"But it was a trumped up attack. A pretext for hitting Iranian forces. Iran did not initiate this action. Israel claims it was retaliating against an unprovoked Iranian missile/rocket strike in the Golan Heights. "

The thing is, beside Israel's claim of "hitting Iranian targets" there is no proof to back this up. I am inclined to rather take Mr Fadel's word here, cynically sarcastic as it is:

https://twitter.com/leithfa...

After lying through their teeth about "sarin- and/or chlorine-laced barrel bombs", declaring Syrian positions to be Iranian seems to be the new casus belli to fall back on - entirely on the same level as Gleiwitz.

I entirely agree with that. How many Iranian targets were actually hit? Were any? All the details talk of the targets being Syrian, by their location or other details.

I'm waiting for Netanyahu to say that fragments from the 'Iranian' missiles intercepted by Iron Dome had traces of Sarin that matched Syria's stockpiles, uranium isotopes identical to those found at Parchin and Hassan Nasrallah's fingerprints.

I wonder if there is anything he could say that FOX would start to question before pounding the lectern. Of course they also have the same blind trust in anyone from the Pentagon or CIA.

no references except memory- Nasser asked the UN observers to leave, Egyptian airforce buzzed Dimona, other than that only thing UAR did was to mobilize and close the red sea port of Eilat , they did not initiate hostilities ,

"weak preemptive strikes"

It looks to me as though these strikes were never intended to accomplish anything substantive. This and other recent actions seem more like probing to see what works and what doesn't. The dismal reported performance of the recent US strikes in Syria has to have everyone wondering how much the balance of defense to offense has changed. So they are trying things, anlyzing the outcomes, and trying other things. This may be preparation for something big, but for now all I see is a frantic need to measure the capabilities of the different sides. The actual attacks so far wouldn't have accomplished anything much on the ground even if they had been fully successful.

PT,

Elijah Magnier says the Israelis are extra pissy because they just found out that Iran has been running 'pieces' to the Palestinians with low vis drones. He goes to say that Syria firing ballistic missiles into the Golan is a major escalation. One implication is that this time they fired at military installations, next time they could go after civilians.

What they should fear is Hizbullah.

They are mentioned in the larger context. I wonder what his sources are.

https://ejmagnier.com/2018/...

Monsieurs, have you read this article?
It seems that, really, the only ones at both the US and Israel in favor of withdrawing from the JCPOA are Trump, Bolton, Pompeo, Kushner, Netanyahu, and their dogs.....Clearly for spurious interest .....What´s your input on this?

(...)Because guess who won’t be celebrating? The entire U.S. military
establishment: Defense Secretary James Mattis, who says he has read the
text of the nuclear agreement three times and considers it to be
“pretty robust”; Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford,
who says, “Iran is adhering to its JCPOA obligations” and a U.S.
decision to quit the deal “would have an impact on others’ willingness
to sign agreements”; the head of U.S. Strategic Command, Gen. John
Hyten, who says, “Iran is in compliance with JCPOA” and argues “it’s our
job to live up to the terms of that agreement”; and the head of U.S. Central Command, Gen.Joseph Votel, who says the nuclear deal is “in our interest” because it “addresses one of the principle threats that we deal with from Iran.”

Those are just the generals who are still in uniform. In March, a statement
signed by 100 U.S. national security veterans from across the political
spectrum said the nuclear agreement “enhances U.S. and regional
security” and “ditching it would serve no national security purpose.”
Fifty of the 100 signatories were retired U.S. military officers, including
leading Republicans such as retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as
national security adviser to George H.W. Bush, and retired Gen. Michael
Hayden, who served as director of both the NSA and the CIA under George
W. Bush.

