http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=19738

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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!