Possible strike on Syria by NATO forces - preparation for war with Iran

Possible strike on Syria by NATO forces - preparation for war with Iran



Moscow is concerned about the decision taken by the EU to strengthen sanctions against some countries without a corresponding resolution of the UN Security Council.

“Russia cannot but be disturbed by the tendency to regularly take unilateral punitive measures in the diplomatic tools of the European Union,” said Alexander Lukashevich, the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Public upheavals that engulfed the states of North Africa and the Middle East caused the change of power in Egypt and Tunisia, thoroughly destabilizing the internal atmosphere in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen and other countries in the region. Against the background of the bloody events in Libya, analysts and experts ask themselves: what is next, what other countries have all chances to be involved in military-political feuds in a wide Islamic space?

In this scenario, for us, the development of events could not fail to attract considerable attention to the statement made recently by the attorney of the Russian Federation to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, who claims that the military alliance is planning a campaign in Syria to overthrow the regime of the current President Bashar Al-Assad. This is done not at all for the liberation of the distressed Syrian people, but for the most part as the preparation of a springboard for the subsequent attack on Iran.

But not only in Brussels are planning to attack the Islamic Republic.

In May of this year, quite interesting judgments were heard from the mouth of the former head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan. From his point of view, if, in order to prevent Iran’s nuclear danger, Israel resorts to a military operation, specifically to the bombardment of Iran’s nuclear facilities, this will be a “stupidest thing”.

It is obvious that, having expressed condemnation of such plans, the former head of the Israeli intelligence, thereby acknowledging that they exist. Possessing multilateral information by the nature of his own activities, Dagan is convinced: Iran has a hidden nuclear infrastructure, working measuredly with legal, civilian. At the same time, the former head of the Mossad pointed out that, according to international rights, any blow to the infrastructure for us will be illegal, because the legal infrastructure is under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Speaking about the difficulties of a potential military strike, Dagan explained: a successful solution of such a task would be extremely difficult. Obviously, in comparison with Iraq, where the Israeli Air Force conducted a similar rally exactly 30 years ago, Iran’s nuclear facilities are located in the provincial depths.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is one of the most politically, economically and militarily powerful countries of the Middle East. In Russia, at the level of mass consciousness, this country is perceived as a sworn enemy of the Western democracies, since it is ruled by the Muslim clergy and is keen on nuclear ambitions. And therefore, with the IRI, you need to keep your ears ...

Russia is not trying to consider Iran as an adversary; on the contrary, Moscow and Tehran continue to strengthen existing ties. Over the past twenty years, both states have proven that they can conduct a normal and constructive dialogue. Of course, this cannot but disturb the United States, which is striving to impose its rules of the game in the region, which is confirmed by the overthrow of the Hussein regime in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Control over the territory of Iran will allow Americans to put pressure on Russia from the Caucasus region and will open additional ways to assist the reactionaries in the North Caucasus and strengthen Georgia’s positions.

And one more moment in this plan: Iran takes 2-e place in the world in terms of gas reserves. However, due to political circumstances, Western firms have no chance to participate in the exploitation of Iranian “blue fuel” deposits and invest in the gas producing branch of the Islamic Republic in order to supply Europe with relatively cheap hydrocarbon raw materials. Iran, Syria and Iraq signed a memorandum on laying a gas pipeline from the South Pars field in Iran to Europe. The project, which costs $ 10 billion, envisages the transit of gas to European countries, including Greece, through a gas pipeline of length 5000 kilometers, which will be laid across Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and further along the Mediterranean Sea to Europe.

Nevertheless, the role and place of the Russian Federation in the Iranian energy sphere, to put it mildly, do not correspond to the potential of both parties. In this area for us, mutual cooperation has broad prospects.

The participation of Russian engineers in the construction of the Bushehr nuclear station is well known, which, however, is not hidden either by Moscow or by Tehran. This plan brought the Russian Federation revenues worth more than $ 1 billion. And the further operation of the nuclear power plant will also provide Moscow with considerable dividends.