(...)Guess who else isn’t celebrating? The Israeli security establishment. Netanyahu may claim to possess thousands of “secret nuclear files” that show the JCPOA was
“built on lies,” but Israel’s generals and spymasters disagree, including: the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, who says the deal
“with all its faults is working”; the chair of the Israeli Space Agency and award-winning military scientist, Isaac Ben-Israel, who says “the agreement is not bad at all, it’s even good for Israel” because “it averts an atom bomb for 15 years”; the former director of the spy agency Mossad, Efraim Halevy, who says the JCPOA provides a “credible answer to the Iranian military threat, at least for a decade, if not longer”;
the former chief of domestic security agency Shin Bet, Carmi Gillon, who
says the nuclear agreement has helped “make the region, and the world, a
safer place”; the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Amos Yadlin, who says “tearing up the deal would create a dangerous void”; and former Israeli prime minister — and the country’s most decorated soldier — Ehud Barak, who says withdrawing from the deal would be a “mistake.”(...)

I forgot to also address the possible mesdames here, apologies, my bad.....

I note that on Tuesday Colonel Lang said this; "I am told that Israeli electronic counter-measure units started a massive jamming effort against air defense assets in Syria three days ago."

Is it possible that this short-sharp-exchange was really an attempt by the Syrian Arab Army to silence that Electronic Warfare?

As in: maybe the Israelis fired their pair of missiles at Damascus Airport - par for the course in their eyes, nothing out of the ordinary - and then were shocked when the Syrians responded by laying down artillery and rockets on all those IDF EW installations that had oh-so-conveniently been advertising their location for the past week?

Just a thought, and it may be nothing but wishful thinking, but I'd be interested to hear if Colonel Lang knows if all that Israeli jamming came to a very abrupt end on.... oh.... say.... Thursday morning?

Have the Israelis or the Americans released any satellite photos showing all those smashed-to-pieces Iranian bases? So far all I have seen is a single video taken from an Israeli drone as it made its death-dive onto an abandoned Syrian Pantsir-S1.

This Pantsir, apparently
https://www.reddit.com/r/sy...

It took the Americans less than a day to release photos of the sites they struck in their recent missile attack. Surely they have had enough time to collect all the photos they need to do a damage-assessment.

Odd that they haven't done so.

Not abandoned. It had shot all its missiles and was traveling to a recharge depot. The driver (Lt Colonel Ayham Habib) died on the spot and copilot (1st Lt. Ali Essa Mustafa) later in hospital.
Having its radar shut off it was not trackable, yet the drone had locked it before (when it was firing with radar on) and was visually following it.
Twitter user Walid says there was a misunderstanding with another AA operator (another Pantsir?) about providing cover when this one was defenseless.

Anyway, the astounding statements of Israeli military (depleted Iranian force - months back of timeline in build-up of Iranian infrastructure - blahblah) are crap.
My take is that Netanyahu had pressed Putin in that a powerful anti-Iranian action was unavoidable, and had been told something like "Iranians not my business, my 'red line' are Russian servicemen and Assad's life and palace".
Bibi expected the usual stroll through AD, killing some Syrians, hitting some Iranian/Hezbollah depots, coordinated Jihadists hopelessly attacking SAA checkpoints, back home for early breakfast.
Now they are in panic. SAA didn't just defended but retaliated! the much famed Iron Dome exposed as not-so-invulnerable! WTF...?
Israel can't afford having civilians in shelters all the time, it's a blow to the sense of military superiority that they had to rebuild after 2006 debâcle against Hezbollah.
That's why the boasting and bragging: "we destroyed The Iranian Threat, hence we need no more attacking at the moment". IKR?

If more attacks come soon, I am wrong. ATM I agree with some Syrian commentators: the Rules of Engagement are changed, Golan is now free game, Israel should adjust its plans to that for the immediate future.

PT

I think you raised a very important question: why? I studied this question as much as I could. The best answer to the question "why" is in history. Before WWI, in Germany was the situation the way that most money bags and other very influential people were strong supporters of Zionism and harshly suppressed any dissenting opinion. the famous German Rabbi Felix Goldmann, life-long figther against anti-semitism and nazism, therefore felt so threatened by Zionists and their collaborators, that he published his most important heritage, as I see it, not under his own name, but the anonymous label of an "Anti-zionist committee" in Berlin 1913. His most important insight, as I see it, was that the racist German and European stream of thought and Zionism, that later developed into German Nazism, shared the same ugly root: racism. A couple of years ago I translated a couple of sentences by Rabbi Goldmann into english. Quote begin:

If the “racial” moment has acquired a meaning in which nothing counts of everything else, merits, virtues, striving and disposition, if the Jew is outlawed, if you want to depress him into a pariah position, so it is a success, the national belief, the chauvinistic racial madness of our times, has won in diligent work.

