The Saker: “AngloZionist attack options against Iran”

Donate

Written by The Saker; Originally appeared at The Unz Review

In the past few days, the Internet has been flooded with a frankly silly rumor about the US soliciting Australia’s assistance in preparing an attack on Iran.  Needless to say, that report does not explain what capabilities Australia would possess which the USA would lack, but never-mind that.  Still, the report was picked up in too many places (see herehere and here ) to be ignored.  In one of these reports, Eric Margolis has described what such a US attack could look like.  It is worth quoting him in full:

Outline of a possible AngloZionist attack on Iran

The US and Israel will surely avoid a massive, costly land campaign again Iran, a vast, mountainous nation that was willing to suffer a million battle casualties in its eight-year war with Iraq that started in 1980. This gruesome war was instigated by the US, Britain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to overthrow Iran’s new popular Islamic government.

The Pentagon has planned a high-intensity air war against Iran that Israel and the Saudis might very well join. The plan calls for over 2,300 air strikes against Iranian strategic targets: airfields and naval bases, arms and petroleum, oil and lubricant depots, telecommunication nodes, radar, factories, military headquarters, ports, waterworks, airports, missile bases and units of the Revolutionary Guards.

Iran’s air defenses range from feeble to non-existent. Decades of US-led military and commercial embargos against Iran have left it as decrepit and enfeebled as was Iraq when the US invaded in 2003. The gun barrels of Iran’s 70’s vintage tanks are warped and can’t shoot straight, its old British and Soviet AA missiles are mostly unusable, and its ancient MiG and Chinese fighters ready for the museum, notably its antique US-built F-14 Tomcats, Chinese copies of obsolete MiG-21’s, and a handful of barely working F-4 Phantoms of Vietnam War vintage.

Air combat command is no better. Everything electronic that Iran has will be fried or blown up in the first hours of a US attack. Iran’s little navy will be sunk in the opening attacks. Its oil industry may be destroyed or partially preserved depending on US post-war plans for Iran.

The only way Tehran can riposte is by staging isolated commando attacks on US installations in the Mideast of no decisive value, and, of course, blocking the narrow Strait of Hormuz that carries two-thirds of Mideast oil exports. The US Navy, based nearby in Bahrain, has been practicing for decades to combat this threat.

There is a lot of interesting material in this description and I think that it is worth looking into it segment by segment.

First, I can only agree with Margolis that neither the USA nor Israel want a ground war against Iran: the country is too big, the Iranians too well prepared and the size of the force needed for such a campaign way beyond what the Empire can currently muster.

Second, Margolis is absolutely correct when he says that Iran does not have the means to stop a determined AngloZionist (missiles and aircraft) attack. Iran does have some modern air-defense capabilities, and the attackers will sustain a number of losses, but at this point, the size disparity is so huge that the AngloZionists will achieve air superiority fairly soon and that will give them an opportunity to bomb whatever they want to bomb (more about that later).

[Sidebar: assessing Iranian air defenses is not just a matter of counting missiles and launchers, however, and there is much more to this.  According to one Russian source Iran has 4 long range anti-aircraft missile S-300PMU-2 systems (with 48Н6Е2 Mach 6,6 interceptor missiles), 29 military anti-aircraft self-propelled missile complexes Tor-M1, some fairly advanced anti-aircraft missile complexes like the Bavar-373, a passive electronically scanned array radar (whose illumination and guidance system almost certainly includes modern Chinese electronics) and an impressive number of radar systems early warning radar of the Russian, Chinese and Iranian manufacture.   This category includes systems like the high-potential long-range radar detection and target designation Najm-802 radar (has 5120 receiving and transmitting modules, operates in the decimeter S-range and is designed to detect ballistic targets and small elements of high-precision weapons), the Russian meter radar “Nebo-SVU” advanced early warning and control system with a fixed-array radar, as well as a meter range early warning radar of the type “Ghadir” .  Most importantly, these radars are all integrated into the network-centric missile defense system of Iran. For example, the “Ghadir” radar is able to detect not only the tactical fighters of the USAF, the KSA and Israel, but also ballistic missiles immediately after launch (at a distance of about 1100 km). As a result, the presence of Iranian radio engineering units of multi-band radar detection facilities in the Western direction (the Persian Gulf) will allow the Iranians to prepare a flexible echeloned air defense to defend against high-intensity missile strikes.  And yet, no matter how much the Iranians have improved their air defenses, the sheer number of of missiles (including the new advanced AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile) low observable standoff air-launched cruise missile delivered by B-1B bombers) means that the Iranian defenses will inevitably be overwhelmed by any massive attack.]

I therefore also agree with Margolis that the Iranian oil industry cannot be protected from a determined US/Israeli attack.  In fact, the entire Iranian infrastructure is vulnerable to attack.

Margolis’ final paragraph, however, makes it sound like Iran does not have credible retaliatory options and that I very much disagree with.

Example one: Iranian capabilities in the Strait of Hormuz

For one thing, the issue of the Strait of Hormuz is much more complicated than just “the US Navy has practiced for years to combat this threat“.  The reality is that Iran has a very wide range of options to make shipping through this strait practically impossible.  These options range from underwater mines, to fast craft attacks, to anti-shipping missiles, to coastal artillery strikes, etc.

[Sidebar: Therein also lies a big danger: the Israelis and or the US could very easily organize a false flag attack on any ship in the Strait of Hormuz, then accuse Iran, there would be the usual “highly likely” buzzword from all the AngloZionst intelligence agencies and, voilà, the Empire would have a pretext to attack Iran.]

