Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Serious Does it Have to Be For Americans to Get Worried?
Putin has lifted the ban on supplies of S-300 air defense missile systems to Iran, effective immediately. The S-300 is Russia’s top-of-the-range air-defense system. Anyone really think those sanctions will just snap back?
The moves come after world powers, including Russia, reached an interim deal with Iran on curbing its nuclear programme and signal that Moscow may have a head-start in the race to benefit from an eventual lifting of sanctions on Tehran. The Kremlin said Putin signed a decree lifting Russia’s own ban on the delivery of S-300 anti-missile rocket system to Iran, removing a major irritant between the two after Moscow cancelled a corresponding contract in 2010 under pressure from the West. A senior government official said separately that Russia has started supplying grain, equipment and construction materials to Iran in exchange for crude oil under a barter deal.
Sources told Reuters more than a year ago that a deal worth up to $20 billion was being discussed with Tehran and would involve Russia buying up to 500,000 barrels of Iranian oil a day in exchange for Russian equipment and goods.
The batteries must presumably be operated by Russian crews before Iranian teams could be trained in their use. In other words, if the US or Israel attempted to destroy the missiles and caused Russian casualties, you’d have a direct superpower confrontation.
I know going on about Hillary’s campaign video three days running makes me sound obsessed, but it spooked me. It seems to me that anyone who has even the vaguest sense that these events are really happening would find that video astonishing. I keep thinking: the ad was extensively tested. A very significant number of Americans must like it and think it’s appropriate. The only way I can understand that is that is to imagine they literally have not heard that any of this is happening–or somehow don’t see it as connected to the United States. How else can it be explained?
Published in General
Could this just all be a bargaining chip for Russia’s impending Ukraine takeover?
Do you really think Putin needs to bargain with Obama? Russia could go into Ukraine and the most you’ll get out of Obama is that the move is not in Russia’s interests, declare victory and then move on to something else.
Although it is more appropriate to your post on the Iranian nuclear deal – it looks like Turkey has decided that it must have nuclear power.
Fecal matter is just now coming into existence.
Q. How Serious Does it Have to Be For Americans to Get Worried?
A. When the EMP knocks out all the smart phones, tablets, big screen TVs, the power grid, and every vehicle made since (not real sure here) 1970.
No not a bargaining chip – chump change – Putin is after control and power of the world’s resources – energy being one major resource, oil and gas control economies, deliveries of goods, fuel to heat homes, but Ukraine is a gateway, inching him closer to taking back the Russian Empire, and eventually control of the Middle East’s resources. His military is skirting the borders of the U.S and Europe – testing how far he can go – we are constantly intercepting planes and even subs off the Florida coast – could the news get any more bizarre? Do the research – he even declared parts of the neutral Arctic region his territory because of its undersea resources – it’s like a chess game to him.
Well, since I’m an Indian Australian it’s to neither. But it’s worth pointing out that if the US attacks Iran it would be to achieve its own best interests, not the Iranian people’s. Which is both normal for a country, and also consistent with the US’ history of involvement in Iran and the broader Middle East.
Also, I fear that you’re confusing “what I would like to be” with “what is”.
The Iranian Regime is (maybe) signing an agreement that effectively takes military nukes off the table for Iran for at least a decade, and maybe 15 years. It will want to be able to protect itself despite losing this potential hint of a nuclear deterrent. It will certainly be more vulnerable without this hint.
Now you may want them to be more vulnerable, but they aren’t working to achieve your ends, they’re working to achieve their own. As are the US, Russia, Iraq and any other country involved in that region.
So one of the Iranian regime’s core requirements is a plausible defense system. Is there one that would meet their requirements, but also the West’s core (as opposed to wish list) needs?
Is that a realistic reading of the situation? (ie no direct threat to the US from Iran.)
And if it is, is that a reasonable response or not?
It is at least noteworthy that all of the countries that actually have a land border with Iran have been pretty blase about Iran’s nuclear program (or threat of invasion), that the European Union was pretty unconcerned (only acting when the US twisted its arm, basically, though France engaged a bit more once the process kicked off) and that the closest Superpower (Russia) seems to similarly find the whole thing unlikely and/or negligible to the extent of being eager to sell Iran some air defence systems. (Even some members of Israel’s intelligence community didn’t seem all that convinced of the problem.)