And this chauvinist, national racist madness is the theoretical basis, the spiritual soil of Zionism! That’s where it borrowed the specific features of it’s being and it’s effectiveness! Even the utterance of this undeniable and undisputed fact contains the most damning criticism of this pseudo messianic movement. With all clarity the consequences must be imagined of what it must mean for the nature and manifestations of Zionism that it grew up on the same marsh soil as the racial anti-Semitism, this scourge, which we Jews are suffering under so horrible. And it’s always the same water, may it now be called Aryan anti-Semitic, or may it now be colored Jewish-national that comes from the same poisoned wells, and no staining of the world can make it a healthy drink.

If you stand on the position that the national hate speech and racial anti-Semitism is a crime against culture – and who would not – you must also condemn it’s brother in Jewish garb, the national Zionism, because it’s results will be as pernicious as those.

Quoet end.

I think that the most convincing answer to your question: why. Nazism and Zionism both come from the ugly tree of racism, the typical hubris of that, and while the Nazist branch of that school of thinking largely died with the German defeat in WWII, another branch of the same school of thinking, Zionism, sadly, still thrives, and it never went away from the ideological basics of racism, on what Zionism was founded on.

The booklet from Rabbi Felix Goldmann, which he published in the name of an Anti-zionist comitee in Berlin, is transcripted here.

https://nocheinparteibuch.w...

Later publications from major German libraries confirm that this is real, not fake history.

Alexander Mercouris weighs in on Israel's reasons for attacking Syria.

Explaining Israel’s Syrian strike: Israel tries to reverse shift in military balance
Latest Israeli strike primarily intended to defeat Syria’s increasingly effective air defence system; not targeted at Iran
http://theduran.com/israeli...

He believes the goal is mostly to redress the strategic balance. I think that's only a small part of it. In my view the strike is just one more in the Israel game of escalating military attacks on Syria until Syria responds sufficiently to enable Israel to entice the US to attack Syria in a full-scale air campaign.

Israel has been engaging in this pattern since the first couple years of the Syrian conflict. Israel repeatedly fired into Syria in alleged response to artillery and rocket attacks into its territory - no doubt fired by ihadists under Israel's support. But Assad's forces never returned fire until Russia entered the conflict. Now Syria is willing to fire back, but Russia is only involved peripherally by utilizing their superior radar systems integrated into the Syrian AD system.

Mercouris refers to this piece by Eric Zuess, which analyzes who is lying about who started the attack - and concludes that Israel is likely the one who initiated the situation.

Which side is lying about Israel’s missile attack on Syria?
Analysis of reports show Israel’s attack was ‘pre-emptive’ and unprovoked
http://theduran.com/which-l...

I agree. The proof is not irrefutable but there is reason to believe Israel started it. And the reason remains the same: start a war between the US/Israel and Syria.

Russia doesn't want a war with the US or Israel over Syria. Neither the US nor Israel wants a war with Russia over Syria. But Israel does want a war between the US and Syria, as well as between Israel/the US and Hizballah.

These attacks are yet another attempt to get that going. And they will continue until Russia is forced to engage Israel militarily over Syria.

To answer Mr. Tacitus' original question: "Why"?

Because they can.

For better or worse, it is not hard to train anyone or any organization to act in a manner indistinguishable from a sociopath.

@Pat Lang,
Monsieur, I just have posted two different versions of the same comment which were detected as spam by Disqus. I tried one with the link as it is, and the other with the link embedded.
I do not mind the comment not being published, but may be you, and your readers, could find the article referred to interesting, in case you had not already read it over there..... I found it at Mark Sleboda´s Twitter account....I think that it adds information we did not know so far, at least not me....which could contribute to calm moods at many locations, do not you think?

Two interesting pieces that take opposite views of the recent Israel-Syria back-and-forth:

Syria Imposes New Rules of Engagement on Israel
http://thesaker.is/syria-im...

