S-300 will not prevent potential Israeli strike on Iran

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4646802,00.html

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Monday he was lifting a ban on the sales of the S-300 missile defense system to Iran. The system is intended to protect against missiles, rockets and hostile aircrafts, and has different versions with different varying capabilities. The initial sale was completed in 2007-2010, but never actualized because of Israeli and US pressure. But Monday's news might not be as dangerous or earth shattering as the Russians and Iranians would want you to think.

During the time of the initial sale, Israel was reluctant to sell UAVs and advanced weapons systems to Georgia, Russia's local foe. At the same time, the Russians were training Iranians – including elite Revolutionary Guard forces – in the system's workings on Russian soil. Should the Iranians receive the system any time soon, it would be operational very quickly. Moreover, it would not be farfetched to assume that some parts of the S-300 system (like radar or some of its controls) have already arrived in Iran, even if the launchers have yet to do so.

It is hard to assess to what extent an Iranian-controlled S-300 will hinder the ability of Israel, the US or Arab states to attack Iranian nuclear and military facilities. Firstly, we don't know exactly what make of the S-300 Russia plans to transfer to Iran or its effective range for ballistic missiles, rockets or cruise missiles fired from over 150 km.

Secondly, both the Israeli and the American air forces, as well as the American fleet, have trained in Cyprus, Greece and other places where Russian technology is available, and thus it is safe to assume they are well-versed in the system's ins-and-outs. It is also safe to assume they have developed technological means to evade the system's defense mechanisms.

[guillaumeb]

1. when the US and/or its allies possess weapons they are defensive

and allowable. When Russian or most Middle Eastern countries possess weapons they are offensive threats. (Even if they were sold to the Middle Eastern countries by the US at one point.)

[shira]

3. No comparison b/w western liberal democracies & totalitarian regimes. n/t

[guillaumeb]

5. of course not! How could you even think I would do so?

The US spends more on war than every country on earth combined. No comparison there.

The US has over 700 military bases in nearly every country. Russia has 1. No comparison there.

The US is attempting to encircle Russia and China as a means of maintaining the dominance of the US Empire. It also reserves to itself the "right" to interfere anywhere to ensure continued dominance.

And given that the US does extensive business with totalitarian regimes like China, Egypt, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia, obviously money counts more than any professed principles to the US.

[shira]

6. Are western liberal democracies no better than totalitarian regimes in your view? n/t

[guillaumeb]

8. ask the millions of dead, wounded, poisoned Vietnamese

if they would rather have been killed by western colonialists or Chinese colonialists. Sorry, you cannot ask the dead. But I am certain that if the dead could speak they would say that death that is dealt out by western liberal democracies is preferable to death from totalitarian regimes.

Ask the millions of enslaved Africans, or the First People victims of US genocide, or the dead from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the many thousands of victims of US aggression in South America if there is a difference who did what to them.

ALL empires behave with extreme violence. It applied for the Macedonians, the Romans, the British, the many smaller European imperialists, and still applies for the US.

There can be more personal freedom in western liberal democracies.

[shira]

11. Hmm. Out of all countries, which is most ideal in your opinion?

There has to be some that are better than the rest.

Or a few that are even better than those.

I'm curious.

[guillaumeb]

12. I have lived in two countries.

Both are similar, being western social democracies. One has a better healthcare and childcare system, as well as higher average income and lower levels of debt, and ranks better on the GINI coefficient of inequality.

The other, where I live now, is the US.

I am not saying that any country is perfect, nor that any leaders or parties are perfect. But in any discussion of national behavior it is vital that the historical record be examined. And the problem is that in many countries the historical record as taught is sanitized to the point of the ridiculous. The US history that I read in secondary and University level was totally silent about the labor movement, totally silent about womens' issues, and nearly totally silent about race issues. It was not so much objective history as a national myth.

As to this post, no country exists in a vacuum, no actions are taken in a vacuum. To discuss a single incident, like violence in a refugee camp, without understanding why the camp exists is fruitless. The mass media does a superb job of decontextualizing what it reports so that every incident that happens anywhere in the world is treated as an isolated incident.

Without a sense of historical record, how can we make sense of the "why" behind actions that nations take? The media is good at the who, what, where, and when, of events, but deficient as to the why.

What are your thoughts on this? I also am curious.

[shira]

15. Agree with you on media. To figure out anything....

....you have to read at least 3-4 sources with different perspectives in order to get an idea of what's really happening.

I don't believe western liberal democracies are perfect by any means. But they're the best we have. Going back thousands of years, they're a far cry better than all the authoritarian, fascist, or totalitarian governments that have existed. What I find fascinating are the people who relentlessly attack western liberal democracies 100x more than the more repressive non-democracies out there. That gives me the impression they side with those fascist governments over the liberal western ones.

[guillaumeb]

16. we agreed on something.

I am not an apologist for fascism, or other forms of totalitarian government. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and China are considered friends and trading partners by the US and their governments are brutally repressive, yet other countries with similar repressive governments are called enemies and "state sponsors of terrorism".

Amazing how geopolitics can trump any supposed concern for human rights.

[bunnies]

2. If Israel wants a war so bad they should just fucking do it.

This threatening, posturing and lobbying is getting ridiculous.

[oberliner]

4. Posturing is better than war

Much preferable in my opinion.

[bunnies]

7. I agree but I think its a joke at this point.

Israel is making Iran look sane. Bibi's lighting his hair on fire because he doesnt want peace. With anyone. The Republicans would make him President of the US if they could. That should tell us something.

[oberliner]

10. "The Republicans would make him President of the US if they could"

It already happened. His name was Ronald Reagan.

[Little Tich]

9. I don’t like it when an advanced weapons system is exported to the ME.

In this case, however, it could well be the deterrent that stops a new war in the ME.

I actually remember a time when Israel was the good guy in the ME.

Boy, have things changed since then...

[n2doc]

13. A contrarian view

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/13/putin-s-missile-could-make-u-s-attacks-on-iran-nearly-impossible.html

[Little Tich]

14. The article from the Daily Beast seems to be more reliable.

The OP looks like it’s been cut and pasted from Debkafile, and they are always wrong, no exceptions.