In fact, the mere fact of issuing a threat to shipping through this narrow body of water might well deter insurances from providing coverage to any ships and that might stop the shipping all by itself.  Should that not be enough, Iran can always lay even a limited amount of mines, and that will be enough (please keep in mind that while the USN could try to engage in mineclearing operations, to do so right off the coast of Iran would expose USN minesweepers to an extreme danger of attack).

Margolis does mention this issue when he writes:

While Iran may be able to interdict some oil exports from the Arab states and cause maritime insurance rates to skyrocket, it’s unlikely to be able to block the bulk of oil exports unless it attacks the main oil terminals in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf with ground troops. During the Iran-Iraq war, neither side was able to fully interdict the other’s oil exports.

However, I believe that grossly under-estimates the Iranian capabilities in this context.  Let’s take one example, the Iranian submarine force.

The Iranian submarine force is a highly specialized one.  According to the 2018 Edition of the IISS’s Military Balance, the Iranians currently have 21 submarines deployed:

  • 3 Taregh-class diesel-electric submarine  (Russian Kilo-class Project-877EKM)
  • Fateh-class coastal submarine
  • 16 Ghadir-class midget submarines
  • Nahand-class midget submarine

When most people hear “diesel-electric,” they think of old diesel trucks, and are not impressed, especially when these are contrasted with putatively “advanced” nuclear attack submarines. This is, however, a very mistaken opinion because submarines can only to be assessed in the environment they are designed to operate in. Naval geography is typically roughly divided into three types: blue water (open ocean), green water (continental shelves) and brown water (coastal regions). Nuclear attack submarines are only superior in the blue water environment where autonomy, speed, diving depth, weapon storage capacity, advanced sonars, etc. are crucial. In comparison, while diesel-electric submarines are slower, need to resurface to recharge their batteries and are typically smaller and with fewer weapons onboard, they are also much better suited for green water operations. In shallow brown water, midget submarines reign, if only because nuclear attack submarines were never designed to operate in such an environment. Now take a quick look at the kind of environment the Strait of Hormuz constitutes:

The Saker: "AngloZionist attack options against Iran"

Notice the interesting combination of very shallow and shallow depth typical of brown water and then the green water type of environment when going further into the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea.  With this in mind, let’s see what kind of submarine force Iran has acquired/developed:

For brown water operations (Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz) Iran has a relatively large and capable fleet of midget submarines. For green water operations (the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea), Iran has three formidable Taregh/Kilo-class submarines (which are even capable of limited blue water operations, though with much less autonomy, speed, armament or sonar than a nuclear attack submarine).  Just like “diesel-electric”, the term “midget” submarine makes it sound that we are talking about a toy or, at best, some primitive third world hack which, at best, could be used to smuggle drugs. In reality, however, the Iranian “midgets” can carry the same heavyweight torpedoes (533 mm) as the Kilos, only in smaller quantities. This also means that they can carry the same missiles and mines. In fact, I would argue that Iranian Ghadir-class “midget” submarines represent a much more formidable threat in the Persian Gulf than even the most advanced nuclear attack submarines could.

[Sidebar: the USA has stopped producing diesel-electric submarines many years ago because it believed that being a hegemonic power with a typical (aircraft carrier-centric) blue water navy it had no need for green or brown water capabilities. Other countries (such as Russia, Germany, Sweden and others) actively pursued a diesel-electric submarine program (including so-called “air-independent propulsion” – AIP – ones) because they correctly understood that these submarines are much cheaper while being also much better suited for coastal defensive operations.  Ditching diesel-electric submarines was yet another major mistake by US force planners; see this article on this topic.  The new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer were supposed to partially palliate to this lack of green and brown capabilities, but both turned out to be a disaster]

The Saker: "AngloZionist attack options against Iran"

Ghadir-class submarine

The Russian Kilo-class submarines are some of the most silent yet heavily armed submarines ever built, and they could potentially represent a major threat to any US naval operations against Iran.  However, we can be pretty sure that the USN tracks them 24/7 and that the Kilos would become a prime target (whether in port or at sea) at the very beginning of any AngloZionist attack. But would the USN also be capable of keeping track of the much smaller (and numerous) Iranian midget submarines? Your guess is as good as mine, but I personally very much doubt that, if only because these relatively small subs are very easy to hide. Just take a look at this photo of a Ghadir-class submarine and imagine how easy it would be to hide them or, alternatively, create decoy looking just like the real thing. Yet this midget submarine’s torpedoes could sink any vessel in the Persian Gulf with a single torpedo.

While the US definitely has a lot of very capable reconnaissance and intelligence capabilities available to try to locate and then destroy these threats, we also know that the Iranians have had decades to prepare for this scenario and that they are truly masters at what is called maskirovka in Russian military terminology: a combination of camouflage, concealment, deception, and misdirection. In fact, the Iranians are the ones who trained Hezbollah in Lebanon in this art and we all know what happened to the Israelis when they confidently waltzed into southern Lebanon only to find out that for all their reconnaissance/intelligence capabilities they were unable to deal with even a relatively primitive (technologically speaking) Hezbollah missile capability. For all the patriotic flag-waving, the truth is that if the Iranians decide to block the Strait of Hormuz the only option left for the US will be to land a force on the Iranian shore and engage in a limited but still extremely dangerous offensive land-attack operation. At this point, whether this counter-attack is successful or not will be irrelevant, as there will be so much combat activity in this narrow bottleneck that nobody will even consider to bring ships through it.