The author discusses what got hit and what didn't by Israel and Syria. It's interesting that many of the targets of Syria missiles were apparently Israeli air defense, radars, and ELINT stations.

Quote:

The Syrian – and not Iranian – response consisted of more than fifty – and not twenty – rockets against four sensitive Israeli military bases in the occupied Golan, which caused material damage and even casualties according to Al-Manar, Hezbollah’s media. These were not reported by the Israeli press because of the draconian military censorship forbidding mentioning Israel’s initial aggression, more than twenty rockets fired on Israel, the identification of their targets and any hint to the damage inflicted, in
order to reassure the population inside and allow the vassal Western capitals to shout their sickening refrain of the sacrosanct-right-of-Israel-to-defend-itself. The Lebanese channel Al-Mayadeen specifically identified the military posts struck: 1/ a military technical and electronic reconnaissance center; 2/ border security and intelligence station 9900; 3/ a military center for electronic jamming; 3/ a military spy center for wireless and wired networks; 4/ a transmission station; 5/ an observatory of precision weapons unit ; 6/ a combat heliport; 7/ the headquarters of the Regional Military Command of Brigade 810; 8/ the command center of the military battalion at Hermon; 9/ winter headquarters of a special alpine unit

End Quote

He also alleges that it had an effect on Israeli perceptions:

Quote:

The journalists and Israeli analysts also pointed out the psychological and economic repercussions of this incident, with more than 20,000 Golan settlers having had to hastily find their way back to the shelters in the middle of the night (how much will they be at the next escalation?), and the beginning of the summer period having been ushered in by a wave of hotel reservation deletions due to fears of a war between Israel and Iran. The Zionist entity, which unabashedly inflicts the greatest loss and damage to the Palestinians and its neighbors, is severely shaken by the slightest
losses, unbearable for Israeli society.

End Quote

The other article questions why the Syrian Pantsir AD unit was taken out, implying incompetence on the part of the Syrians.

Israel Took out a Syrian Pantsir Air Defense Unit, S-200 Radars. Russia: ‘No S-300 Transfer, Syria Has All It Needs’
Russia's explanation for why S-300s aren't on the way to Syria is bizarre and patently untrue
https://russia-insider.com/...

The author cites the destruction of one Pantsir unit and that the rest of the Syrian AD is composed of older S-200 systems to claim that Russia is shortchanging Syria. I disagree, even though I'm in favor of Russia supplying the S-300. I think Syria has done pretty well now that it has an upgraded AD network thanks to Russia and is now willing to engage Israel, knowing that Russia has its back at least enough to make Israel wary of trying to unilaterally start a war with Syria. I think Russia could and should do more but what it's done so far is consistent with Russian interests.

The author claims:

Quote:

The real explanation is that Russia is unwilling to assume the risks and the burdens of the kind of buildup of Syria’s military that would actually take to check the Israelis if the latter decide to be really stubborn about it.

End Quote

That might be true to some extant. Russia obviously doesn't want to fund the entire military buildup of another nation. And that is what would be required if Syria were to be brought up to par with Israel.

But obviously that isn't Russia's goal nor should it be. Russia's goal in Syria is to insure the survival of the government and take out the terrorists threatening that survival. Israel at the moment is not actually threatening Syria's survival. Should it do so, Russia will intervene against Syria.

As I've indicated before, Russia is in my opinion is going to have to at some point engage Israel militarily. But that point is not now.

Why Is Israel Behaving Like Hitler's Germany? by Publius Tacitus. 11 May 2018.

This is a specious comparison at best. False Flags are not unique to the Third Reich and the Gleiwitz Incident was to provide long term political cover for the invasion and occupation of a Sovereign State. The accusation against Iran for its almost certainly mythical attack on the Golan Heights is simply a public relations convenience to cover a tactical manoeuvre.

This said the parallels between N@zi Ideology and Jewish Belief are blatantly obvious and have been noted numerous times, most famously and effectively by George Steiner in his novel The Portage to San Cristobal of AH.