Well, if all the same Iran will be attacked? According to the above-mentioned Meir Dagan, this is permissible only as a last resort. Because the strike will unite the masses around the Islamic regime without causing damage to the nuclear weapons program. Moreover, it will untie Tehran’s hands not to adhere to international agreements on the nuclear issue.

The weakening of Iran will significantly strengthen Turkey’s position not only in the Middle East, but also in the troubled Caucasus. It should not be forgotten that just as a result of Teheran’s assistance, Armenia did not yield under pressure from Baku and Ankara, remaining in the geopolitical orbit of the Russian Federation beneficial to it.

The Kremlin is well aware of what could be the escalation of tension around Iran and its friendly Syria. As if in Tehran there is a change of power by the methods of the current ruling regime, this, according to political analysts and analysts, will lead to the dictates of the West throughout the vast Middle East. Given this fact, it becomes clear why Russia and China put a veto on the UN Security Council resolution on Syria, according to which it was planned to attack government forces and overthrow the Assad regime.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

27 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sergh
    Sergh 14 October 2011 08: 34 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Looks like next year we will have more work. I feel something was wrong. Putin oh well you have to think! Do not let me down!
    1. Ivan35
      Ivan35 14 October 2011 19: 20 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Yes, a lot depends on Putin personally! I hope he and his "oligarchs" understand the obvious threats to Russia
      1. Pendosy will come to the Caspian - instead of a friendly border with Iran we get a "front line"
      2. We are next after Iran
      3. Our eternal enemy Turkey will strengthen in the fall of Iran
      1. His
        His 15 October 2011 18: 35 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Where Putin is there, victory. Now there is no stronger and braver leader in Russia. They don’t take fools into intelligence
  2. sancho 14 October 2011 11: 13 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    While there is an opportunity, it is necessary to help Syria and Iran! At least the S-300! Enough already almond and cave in under the Pindos!
    We have balancing levers.

    At least we will have, if I may say so, good, grateful friends in the Middle East. Moreover, in the east, such things are honored for a very long time.

    Otherwise, we will neither have friends, nor economic partners. And, we will have at our side destabilized states. It is not known with which board and chapters. And, accordingly, with the Pindos faces. Which will not stop there!

    They are trying to impose Russia on all sides. And, the Caucasus is a swing point (Mishiko sleeps and sees).
    1. Professor 15 October 2011 10: 49 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      Again C-300? Never before has anyone and any anti-aircraft defense system helped to avoid aggression and even more so to defeat.
      Do you really think that with the desire and the availability of such a quantity and quality of UAVs, electronic warfare and false targets, it will crush the air defense of Syria or Iran, even if the last notorious C-300 have no second combat experience?
      1. Sergh
        Sergh 15 October 2011 11: 41 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And what kind of aggression are you talking about? I can only challenge it with the same name. NATO has not yet encountered even a little resistance, they have not seen, they don’t know how an alien air defense system works, what is an air battle on equal terms. The fact that they have a large raid, so it showed the teachings with the Indians, I think they thought. If I don’t have confidence, I won’t go there. And the EW and UAV system is a children's party. In Georgia, they filled these drones, which KAMAZ did not intermeddle. What are you guys talking about, a UAV is a radio pulse to suppress, detect, a point to suppress. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, this is a bad training ground, it dulls the skill of a specialist, there is no normal confrontation, in other words, relax. And last, EW is a noise canceler and very powerful. Those who have electronic warfare will go to fight with their feet, and not drones, and attack aircraft within sight, reconnaissance with a laser pointer, etc. .. We have experience everywhere, Chechnya, Georgia, Azerbaijan ..., here we need another experience, merikos against Russians . And the rest of NATO does not even pry here, there is no one else there, well, the Baltic states, Poles, gr ... will be meat. They have enough vacuum for everyone.
        1. Professor 15 October 2011 14: 02 New
          • -4
          • 0
          -4
          Do not know how someone else’s air defense system works? You are joking? They even have C-300 in service, they know all the performance characteristics, operating frequencies and means of suppressing them. A couple of examples, 1973 year, the best air defense systems of that time with Soviet calculations could not turn the tide either in the air or on the front as a whole. 2007 year, unknown planes with impunity bombed a secret nuclear facility in Syria, blinding the air defense system.