I also believe that Margolis is wrong when he writes that all Iran could do would be to stage “isolated commando attacks on US installations in the Mideast of no decisive value“.  One very real Iranian option would be to strike US targets (of which there are plenty in the Middle-East) with various missiles.  Furthermore, Iran can also launch missiles at US allies (Israel or the KSA) and interests (Saudi oil fields).

Example two: Iranian missile capabilities

I would not trust everything the CSIS writes (they are a very biased source, to put it mildly), but on this page, they posted a pretty good summary of the current Iranian missile capability:

The Saker: "AngloZionist attack options against Iran"

On the same page, CSIS also offers a more detailed list of current and developed Iranian missiles:

The Saker: "AngloZionist attack options against Iran"

(You can also check on this Wikipedia page to compare with the CSIS info on Iranian missiles)

The big question is not whether Iran has capable missiles, but how many exactly are deployed.  Nobody really knows this because the Iranians are deliberately being very vague, and for obvious and very good reasons.  However, judging by the example of Hezbollah, we can be pretty sure that the Iranians also have these missiles in large enough numbers to represent a very credible deterrent capability.  I would even argue that such a missile force not only represents a capable deterrent capability, but also a very useful war-fighting one.  Can you imagine what would happen if US bases (especially airbases and naval facilities) in the region came under periodic Iranian missile attacks?  Judging by the Israeli experience during the First Gulf War or, for that matter, the recent Saudi experience with the Houthi missiles, we can be pretty sure that the US Patriots will be useless to defend against Iranian missiles.

Oh sure, just like the US did during the First Gulf War, and the Israelis did in 2006, the AngloZionists will start a massive hunt for Iranian missile sites, but judging by all the recent wars, these hunts will not be successful enough and the Iranians will be able to sustain missile strikes for quite a long time.   Just imagine what one missile strike, say, every 2-3 days on a US base in the region would do to operations or morale!

Reality check: the US is vulnerable throughout the entire Middle-East

Above I only listed two specific capabilities (subs and missiles), but the same type of analysis could be made with Iranian small speedboat swarms, electronic warfare capabilities or even cyber-warfare.  But the most formidable asset the Iranians have is a very sophisticated and educated population which has had decades to prepare for an attack by the “Great Satan” and which have clearly developed an array of asymmetrical options to defend themselves and their country against the (probably inevitable) AngloZionist attack.

You have probably seen at least one map showing US military installations in the Middle-East (if not, see herehereor here).  Truth be told, the fact that Iran is surrounded by US forces and bases presents a major threat to Iran.  But the opposite is also true. All these US military facilities are targets, often very vulnerable ones.  Furthermore, Iran can also use proxies/allies in the region to attack any of these targets.  I highly recommend that you download this factsheet and read it while thinking of the potential of each listed facility to become the target of an Iranian attack.

The usual answer which I often hear to these arguments is that if the Iranians actually dared to use missiles or strike at the US bases in the region, the retaliation by the USA would be absolutely terrible.  However, according to Eric Margolis, the initial and main goal of a US-Israeli attack on Iran would be to “totally destroy Iran’s infrastructure, communications and transport (including oil) crippling this important nation of 80 million and taking it back to the pre-revolutionary era“.  Now let me ask you this simple question: if Margolis is correct – and I personally believe that he is – then how would that outcome be different from the “absolutely terrible” retaliation supposedly planned by the USA in case of Iranian counterattack?  Put differently – if the Iranians realize that the AngloZionists want to lay waste to their country (say, like what the Israelis did to Lebanon in 2006), what further possible escalation would further deter them from counter-attacking with the means available to them?

To answer this question we need to look again at the real nature of the “Iranian problem” for the AngloZionists.

Real AngloZionist objectives for an attack on Iran

First and foremost, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Iran has any kind of military nuclear program.  The fact that the Israelis have for years been screaming about this urbi et orbi does not make it true.  I would also add that common sense strongly suggests that the Iranians would have absolutely no logical reason to develop any kind of nuclear weapons.  I don’t have the time and space to argue this point again (I have done so many times in the past), so I will simply refer to the US National Intelligence Estimate’s conclusion that Iran had “halted its nuclear weapons program” and leave it at that.

[Sidebar: I don’t believe that the Iranians ever had a nuclear weapons program either, but that is irrelevant: even if they once had one, that would put them on par with many other countries which took some initial steps in the development of such a capability and then gave it up.  The only point is that it is the official US position that there is no current military nuclear program in Iran.]

The real problem of Iran is very simple.  Iran is the only country in the world which is:

  1. Islamic and leads the struggle against the Saudi/Daesh/ISIS/al-Qaeda/etc. ideology of takfirism and the terrorism they promote
  2. Openly anti-Zionist and anti-Imperialist and combines conservative religious values with progressive social policies
  3. Successful politically, economically and militarily and thereby threatens the monopoly of power of Israel in the region

Any one of those features by itself would already constitute a grievous case of crimethink from the point of view of the Empire and would fully deserve a reaction of absolute hatred, fear and a grim determination to eliminate the government and people which dare to support it.  No wonder that by combining all three Iran is so hated by the AngloZionists.