In this alternative history The Fuhrer has escaped the Berlin Bunker and sought refuge in the jungles of the Amazon Basin where he is tracked down by a team of Jewish N@zi hunters. Here due to the exigencies of the situation (it looks increasingly unlikely that any of them will live to reach safety) the team decide to try him for his crimes and appoint a native to judge his guilt or innocence. Steiner writes AH’s defence brilliantly but most devastatingly by his final observation. ”Should you not honour me who have made Zion a reality?”

It is a measure of the unsettling nature of the ideas in the book that Steiner himself (he is Jewish) has been accused of anti-Semitism.

This is interesting if true...

White House Examining Plan to Help Iranian People Oppose Regime
http://freebeacon.com/natio...

Supposedly the White House is not interested in attacking Iran militarily, but intends to try to stir up Iranian opposition to the ruling government.

All I can say is: Good luck with that. Iran's population does not consider its form of government to be "oppressive". While a lot of the population probably thinks its government could do better - DUH! what population doesn't? - they aren't going to overthrow it as a favor to the US.

And Israel certainly isn't going to go along with some lame effort to get the Iranians to overthrow their own government. Israel wants a US military solution to Iran. Period.

Like every other color revolution, the White House is merely looking for an excuse to intervene.

From the article cited -

""More than one third of Iran's population is minority groups, many of whom already seek independence," the paper explains. "U.S. support for these independence movements, both overt and covert, could force the regime to focus attention on them and limit its ability to conduct other malign activities." "

But Iran, as Babak points out, is not Syria. Is there really a prospect of fragmenting or fully destabilising Iran by overt or covert intervention?

If not then this looks like Yemen in the '50's or Xinyiang now. Rebellion or civil disorder that has little prospect of success and that merely serves to keep the pot boiling.

This leads to the central government in the country targeted clamping down on groups that might be rebellious. That repression leads to worse conditions for minority groups, not better.

The resultant general paranoia in the targeted countries leads to further abuses of power by their central governments, abuses that can themselves be pointed at as reason for further Western attempts at covert destabilisation.

This also severely impedes natural political or social development in such countries.

An example is the women's rights movement in Iran. I have heard activists say in interviews that their attempts to further women's rights are sympathetically regarded by many Iranians. Nevertheless many Iranians are scared of supporting them because of the suspicion that such a movement might be part of a Western attempt at covert destabilisation. Hence Western intervention or fear of such intervention militates against natural development. It does not assist it.

Such considerations will be of little interest to the Western governments engaged in covert destabilisation. They will regard anything that might destabilise the target countries as a gain, whether it damages normal political development or not. But there are many supporting those Western governments who still genuinely believe such interventions are done for R2P reasons. They genuinely believe that in the end the populations of the targeted countries will benefit.

If it could be got across to them that this covert intervention in fact goes dead against the interests or the welfare of the populations in the targeted countries, never mind the governments, then perhaps we would see that R2P component of support for Western intervention reducing.

"Do you even now not realise what you have done?" is a question there is little point putting to Western governments, as Putin found out at the UN. It's a question, however, that would trouble the conscience of many supporting those Western governments, could that question but be got across to them.

Iran exists because of Shia religion. That is the basis of both the state and the culture of that country. Attempts at destabilizing Iran through ethnic or religious minorities will always end the same way as it did in England; "The Red Coats hanging the rebels from the nearest trees."

Comparison with Yemen is plain ignorant, that is like comparing France with Honduras.

Persian has been the language of culture and gover ments for 1200 years in those areas. There are tens of millions of Persian speakers in Central Asia and in Afghanistan.

I agree with you that neither R2P crowd, nor the Do-Gooders in the West have understood the ideas of Hobbes on State.

Excuse me for meddling into this converstion, but after travelling through Iran and parts of Central Asia I would like to make some points.

First, I do not think that Iran exists because of Shi´a religion and that that is the basis of both the state and culture of that country, as you state, since Persian culture is much more ancient than the promotion of the Shi´a at power in what it is today Iran, part of former Persian Empire.

The adoption of Shi´a religion and creation of a powerful Shi´a clerical class had more to do with differentiation from and opposition to the Ottoman Empire, mainly of Sunni confession, especially in zones of Sunni majority like current Afghanistan which formerly belonged to the Persian Empire. In fact, the current borders of Iran and Afghanistan respond preciselly to the stubborness of the Afghans to convert to Shi´a islam.

