf Arab nations believe Obama is a reliable ally to provide defense?
After all, in politics perception is reality.
Posted by: Akiva at February 2, 2010 6:21 am
Though as an American I would consider the Obama admin. much much less likely to take military action than the Bush admin., and therefore this move was a surprise (which leads me to believe it's MUCH more serious than reported), what's the impression from the Arab nations and/or Iran? Given their turning on the openings the administration made, I'm guessing that they believe any such openness and less interest in a military approach is a fake?
In other words, my question is, does Iran believe Obama would take a military stand? And do the Gulf Arab nations believe Obama is a reliable ally to provide defense?
After all, in politics perception is reality.
Hi -
Michael, you're absolutely right: this has nothing to do with Israel, who I dare say can handle its own defense, even a mass attack with Iranian missiles (although the bomber always gets through, if you know what I mean). This has everything to do with the Gulf States, which are the targets of Iranian subversion and intimidation.
The idea that the Saudis would do anything to actually stop an Israeli attack is indeed laughable: of course, they won't say that, nor will any of the other states involved, as that would be political/religious suicide. Iran is being shown the line in the sand.
What, though, is the significance of 11 Feb? The only reference that makes sense to me is that the Iranians, on that date, turned down Soviet aid in preference to US aid in 1959. In 1543, at the Battle at Wayna Daga, Ethiopian/Portugese troops beat a Moslem army. In 1945, Yalta was signed by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.
I'm guessing that it's got something to do with that, as Yalta established the spheres of influence in the post-war world: I can well imagine that this will be the day that Iran announces that Yalta is dead and that the Iranian Revolution will be exported...
On the other hand, it was the day that "I Love Lucy" won an Emmy in 1954...
Posted by: John F. Opie at February 2, 2010 10:05 am
Michael, you're absolutely right: this has nothing to do with Israel, who I dare say can handle its own defense, even a mass attack with Iranian missiles (although the bomber always gets through, if you know what I mean). This has everything to do with the Gulf States, which are the targets of Iranian subversion and intimidation.
The idea that the Saudis would do anything to actually stop an Israeli attack is indeed laughable: of course, they won't say that, nor will any of the other states involved, as that would be political/religious suicide. Iran is being shown the line in the sand.
What, though, is the significance of 11 Feb? The only reference that makes sense to me is that the Iranians, on that date, turned down Soviet aid in preference to US aid in 1959. In 1543, at the Battle at Wayna Daga, Ethiopian/Portugese troops beat a Moslem army. In 1945, Yalta was signed by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.
I'm guessing that it's got something to do with that, as Yalta established the spheres of influence in the post-war world: I can well imagine that this will be the day that Iran announces that Yalta is dead and that the Iranian Revolution will be exported...
On the other hand, it was the day that "I Love Lucy" won an Emmy in 1954...
Hi -
Yargh. Of course: 11 Feb is the day that Bakhtiar resigned and the Ayatollah Khomenei took power. My bad: teaches me to post before finishing research...
Posted by: John F. Opie at February 2, 2010 10:06 am
Yargh. Of course: 11 Feb is the day that Bakhtiar resigned and the Ayatollah Khomenei took power. My bad: teaches me to post before finishing research...
Another thing that people need to understand is that Russia has filled the void created in Iran with the pullout of the Western oil companies. Iran has become, basically, a Russian resource.
Iran and Russia has a joint defense pact. Any attack on Iran would be an attack on Russia. As (according to my understanding) the Revolutionary Guard has a major controlling interest in the Iranian oil industry, Russia and the Revolutionary Guard might be considered business partners.
Iran would love nothing more than to goad someone into an attack and see the Russians respond.
But with the social situation of things in Iran (and Venezuela, too), Russia might be a little anxious at the moment.
Posted by: crosspatch at February 2, 2010 10:01 pm
Iran and Russia has a joint defense pact. Any attack on Iran would be an attack on Russia. As (according to my understanding) the Revolutionary Guard has a major controlling interest in the Iranian oil industry, Russia and the Revolutionary Guard might be considered business partners.
Iran would love nothing more than to goad someone into an attack and see the Russians respond.
But with the social situation of things in Iran (and Venezuela, too), Russia might be a little anxious at the moment.
Yemen collapsing?
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=19738
Posted by: crosspatch at February 2, 2010 10:03 pm
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=19738
considering the administration's love affair with drone strikes in pakistan (the best policy that can be attributed to obama, he's really gotten behind an aggressive campaign there), obama would probably go after the mullahs if he felt he was backed into a corner by tehran.
Posted by: skwiself at February 5, 2010 8:09 pm
Post a comment