This entire canard about some Iranian nuclear a program is just a pretext for a hate campaign and a possible attack on Iran.  But in reality, the goals of the AngloZionists is not to disarm Iran, but exactly as Margolis says: to bomb this “disobedient” country and people “back to the pre-revolutionary era”.

Here is the key thing: the Iranians perfectly understand that. The obvious conclusion is this: if the purpose of an AngloZionist attack will be to bomb Iran back into the pre-revolutionary era, then why would the Iranians hold back and not offer the maximal resistance possible?

Because of the threat of a US nuclear retaliation?

US nuclear attack options – not much of an option in reality

Here again, we need to look at the context, not just assume that the use of nuclear weapons is some kind of magical panacea which immediately forces the enemy to give up the fight and to unconditionally surrender. This is far from being the truth.

First, nuclear weapons are only effective when used against a lucrative target.  Just murdering civilians like what the USA did in Japan does absolutely no good if your goal is to defeat your opponent’s armed forces.  If anything, nuking your opponents “value” targets will might only increase his determination to fight to the end.  I have no doubt that, just as during the first Gulf War, the USA has already made a typical list of targets it would want to strike in Iran: a mix of key government buildings and installations and a number of military units and facilities.  However, in most cases, those could also be destroyed by conventional (non-nuclear) weapons.  Furthermore, since the Iranians have had decades to prepare for this scenario (the USA has always had Iran in its sights since the 1979 Revolution), you can be quite sure that all the peacetime facilities have been duplicated for wartime situations. Thus while many high-visibility targets will be destroyed, their wartime counterparts will immediately take over.  One might think that nukes could be used to destroy deeply buried targets, and this is partially true, but some targets are buried too deep to be destroyed (even by a nuclear blast) while others are duplicated several times (say, for 1 peacetime military headquarters there would be 4, 5 or even 6 concealed and deeply buried ones).  To go after each one of them would require using even more nukes and that begs the question of the political costs of such a campaign of nuclear strikes.

In political terms, the day the USA uses a nuclear weapon against any enemy it will have committed a political suicide from which the Hegemony will never recover. While a majority of US Americans might consider that “might makes right” and “screw the UN”, for the rest of the world the first use of nuclear weapons (as opposed to a retaliatory counter-strike) is an unthinkable abomination and crime, especially for an illegal act of aggression (there is no way the UNSC will authorize a US attack on Iran). Even if the White House declares that it “had to” use nukes to “protect the world” against the “nuclear armed Ayatollah”, the vast majority of the planet will react with total outrage (especially after the Iraqi WMD canard!). Furthermore, any US nuclear strike will instantly turn the Iranians from villains into victims. Why would the US decide to pay such an exorbitant political price just to use nuclear weapons on targets which would not yield any substantial advantage for the US? Under normal circumstances, I would think that this kind of unprovoked use of nuclear weapons would be quite unthinkable and illogical. However, in the current political context in the USA, there is one possibility which really frightens me.

Trump as the “disposable President” for the Neocons?

The Neocons hate Trump, but they also own him.  The best example of this kind of “ownership” is the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem which was an incredibly stupid act, but one which the Israel Lobby demanded.  The same goes for the US reneging on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or, for that matter, the current stream of threats against Iran.  It appears that the Neocons have a basic strategy which goes like this: “we hate Trump and everything he represents, but we also control him; let’s use him to do all the crazy stuff no sane US President would ever do, and then let’s use the fallout of these crazy decisions and blame it all on Trump; this way we get all that we want and we get to destroy Trump in the process only to replace him with one of “our guys” when the time is right“.   Again, the real goal of an attack on Iran would be to bomb Iran back into a pre-revolutionary era and to punish the Iranian people for supporting the “wrong” regime thus daring to defy the AngloZionist Empire.  The Neocons could use Trump as a “disposable President” who could be blamed for the ensuing chaos and political disaster while accomplishing one of the most important political objectives of Israel: laying waste to Iran.  For the Neocons, this is a win-win situation: if things go well (however unlikely that is), they can take all the credit and still control Trump like a puppet, and if things don’t go well, Iran is in ruins, Trump is blamed for  a stupid and crazy war, and the Clinton gang will be poised to come back to power.

The biggest loser in such a scenario would, of course, be the people of Iran. But the US military will not fare well either. For one thing, a plan to just “lay waste” to Iran has no viable exit strategy, especially not a short-term one, while the US military has no stomach for long conflicts (Afghanistan and Iraq are bad enough). Furthermore, once the USA destroys most of what can be destroyed the initiative will be in the Iranians’ hands and time will be on their side. In 2006 the Israelis had to fold after 33 days only, how much time will the US need before having to declare victory and leave? If the war spreads to, say, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria, then will the US even have the option to just leave? What about the Israelis – what options will they have once missiles start hitting them (not only Iranian missiles but probably also Hezbollah missiles from Lebanon!)?

Former Mossad head Meir Dagan was fully correct when he stated that a military attack on Iran was “the stupidest thing I have ever heard”.  Alas, the Neocons have never been too bright, and stupid stuff is what they mostly do.  All we can hope for is that somebody in the USA will find a way to stop them and avert another immoral, bloody, useless and potentially very dangerous war.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • US-Navy Revert Shia
    • Promitheas Apollonious

      maybe is all about money?

      • Tommy Jensen

        How the h… could you think otherwise? Its ALWAYS about money.

  • BL

    Waste of time, don’t bother reading, the author is clueless.