(The Gulf States have expressed concerns, but they also have a clear conflict of interest wrt keeping Iranian oil off the market and restive and discriminated against Shia populations at home.)
So – why are Americans (on the Right) so much more concerned than these other countries, despite being so much further away and presumably harder to reach?
Does being the Great Satan credibly make the threat of a nuclear Iran much greater to the US than to France or to Russia? Or is there more going on – both in terms of realistic assessment of actual threat and of actual influence – iow, managed expectations of a more realistic outcome?
Regardless of where you stand on foreign policy, the average American cares more about what’s on Netflix and the next iPhone update than if Iran got the bomb. What’s it going to take to change that? Fallout in New York or Tel Aviv.
The threat of the S-300 is really overyhped in the western press. It’s a good system, but it’s been around since 1979. It’s not as if Israel doesn’t already train for or have countermeasures for SAM systems like this.
It is at least noteworthy that all of the countries that actually have a land border with Iran have been pretty blase about Iran’s nuclear program (or threat of invasion),
that the European Union was pretty unconcerned (only acting when the US twisted its arm, basically, though France engaged a bit more once the process kicked off) and that the closest Superpower (Russia) seems to similarly find the whole thing unlikely and/or negligible to the extent of being eager to sell Iran some air defence systems. (Even some members of Israel’s intelligence community didn’t seem all that convinced of the problem.)
Does being the Great Satan credibly make the threat of a nuclear Iran much greater to the US than to France or to Russia?
Or is there more going on – both in terms of realistic assessment of actual threat and of actual influence – iow, managed expectations of a more realistic outcome?
It’s the version of the S-300 they are providing thats the problem. It’s near the top of the line in effectiveness, and longer range. It makes attacking it or areas it protects problematic. Could WE take it out if we had too? Certainly, at some cost. Could Israel sure, but more costly. Saudi, UAE, Egypt? Not a chance.
If we had a serious government, their responce would be to start providing Ukraine with weapons, and beefing up our frontline NATO allies. Show the Russians their actions have actual consequences. I expect we will instead see a new #Hashtag offensive like #NoGargoylesForAPeacefulIran
So what kind of defence system would be acceptable to the Iranians and to the West?
Is it realistic to expect Iran to give up this ‘I miiiiiight have a nuclear bomb’ deterrence without replacing it with something that actually works against the locals?
They’re not going to sign that nuclear deal while leaving themselves vulnerable to countries like Saudi or Egypt.
[Edited for clarity.]
Claire Berlinski:
I very much think the opposite – but I don’t see how Iran buying S-300s is contributing to a nuclear arms race. It seems like it’s doing the opposite – taking the focus off nuclear arms and putting it back onto more conventional methods of attack and defence. What’s not to approve of, at least in principle?
And let’s not forget – the US and Israel still have nuclear arms. They can still use them on Iran. (I’m not 100% sure, but I suspect that S300s will not be effective against US missiles. Anybody?)
Fair enough – though all the more reason for the US to keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, and for positively engaging with (and thereby empowering) its moderate factions.
If Iran will sign a binding agreement to stop threatening the US and its allies, and to cease supplying material support for terrorists used to kill American soldiers, then maybe we can talk about “their requirements.” Until such time, I’d like to see a hard embargo against all military equipment, at a minimum: if they want an air defense system, maybe they could marry Palestinian terror-rocket technology with smuggled electronic parts bought at Radio Shack bankruptcy sales.
1 Stop supporting terror and undermining other governments in the region.
2. Give up development of nuclear weapons and long range missile systems.
I would not have a problem with them then having a capable deterrence against Saudi etc. Who by the way are not much of an offensive threat to them to begin with. The basic problem is the current regime is an aggresive, expantionist, imperial power in the region that’s undermining what little stability remains there. Saudi and Egypt will have no option but obtain nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them ( hello Pakistan) placing the entire region on a hair trigger.