Thus, it was the Safavids who converted to Shi´a Islam in the early sixteenth century, made Shi´a state religion and fostered the onwards powerful Shi´a clerical class.

But, proof of the fight to conserve its Persian roots after islamization of a country which previously was mainly of Zoroastrian religion, is to be found in movements like the Shu´ubbiya which led the resurgence of Persian national identity already so early as in the 9th and 10th centuries...in response to the priviledged status of the Arabs...

Thus, what we have today in Iran, and that was what I observed there, is a population very proud of its ancient, wise and rich Persian culture with all its amalgams coming from all the peoples who formed part of the Persian Empire. This is to be seen through the veneration Iranians feel towards their poets and philosophers, of varied confessions and ethnic origins, which is widely spread amongst all layers of society.

On the impossibility to agitate minorities in Iran against current Shi´a government, I think that the religious minority reserved seats in the Iranian Parliament ( Majlis ), cemented in the Constitution since early 20th century, may work as a kind of blindage against such intends.

In fact, historically, minorities have never suffered persecution in Persian lands, on the contrary, it is there where some of them found refuge and protection under the rulers like was the case of the Armenian minority in Isfahan.

On a final note, as well as there are tens of millions of Persian speakers in Central Asia and Afghanistán, also the Turkic influence is not to be despised. In fact, it is said that if you are able to speak Turkish, you will be able to travel along the whole ancient Silk Road making yourself being understood more or less with all the peoples you will find in the way....

Also, as a curiosity, an important sector of the population of cities like Samarkanda or Bukhara in current Uzbekistan are of Persian origins, this is obvious by their phisical features, which resemble a lot those of nowadays´ Iranians. These people hold highly their Persian ancestry and when told about the beauties in Iran, they burn with desire to travel there, as it is expressed by their longing eyes.....

You think I do not know all of that?

Your chronology is correct but your sociology is not.

Case in point; Azeri Turks have more in common with Turks of Central Asia than with Persian culture. Yet they are stubbornly Iranians. And the Persians of Central Asia or Afghanistan, have no affinity for Iran, barring the Shia among them.

Ancient Iran is largely a glorious lie that so many Persians belive in. It is a minor component to shia Islam.

Babak - I was wrong about the '50s. It was the 60's. Googled it and found this -

"So Britain decided to engage in a covert campaign (in the Yemen) to promote those forces recognised as ‘shifty’, ‘treacherous’ and ‘despotic’ to undermine those recognised as ‘popular’ and ‘more democratic’ in order to ensure that the threat of the former did not spread. Crucially, they did so in the knowledge that their clients DID NOT STAND A CHANCE OF WINNING (my capitals). The campaign was undertaken simply to cause trouble for the Republicans, and the Egyptians, in Yemen, while they were known to hold the overwhelming majority of the country and the centres of population.

" The Yemenis were simply unpeople, a tool to be used in British strategy – similar, therefore, to the Kurds of Iraq used to pressure regimes in Baghdad and the dissident colonels in Indonesia secretly supported by Britain in the 1950s to destabilise the government in Jakarta. The files are crystal clear on this point. Harold Macmillan noted in February 1963 that ‘in the longer term a republican victory was inevitable’. He told President Kennedy that:

" ‘I quite realise that the Loyalists [sic] will probably not win in Yemen in the end but it would not suit us too badly if the new Yemeni regime were occupied with their own internal affairs during the next few years’."

https://kenanmalik.wordpres...

That last sentence reflects what I understand to have been our Yemen policy of that time.

The idea was that although the British authorities knew there was no prospect of "regime change", and certainly not of "pacifying" the area, they still felt it was to their temporary advantage to keep the fighting in the Yemen going.

For me that is one of the clearest demonstrations of what we now term the neocon mindset. Never mind who gets killed or what gets destroyed. It's legitimate to do it if it serves our "interests".

Of course it's the job of any government to push for the national interest. But as Putin points out there has to be some limit on how far that goes. To my mind stirring up conflict in a foreign country with such results, and that for the sake of transient or even non-existent benefit, comes too close to little boys pulling legs off frogs for the fun of it to be anything near acceptable.