    I stopped reading at:

    “Second, Margolis is absolutely correct when he says that Iran does not have the means to stop a determined AngloZionist (missiles and aircraft) attack. Iran does have some modern air-defense capabilities, and the attackers will sustain a number of losses, but at this point, the size disparity is so huge that the AngloZionists will achieve air superiority fairly soon and that will give them an opportunity to bomb whatever they want to bomb (more about that later).”

    Iran would immediately sink all aircraft carriers and destroy all airbases form which any aircraft would want to attack Iran. Any aircraft in the air would have no base to return to.

    There won’t be a war against Iran because Iran is capable of defending itself and the proof is that they haven’t dared to make any moves against Iran so far even though they have had plenty of opportunities and excuses to do so.

    • US-Navy Revert Shia

      The saker must be smoking dust in NYC In the Lower East Side With His JEW BUDDIES

      • BL

        South Front has recently been slipping in terms of quality. This is the second garbage article they’ve posted in one day. The other garbage they posted was an article about Iran’s recent “protests” (i.e. CIA color revolution attempt) written by the anti-Iran CIA front terrorist group “NCOIR”.

        • Tommy Jensen

          The alternative media is sought infiltrated and bought.
          Just see UNZ review. Before some good relevant fact articles. Today superficial fluffy not important bla bla bla.

          • 1691

            Ron Unz is a jew. He is one of the ” controlled opposition” bloggers.

        • zman

          While it seems to be undesired content, it does afford one the opportunity to see what the ‘opposition’ is up to. Censoring any article is not good. Where does such censoring end? Hearing or seeing only what is favorable to ones senses? It is what the MSM does. How has that served the world? What does concern me is blocking comments or moderating them to oblivion, especially if they are not in violation of rules. I have not seen that here, but have experienced it over and over at AMN. They’ve recently OKed some my posts after 7 days of being ‘moderated’, while other posts disappear altogether. It always seems to occur after I pissed on a guy calling himself daeshbag (who) sux, a hasbara troll. Besides, many refute some of the ‘assumptions’ made by certain authors. It shows that not everyone is asleep or fooled. That in itself is very encouraging. So I say, let them expose themselves. It’s good to know the enemy.

          • BL

            It’s not about censoring. We’re already seeing the nonstop lies and garbage from the CIA controlled Western media 24/7, southfront is supposed to be one the few non-kosher controlled alternative media. Besides they don’t have a policy of posting “all sides”. Has southfront every posted anti-Russian propaganda material from the Azov Battalion? Why do they “censor” anti-Russian CIA front terrorist groups and yet they post garbage from anti-Iran terrorist groups? That’s my point.

          • zman

            I’m sorry, but I do not watch any MSM garbage. I do however read rebuttals referring to such. I’ve found the Saker to be engaging and have argued his positions with him personally more than once. Whether he is an anti-Iranian person is not known to me. I have no doubt you are sincere in your assertion that he is anti-Iranian, but this is not something I know for myself. I will look into him and his associations closer. But for this article and your reply, I would not be doing this. I consider it educational and am not swayed by unsubstantiated claims (by the Saker or anyone else). Knowledge IS power.

          • BL

            I did’t say Saker is anti-Iranian (I don’t know him at all). I was merely referring to the article that is quoting and referencing anti-Iran terrorist groups and repeating CIA lies against Iran. I don’t know about the intention of the author but such articles do not deserve to be published here. Imagine someone wrote an article about internal Russian issues and quoted the Azov Battalion as his reference. Do you think South Front would find such article worthy of publishing? That’s my point.

          • Val Shadowhawk

            Agreed! This kind of writing has no place here.

          • zman

            I would actually find such interesting. It would surely show who is owned and by whom. I get your point, but respectfully disagree. if such an article was presented and SF were to assert that it was accurate, that might be a different story, but non the less, I will have learned something. I apologize if I mistook your comment(referring to this Saker article as ‘a garbage article’)for condemnation of him as being ‘anti-Iranian’.

          • frankly

            Do check out the Saker, his comment section makes this crew look like kindergarten students that got held back.

          • zman

            As I stated earlier, I have checked him out. We had a conversation over whether Trump was going to be good for Russia (before Trumps flip-flops and Syrian attacks). I told him then that Trump was not to be relied on, trusted or be the light of hope. Trumps only forte is that of a con-man. He has since changed his tune.

          • S Melanson

            Well said

          • frankly

            Quote one item from Saker’s article that would justify calling him the opposition! I know this forces you to read the article, how inconvenient. Do it or shut the fuck up.

          • zman

            Maybe YOU should re-read my comment to BL…or didn’t you read it? Yes, I read the article and IF you had read my comment to BL and my apology you wouldn’t have made this post. As for the Saker, he has made mistakes. For instance, his assertion that Trump will be a force for good. This was previous to his missile attacks, reneging on the nuke deal, Iran sanctions, continuing Russian sanctions and his Jerusalem declaration. Back then I told him he was mistaken and that Trump could not be trusted and was in fact owned by Isreal. He has now seen the light of day.

          • frankly

            Replied to the post that started with “While it seems to be undesired content, it does afford one the opportunity to see what the ‘opposition’ is up to.” As human beings we all make mistakes. Especially when we take risks.

            I find anytime a particular person is subject to intense criticism that rings a bit hollow to me, my suspicion is that MSM type propaganda is in play. I read Saker and then the comments, maybe I am not informed or smart enough, but there is a disconnect. The comments often do not match watch the Saker wrote. Saker often qualifies his remarks and this device totally eludes many readers, they ignore his qualifying remarks all together.