Nothing serious enough is going to happen to wake America from it’s stupor. There is no further need for an invasion such as 9/11. Pearl Harbor maybe, but these days it might be construed as workplace violence. Concessions like the Iran deal make big show attacks unnecessary. Lawfare, (using our own laws against us) is a non violent way of undermining our civilization. Attacks by Islamic Radicals on other nations won’t excite a serious US response. Isolated, spot violence like Boston gets a lot of media play, but won’t ignite national awareness of dangers from within and without. Open borders doesn’t worry enough people about who or what is sneaking into our country. Enemies understand the value of chipping away our strength. Americans won’t see it coming. They don’t and can’t. Examples abound.
Other comments have illustrated the various, current weakness of the American people, it’s leadership and our culture so no need to elaborate. Without a serious, patriotic core population it’s a slow fade bolstered by a good stock market
If the US was the only source of military hardware in the world, that might be a realistic possibility. That’s what makes foreign policy so challenging – and the outcomes so rarely utterly satisfying – there are always more than two players in any contest.
Russia’s deal with Iran probably insures that Israel will take military action before delivery of the defensive missile systems with Russian operators.
Truly said. I guess the real threats to Iran are posed by the US (and maybe Israel). So that’s the need which rules their finding a replacement for a nuclear threat.
I’m not asking you to agree with them, or to find their cause just – only to consider it from their point of view and suggest an alternative solution which they will accept, even if it may not fully satisfy you – but which is better than the current situation. (Which is the potential for a nuclear arms race to break out, assuming we do not believe the Iranians claim that they don’t want a nuclear weapon because there’s a fatwah against it – which there is, but which I don’t.)
Iow, the perfect may not be achievable (however it’s defined by Iran or the West), but what’s good enough?
I wish I knew what someone has to do to make majority of Americans feel threatened. I am aghast at the average American’s obliviousness at our growing geopolitical peril.
Based on results I would have to say the answer to this question is, “Something like 9/11.” A comforting thought.
Sorry to butt in, but frankly I’m not sure there’s any way for us to decisively ensure that Iran won’t be able to get nuclear weapons – or chemical/biological agents – short of war, by which I mean a real ground war, not just airstrikes. Perhaps I’m too dovish, but I don’t see that sort of conflict as at all worth the possible gains, and so I’m more or less resigned to Iran breaking out as a nuclear power some time relatively soon. Further, I don’t think this was all that avoidable. Iran showed that it was willing to bear harsh sanctions to get a bomb, and I don’t have a ton of faith in the IAEA’s ability to ensure compliance with arms control treaties in nations that have either been coerced or bullied into signing.
Our best hope as I see it is this: first, make it abundantly clear that we will come down like the hammer of God Almighty on the first party who lets things escalate above proxy wars and terrorism. I know, terrorism and proxy wars are awful things, but they beat the pants off of mushroom clouds. Second, we try to engage Iran quietly on the Kurdish issue. As far as I’m aware, Iran has been rather friendly towards the Kurds, and have worked with them against ISIS. Although it will piss off the Turks something fierce, I think an independent Kurdistan would be a very good influence in the region – a party not overtly aligned with either the Iranians or Saudis, and one with tough-as-nails fighters and a history of fairly capable self-government. If we and the Iranians can help birth a fully-independent Kurdish state – even a rump one without most or all of the Kurdish portions of Iran and Turkey – it would not only go some way toward thawing relations between us, but it would also help counterbalance Iranian domination of the rump-Iraq.
None of this means we need to like the Iranians. But if they’re going to be a nuclear power, it is of vital importance that we have at least some channels of communication open. Without the White House-Kremlin hotline, I suspect the Cold War goes very differently. All we have to do in order to win is prevent the Iranians from completely dominating the region, and keep Israel alive. We can afford some Iranian expansion, especially if it comes at the expense of the Saudis and the Gulf States. We just have to be willing to think laterally and be quick on our feet.
Anyway, that’s just my amateurish two cents.
Claire, I still think often about one of your posts from last year; the idea of “waiting for Princip”:
http://ricochet.com/archives/waiting-for-princip/
(and this Michael Malone post too; helpful in context…)
http://ricochet.com/archives/waiting-for-princip-2/
That must have been much more than a year ago, because we were still talking about “the odds of war in the Middle East.”
Now we’re wondering if it can get worse. And it can.
I don’t think I like the tone of your microagression.
Is it just me, or is there something vaguely rotten-smelling coming from the Sykes-Picot borders?