One can just imagine Kennedy looking at that old con merchant Macmillan - he was always felt to be that even in English political circles, I believe - and thinking "Shifty bastard. At it again."

It is perhaps in this context that the comparison with Iran is apt. I don't believe, and nor do you, that the suggestions for the covert destabilisation of Iran detailed in the SST comments above would work. If those suggestions were tried they would only cause further misery and suffering to the Iranian population. Just as in the 60's Yemen, destabilisation in Iran would be for the sake of it, and not from any pretence that we could improve the lot of the Iranians.

My point is that if our fellow citizens could be made aware of that they might cease to support such destructive policies, wherever they are pursued.

I hope that clears that up.

Hobbes - one of the foundational thinkers for the political philosophy of the modern world, they say. Tough on the modern world if so, say I. I really don't like him. Nor, I suspect, do you so perhaps we agree on that one.

Thank you for your detailed explanations. I have seen many dissidents, often young people who are easily persuaded by their elders to burn their lives away over unreachable goals.

Thanks for sharing. I suppose we can call this "The Principle of Negative Correlation". I think it may be extendable to a wider range of social and political phenomena.
In regards to the prospects of induced instability in Iran, I guess the Israeli experts would be the best. My overall impression is that they are very pessimistic about such a possibility.

SSG;s 'white paper' is likely some variation of this plan:

<● The U.S. should introduce a resolution in the UN Security Council
calling for free and fair elections in Iran to be help immediately.
These elections must be monitored by the UN and include U.S. observers.
Russia and China are likely to veto such a resolution, of course. The UN
Security Council must be put on notice that any veto of this motion
will be regarded as the end of its legitimacy as a venue for addressing
the world’s problems. If they fail us this time, a new organization
should be built by free nations to fulfill the purposes the United
Nations was meant to achieve.

● The U.S. Treasury Department should place immediate sanctions on
regime leaders and place any monies seized in a fund held in trust for a
Free Iranian Government. Corrupt officials have stolen the people’s
wealth. The United States should lead an international effort to recover
as much of that money as possible. The funds can represent a first
foundation for the success of their new government.

● The United States should consider the establishment of a safe zone
in or near Iran, perhaps in the Kurdish region of Iran or northern Iraq.
Here regime opponents can gather and receive training in how to replace
their government, including lessons in statecraft, diplomacy, and
constitution-drafting.

● The President should consider a partial revocation of the travel
ban on Iranian nationals. Regime opponents who wish to come to the
United States to receive training in preparation for the replacement of
the corrupt regime should be welcome. This will show the truth of the
President’s word that the United States is only opposed to the regime,
but has solidarity with the people of Iran.

● Finally, we endorse this call to instate new sanctions on Iran, reinstate sanctions on the Iranian regime, or to refuse to continue to waive such sanctions. New sanctions should target the regime specifically, taking care not to add to the suffering of the people.

None of these guarantee success, and all come with major risks
associated. But absent U.S. leadership is meaningful concrete ways, the
regime will kill and imprison the protesters and another opportunity for
peace will have been lost. That will make the world less safe for
Americans and all others. The time for action is now.>

Supporting the People of Iran
https://securitystudies.org...

Which organization do you represent in this comment?

Ha Ha, Well sir, it's certainly not these Gaffneyite clowns at the SSG.

Answer my question or be banned.

I don't represent any damn organization. I represent myself and furthermore what I posted was to show what they are advocating. I most certainly don't endorse it.

It was not clear that you did not endorse it.

Two things struck me about his talk.

My favorite insightful bit was these two paragraphs:
In the absence of strategy, a desire to sustain relationships in the region by supporting clients’ actions drives U.S. policy. The clients themselves have moved beyond relationship-driven diplomacy and are into transactionalism. The extent to which the U.S. now follows, rather than leads, its client states in the region is reflected in the Trump administration’s obeisance to Israeli and Saudi hostility to Iran and the “JCPOA.”