            So I don’t know why my reply wound up so far down the page but my challenge stands just what is it that made the content undesired and more to the point puts Saker in opposition. As for Trump I automatically give anyone who the MSM attacks so consistently the benefit of the doubt. Oh the actions “he” has taken seem preposterous but perhaps they just remind him of what they did to JFK .

          • zman

            Yes, your beliefs match that of the Sakers for sure. For anyone at this stage of the game to still think that Trump is being controlled is kidding themselves. Christ, do you and him even know who Trump is? Actually do some investigation. Look into his shit from 30-40 years ago. Trump is an international mafioso…and please quit doing what all trumpets do, associate this buffoon with Kennedy. Kennedy has guts and fought in war time. That’s just 2 things Trump has neither of…in fact he has run from both. Oh, BTW…now the MSM is saying his rating are going up and the economy is revving up as well. Seems as though they are ‘softening’ on him…I wonder why? No body I know sees any economic improvement or more people backing him.

          • S Melanson

            I replied to Frankly that he is actually doing Saker a disservice. I paste it below FYI. Either he changes course and debates respectfully or if not, we should move on and not engage him

            ————
            I have read through the comments and they seem a typical balance of thumbs down to thumbs up and many in between. This is what a good writer of opinion and analysis articles strives for because it means the author has attracted the atttention of a diverse group holding a wide range of viewpoints and they are intrigued enough to take the time to debate the articles thesis.

            A good article stimulates comments and debate and the Saker accomplished just that. If you have only complements, you are preaching to the choir and not attracting the interest of those,with differing opinions. Debate is how opinions change and having so many debating Saker should be viewed as validation of his writing abilities to tell a story to,provoke critical thinking.

            I like this article by Saker but I would like o think I and others can debate areas we disagree with Saker in a respectful way and clearly you have viewpoints you feel strongly about so state your case, we will listen, but please do not shut us down.

        • frankly

          Why don’t you take your opinion and shove it back up your ass. The light of day has not removed the stink of it!

          • BL

            Looks like you need to take your own advice

          • frankly

            Gosh how original, recycler?

      • d’Artagnan

        Usual Zionist disinformation to goad the US into a suicidal war with Iran. Not going to work this time.

        • Val Shadowhawk

          It sure won’t!! Agreed.

    • RichardD

      If there is a war, Iran’s response will be determined by how hard they’re getting hit, and by whom. Russian, and probably Chinese, support would begin almost immediately, and would also be a graduated conditional response.

      • BL

        It would be WWIII which is why it won’t happen.

        • RichardD

          The US Congress voted unanimously against an Iran war. The risk of WW3 is part of the reason. The main reason is that with the rise in the price of oil, would be disastrous for the US and would supercharge the Russian economy. And Russian and Chinese support for Iran would make the Iran war unwinnable. There’s no domestic support for the Afghan war and there wouldn’t be any for an Iran Jew war for Israel.

          The US would be able to eventually ramp up shale oil production to cover domestic needs. But not before there were shortages and price spikes that would have a very negative effect economically.

    • d’Artagnan

      To be honest, Eric Margolis is an irrelevant Zionist from Canada and has been making up laughable nonsense for over 40 years now. His so-called “analysis” is beyond a joke and he simply does not understand Iranian strategic mass and dominant control of the Persian Gulf and oil jugular. And most importantly Russia will hardly sit by and let US and Zionists attack Iran and bring endless conflict to its southern borders. The ultimate US, NATO and Zionist agenda is the Yugoslav style destruction of Russia and control over its immense natural wealth and land.

      • Brad Isherwood

        The US needs/uses Crisis to justify it’s Navy presence globally.
        They gin up the terrorists for that aswell.

        A False Flag event near Hormuz gives Zionist/Neocon media it’s Rabid dog frothing.
        Israel recently threatened Iran with a International coalition.
        The same card was played for 1st Gulf War.

        Russia/China cannot stop a International Navy signatory keeping Hormuz open.
        The US can gin up a Moving Al Tanf buffer zone where Ships of the International group can fire upon anything nearing them,
        Just like US and Israhell get away with in Syria.
        It’s a license to Murder and face no War Crimes.

        Iran cannot be invaded and occupied /regime change.
        It can however get the living @t kicked out of it like Iraq,Libya, Yemen and Syria.
        Iran can obliterate Saudi Oil production. ..most especially knock out the water injection/desalination plants which the Old King and Queen fields depend.

        Question is….Does Iran have the Resolve to really bust the Criminals game.
        Sink something big in Suez canal, ….make the world pay attention to what happens when US and Israhell say they will Make Security …..yada,yada.

        • zman

          Actually, the real question is will the west really go so far as to destroy their economies and cripple the world energy supplies? Even a short unprotracted event would be a problem. There is no doubt that the west can stage an event to justify their actions…no one would logically argue that. As you say, it all comes down to the Iranians. I for one think it would be the epitome of stupidity for anyone to gamble on that. The Iranians have developed a military strategy that is nearly foolproof and have pursued it vigorously.

        • d’Artagnan

          $300 oil will do wonders for the deadbeat US consumers and chest thumping buffoon Trump supporters. Iran will set the region on fire if attacked and the asymmetrical war will spread from the Persian Gulf to North Africa not to mention the Zionist entity and Red Sea.