          And the EW and UAV system is a children's party. In Georgia, they filled these drones, which KAMAZ did not intermeddle.


          And of course you have a photo of these downed UAVs? Share with the people. For example, I have a link to a very high-ranking military of the Russian army who voiced the situation in Ossetia with UAVs something like this: "they fly overhead, but we can’t capture them with anything ...". And is that why Russia urgently bought Israeli UAVs?
          Modern false targets (hundreds of km in radius, have a radar simulator and a marching engine) simulate an airplane so much that one locator will not be able to recognize a fraud in the detected target. No need to compare Georgia with NATO, the latter has a couple of thousand tomahawks and a bank of proven targets.

          Total, if America decides to roll Iran into the Middle Ages, then no Iranian air defense system can prevent this.
          1. His
            His 15 October 2011 17: 00 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Cachete lies Mr. Professor. If we really support Syria, then no NATO will go there.
            1. Professor 15 October 2011 17: 09 New
              • -3
              • 0
              -3
              Lies? Can you argue?
              “Really support” is like “real” boys? Here, I have already offered one volunteer to join the ranks of the valiant Asad, but he prefers it with the wrong hands. Like to send a couple of battalions of paratroopers - let them die. repeat
              1. His
                His 15 October 2011 17: 58 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                It’s not necessary to send paratroopers there, but air defense specialists, techies
                1. Professor 15 October 2011 20: 08 New
                  • -3
                  • 0
                  -3
                  You probably do not know, but the "advisers" in Syria since Soviet times and now there. And in the field of electronic warfare and air defense (I personally knew one pilot who interfered with the Israelis on the Mi-8 - he told a lot of interesting things). So what? Did it help Syria?
  3. DEfindER 14 October 2011 11: 42 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And who knows what about our naval squadron heading for Syria, is this true or rumor?
    1. mitrich
      mitrich 14 October 2011 13: 13 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Truth. Into the eastern Mediterranean, with entry into Syria.
    2. His
      His 15 October 2011 16: 57 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      I think that the squadron is going to calm the NATO thugs a bit, help for Syria. Our squadrons already frustrated the planned attack on Syria under the Soviet Union, only by their presence. NATO members jumped to train on wimps, we don’t have teeth for them, even weakened ones, they are afraid of us
  4. Rashid 14 October 2011 11: 52 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Some strange concern among our leadership somehow does not fit with the decision not to supply purely defensive weapons to Iran - the S300. Only strong air defense can cool the ardor of NATO hawks, who are used to bombing peaceful cities with impunity.
    1. German
      German 15 October 2011 10: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      and yet, in vain do you worry about the S-300 - you probably came up with something else. Russia is not profitable for a weak and defenseless Iran and I do not think that the Russian Federation just took it and refused this deal.
  5. mitrich
    mitrich 14 October 2011 15: 53 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    The Iranian army is one of the ten largest armies in the world. In its combat capabilities, it is not inferior to the Iraqi army of the 1990 model (at the time of the latter's invasion of Kuwait). Accordingly, to defeat Iran, the Americans need a force grouping that is at least similar in strength to the coalition forces in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm (then, I recall, the Americans and their allies had 600 soldiers and officers at their disposal).
    The indicated forces must be concentrated on the Iraqi-Iranian and Afghan-Iranian borders, at least 2 more AUGs must be pulled into the Persian Gulf and the tactical level air force deployed at air bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such a concentration of troops and forces by the world community is simply impossible to miss (for example, the transfer of troops to the Persian Gulf in 1990-1991 lasted at least 6 months).
    And what really is? American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are constantly being reduced, and, first of all, military units are being withdrawn from the zone of a possible theater of operations with Iran. This is how things are in harsh reality. I do not idealize the possibility of Iranian resistance, Iran is unlikely to stand it, if America decides to fight it seriously. Here are just the prerequisites for this, in addition to empty statements in the media, something is not visible. Now the United States, as they say, has already had enough of war, they didn’t even have Libya, not that of Iran. The economic situation in the USA itself does not contribute to the unleashing of a new campaign.
    As for Syria, the situation there is slowly but surely settling down. Assad managed to take control of the situation, and so far did not see that NATO was ready to climb in there. Sanctions are sanctions, but the sluggish alliance campaign in Libya is unlikely to serve as an incentive for NATO in Syria. And the positions of Russia and China in this world are not the kind that can be easily dismissed like this.
    1. APASUS 15 October 2011 00: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: mitrich
      And the positions of Russia and China in this world are not the kind that you can easily dismiss