Meanwhile, minimal commitments of force accompanied by deft diplomacy have enabled Russia to exploit the Syrian tragedy to become the most sought-after external actor in the region’s affairs. Turkey, once outside the region and Russia’s NATO enemy, is again part of the Middle East, this time cooperating with Russia there more often than not. Egypt, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are all cultivating ties with Moscow. Their objective is to correct over-reliance on the United States by diluting it.
-----------------

I think this is a succinct overview of the power evolving power dynamics. I personally think transactionalism is a better approach anyway if one is really looking after one's self interest. I am glad to see these Middle Eastern countries get out from under the "mastery" of the US and focus more on their destinies.

OTOH... Starting with the title, I found my self irritated with how paternalistic and neo-colonial the underlying assumptions of the talk are. Though of course this is not surprising considering the audience and the nature of the Borg's exceptionalist beliefs. Treating the Middle East with such paternalistic and neo-colonialist attitudes was bound to backfire eventually. Now that China and Russia can offer other options, some of them will be preferable.

re: Putin cultivating Netanyahu

Yes, that makes sense. Since Putin isn't getting anywhere in dealing directly with the US due to TDS and related anti-Russia hysteria, going to the "source" (Israel) is an excellent strategy. Another example of Putin's mastery of the art of strategic diplomacy.

I have been pondering the related S-300 dance. At one level there is likely a concern over escalation, and in contrast with Pax Americana, Putin is much more cautious about arming his allies. But I wonder if the focus on this one particular weapon is a bit of a red herring, and is providing cover for other types of weapons help the Russians don't want to talk about. Maybe some of the weapons geeks here would have a better idea of what that might be.

IIRC, Chas Freeman was Obama's original choice for appointment as National Security Advisor, but caved to opposition to him by the Neocons and AIPAC. What might the counterfactual history have been?

Russia reverses on S-300.
https://www.zerohedge.com/n...

Do any of you have any good references that address the issue of whether the Six-Day War in June 1967 was also an unprovoked attack by Israel on an Arab state?

I just posted a link to Norman Finkelstein's review of Michael Oren's "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East".....in which he makes several good points. It was deleted as spam so I'll try again.

'67 is now generally accepted as an unprovoked attack. Nasser never did enforce the Straits of Tiran blockade, he referred it to the World Court. His troops were in defensive positions according to the delightfully named U.N. observer, Odd Bull (a Scandinavian). Begin admitted as much.

I found this:

Israel Deceived the World in 1967, and Paid the Price for It in 1973
Israel pretended to be the victim during the Six-Day War, and succeeded in
deceiving the world. But it failed to prepare properly for the Yom Kippur War, fearing it would be blamed for starting the next war
https://www.haaretz.com/isr...

I think it is generally conceded now that Israel launched a "preemptive" war in 1967 but that Egypt was not really intending to attack Israel, which makes the war a lot less "preemptive" and more "premeditated and opportunistic" for Israel.

It's well established that Egypt had announced a blockade of Israel's access to the Red Sea (international waters) via the Straits of Tiran. Israel has characterized this as an act of war. So I think it is safe to say that Israel's attack was "provoked" - whether it was legal under international law I don't know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

Norm Finkelstein makes some good points:

http://www.ussliberty.org/o...

I do not sit at the keyboard all night waiting four golden thoughts.

If I am reading you correctly you sound a bit miffed. I meant no offense. I am in NZ, likely a very different time zone. I thought the information of sufficient interest to the questioner as to be worth another try.

I believe that statement to be untrue. What Nasser said was that the Egyptian navy would not allow Israeli-flagged vessels to transit the Strait of Tiran (which, despite your misleading phrasing, is itself not "international waters", it is clearly Egyptian territorial waters).

The reason why that isn't sufficient as a casus belli is that both the Egyptians and the Israelis knew full well that there WEREN'T any Israeli-flagged ships plying that route, and hadn't been for several years.

So, no, it is not at all "well established" that there was an Egyptian "blockade", precisely because both sides knew that there was nothing to "block". And, as Brewerstroupe mentions, Nasser was quite happy to refer the matter of wether or not Egypt could decide who could transit its waters to the World Court.

There was posturing, and bravado, sure, there was. But neither of those is grounds to launch a surprise attack.

Interesting, but, sources? I immediately discount unsourced assertions.