      • zman

        Absolutely correct! Russia has ALWAYS been the target. Russia knows this and you are correct, not likely to stand aside when TSHTF. Dagan understands as well that Israel (as well as KSA) will not survive such an attack.

    • frankly

      “Iran would immediately sink all aircraft carriers and destroy all airbases from which any aircraft would want to attack Iran. Any aircraft in the air would have no base to return to.” If you don’t know the range of a B-2 bomber I fuckin guarantee the Saker does.

      What la la land do you live in? This thing of blatantly attacking the Saker with insults and illogical arguments seems like the kind of reaction the MSM reserves for any source that becomes a threat to them.

      They haven’t moved against them so far? The coup in 53′ was not the first move and canceling the treaty in the spring was not the last. As to military deaths, openly sponsoring violent terrorists, who have killed thousands, within Iran, is part of the US budget. With or without plausible deniability.

      Is the Saker’s writing too intelligent for Y’all t git, so you just call him stupid? Or are you the ones acting on orders from the Empire?

      It’s like everyone jumping on the Robert Fisk bandwagon because he publishes some articles questioning the MSM narrative, his credentials as Anti Assad are abundant.

      Visit the Sakers site, read his message and if it’s too deep, then at least use logic instead of name calling in your assessments.

      As for up voting insulting, illogical posts, fuck that too! Double for you poop eye.

    • frankly

      What missile would Iran shoot at an SSN shooting cruise missiles?

      • zman

        What good would launching slow-ass cruise missiles do? I did not know you were an expert on Iranian weapons and that you know for certain that they don’t have a system capable of targeting a sub. You should tell Iran they do not have AB-212 anti-submarine helicopters or 324mm anti-submarine light torpedoes.

        • frankly

          Well perhaps ASW has advanced since I was involved and cruise missiles are obsolete. One thing is for certain I surely hope the US does not try to do to Iran what they did to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, etc…, No matter how omnipotent Iran is, according to the posters here, I doubt that the people of Iran would enjoy being the center of F.uk.us and friends attention. We would chuckle at the threat of an ASW helicopter, it’s a big fuckin ocean bud. They could get lucky.

          • zman

            Yes, even though US subs will hide as far away as is possible, what will the big advantage be when the US subs launch cruise missiles…even the ‘nice, new and pretty’ ones that were used in Syria? Their anti-sub warfare using choppers is for close in, there is also their high speed boats and subs that has had a high speed anti-sub laser-guided underwater missile (Dehlaviyeh) since 2017 at least. US cruise missile swarms would be in the 100s, not 1000s…as would Iranian retaliation. The Iranians are a lot smarter than the west gives them credit for. The US will attack with obsolete weapons, hoping that numbers will abrogate superiority. Well, if they use every last one in western arsenals, they might. Where will US navy and stationary targets be by then? Where will Israel and KSA be as well? What makes you so sure that the EU will in fact join in? They are against the Buffoons sanctions and are trying abrogate their effects. You are like many out there who seem to believe the Iranians are idiots. Well, cling to your fantasies. The Iranians were smart enough to know that a massive missile force would be their only hope and it is what has Israel and the US pissing their pants and the real reason the buffoon dropped the JCPOA. The US and Europe have an arsenal of obsolete weapons, their only asset being there are a lot of them. As I said before, EW will be a big factor in any incursion. The US has seen how effective it can be and how it can shunt their missiles and their effectiveness. NONE of this even considers how Russia and China will react. As a turn about, what would a SSN shoot at Iran that would make a difference? Does the US know for sure that Iran cannot track their subs? Would there be Iranian subs close enough to target a US sub when they fire a missile? Questions you do not have an answer to…and neither do they.

  • US-Navy Revert Shia

    If and when Iran Is Attacked GOD FORBID ALL [USG] MILITARY BASES IN THE MIDDLE EAST ARE DO-DO ISISraHELL WILL BE A FOOTNOTE IN HISTORY https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7bac5810665e95b3815fb0c4b6ba8f2d46031710c02377849d2dcd36d82eee5e.jpg

  • US-Navy Revert Shia

    Mr. Duff From [Veternstoday.com] is a combat marine who gives a 100% account that Iran will end all wars of wars in the middle east if attacked ISISraHELL will be the first to die what does the saker know about war his fat ass sits behind a desk all day writing BS for Russia

    • Promitheas Apollonious

      and then usually complete ignorant people, who mostly copy paste what others say, are the ones the zombies are following and promoting, as the guys in the know how and what will happen. They also assume that if Iran attack the rest of the world that is already under attack from west will seat on their asses let the nato do what is going to do and wait patiently their turn.

      The article try to balance things but none the less promoting that UK/Usrael will attack Iran achieve their targets and they walk away like they did in Libya. The truth if they give the excuse to Iran to free his army and guns the first maximum the second day israel will cease to exist and so all the American bases in ME that are withing the range of Iran’s and allies, missiles.

      It is a very big IF and gamble to assume that Russia and China along with other SCO members will not get involved in such a war. In the mean time fat asses who write this articles with no idea what real war looks like or ever expiriense it, beside watching videos and TV, all they say at the end is absolute BS, based on assumptions and mass media propaganda.

      • US-Navy Revert Shia

        my man

        • Promitheas Apollonious

          We navy men always stick together.

          • US-Navy Revert Shia
          • frankly

            USN STS3. I got no use for anyone who trashes Saker.

          • Promitheas Apollonious

            is ok follower you have no need to have a mind of your own, or use your judgement. I understand. as to what you have use or not, is the last of my concerns and worries.