      The United States has quite serious economic problems that could escalate into a collapse of the economy. The era of saving money has come, and this is perhaps one of the main reasons that can postpone an attack on Iran! The opinion of a weak and decisive Russia in the USA is not seriously interested in anyone at all! The opinion of China will remain an opinion, since the collapse of the USA will lead to disaster in the economy of China itself! All that is beneficial to the United States, all that is beneficial to China!
    2. His
      His 15 October 2011 17: 01 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Americans should not be allowed into Iran, this is an exit to the Caspian, which means American ships near Astrakhan, an exit to the Volga
  6. Max
    Max 14 October 2011 17: 05 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Normas reasoning Mitrich, catch the plus sign. Only there are still two but. First, as we know the best way out of the protracted crisis, this is war. It has always been and surely will be. Second, yes, China and Russia are quite a strong alliance, only their opinions are ultimately laid down in the end. Let us recall Iraq 2003. If the Pindos and the Zionites decide to strike, then this will be a one-sided decision and they wanted to lay down on the UN. I have always considered the UN to be simpler talking.
  7. lightforcer
    lightforcer 14 October 2011 22: 30 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    There will be no blow to Syria. If only Russia had vetoed, NATO would not listen to us. Sarkozy said so: "We are ready for Russia to use the veto." Suddenly, SUDDENLY, China also took advantage of it. Now, if NATO attacks Syria, you can immediately dissolve the UN.
    1. Max
      Max 15 October 2011 00: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      But the UN was not dissolved in 2003. In addition to China and Russia, Germany was also against the war in Iraq. The result we know. With Yugoslavia, almost the same.
    2. Professor 15 October 2011 10: 55 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      I agree, there will be no blow to Syria. NATO is not interested in it: there is no oil, WMD is practically the same. If anyone there gets brain-wise, then this is the ayatul regimen, and there will be no ground operation — they will bomb and sway the power from within, IHMO.
      1. His
        His 15 October 2011 18: 36 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        But what does Israel not bomb for Palestinian shots?
  8. Nick 15 October 2011 00: 10 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    By and large, the United States and NATO wanted to spit on the UN. They act on the principle of "If you can’t, but really want to, then you can" the tragedy of Yugoslavia is another confirmation of this. It’s just that the situation in the world has changed, both political and economic, and also military. The situation for NATO IMHO can now be described as "I really want, but not really."
  9. APASUS 15 October 2011 00: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: lightforcer
    Now if NATO attacks Syria, you can immediately dissolve the UN.

    The UN had to be dissolved right after the first bomb fell on Yugoslavia! The legitimacy of this institution is zero !!! What to expect ???
    1. lightforcer
      lightforcer 15 October 2011 11: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Need to reform the UN. Just not a name change. In the end, the League of Nations was dissolved only after the Second World War.