            Keep swimming

          • frankly

            Not even close numb nuts.

          • Promitheas Apollonious

            according to you dinky bell. contradicting your own self after the post I responded also goes a long way of me saying I rest my case with you. Dont stress, i hear you loud and clear. now read what you wrote follower and learn not to put your foot in your mouth, or at least wash it first.

          • frankly

            I don’t mind making a mistake or messing up. I have been known to apologize. Just what exactly was it that contradicted. Dinky Bell, as a submariner I heard a lot of insults, you would have got howls of laughter, for the lameness of that effort.

          • Promitheas Apollonious

            i have apologize also when I am wrong so because you apologize it means you are right?

            You called me a name I give you a piece of my mind. and I also as a seal instructor and until I get their, have not only hear but understood why the insults and survive them so? your point? It always been part of who I am catching the phonies and I will not going to change now because you believe, with out facts, because someone said so, hence the FOLLOWER, and you like what you hear.

            You have to learn to separate the ones who jerking in the mouth and have better judgement, as well understand the phonies and the parrots. See the messages this article is subconsciously print in the naive readers mind and point them out and then beside accepting you as a navy person I also accept you have judgement and knowledge.

            Self flattery………. point to me the subliminal messages of the article and I accept you as a thinking man even if in disagreement on evaluation and conclusion. Go on submariner show me what you made off, on the upstairs department.

          • frankly

            1st point. Arguing with someone with such a weak grasp of the subtleties of English just pisses me off. Nope too much effort for so little reward. Free association writing is sorta fun. No need for logic or coherence just ramble from one nonsense to another. You didn’t even read the freaking article and now you want me to explain it to you. Accepting me as a navy person. I am not proud of it. It was an experience I went through. I found out certain things that I hate about the Navy. The initiation they put a first class through when they forced him to become a chief. There is no value in degrading any human in those ways. So I will leave you to your fantasies, a seal instructor is very funny. Oh I will apologize to myself for wasting a few moments writing this. All you did was convince me of what an asshole you are and how correct I remain.

          • Promitheas Apollonious

            k you just proved my point, you are a brainless want to be. So many words to say nothing.

          • Snowglobe
          • Promitheas Apollonious

            I dont open links I dont know. You have a point , make it with your own words and not links .

          • Snowglobe

            On occassion I find your LARPing amusing.

          • Promitheas Apollonious

            so you are another retard who like to personally attack strangers here. Get a life insect.

          • Snowglobe

            Yes Peter Pan. Believe what ever you need to be true. Carry on though. Your story embellishments are fascinating on occassion.

            I like the one that you tell that you taught survival training and then I saw with my own eyes that you did not know how to start a barbecue.

            Carry on.

            Buyer beware.

          • Promitheas Apollonious

            fuck off idiot

          • Snowglobe

            No Princess. I will not be doing that.

            Lying pieces of dung do not get to tell people like me what to do. The likes of you get scraped off of the bottom of boots. If you do not like it, then you go find another forum to pollute. It might be hard for you though. You have burned your bridges in many, many forums long before this.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/54799145ac1975c4d6c14e41fc404aced36f871d7c7f42490785d92cca558a92.jpg

          • Promitheas Apollonious

            like you ? you mean a schizophrenic case like you.

          • Snowglobe

            Off you go now. Go spin your lies for other people. There is a reason that you always need a new audience. Ultimately the only person that you are fooling is yourself.

            Buyer beware.

    • frankly

      USN complimenting a jarhead, somethings fishy here.

      • US-Navy Revert Shia
        • frankly

          You, butt licker BL, and Pro Anus are from the same group and say you are sailors. This is a lie. Sailors underway have months and years of boring inactivity, waiting for the inevitable terror. This time is often spent insulting the shit out of each other. Any sailor, first and foremost has a very sharp tongue, a nasty wit. You are both not native English speakers and to call someone a tot or Dinky Bell is blatantly revealing. It’s pathetic, lame, imbecilic.

          I have noticed this with other trolls. Arrogance but a simple minded inability to insult in a powerful way. Your insults are like something a grade school child might say, like a 7 year old.

          I think your true allegiance is hinted at by what you accuse others of. I would almost call that a rule of life. If someone accuses me of something, I assume they are guilty of the accusation they made of me, and it has more often than not proven out in the long run.

          So USN revered penis worshiper go fuck yourself in the mouth with your boyfriends dildo.

  • ALLAN Donaldson

    Brilliant review by the Saker of numerous fallacies about the outcome on an ill-advised attack on Iran by USA.

    • Promitheas Apollonious

      brilliant…… By what standards? 90% of what he says is he agree with another BShiters analysis, that think uk/usrael will go for a walk and when ever they want can turn back and go home as nothing have happen so where exactly you seen the brilliance in that?

      • Ken Nonickname Nonecknom Under

        I deliberately avoided this article for days after it came out. I dreaded reading it!
        When I did I was pleasantly surprised. Some Saker lately has been disappointing.
        The quotes from Margolin are awful but Saker’s qualification of them is well done.
        The conclusion, which you don’t seem to address, is that it would be insane or stupid for the US to attack Iran, but the Neocons tick BOTH of those boxes!
        Btw I would not have guessed UNZ was a Jew from what I have read in the Review. Fyi lol some Jews are not Zionists. ;)

        • Promitheas Apollonious

          I dont share what you saying. The way both present it starting with Iran has no air defense and the way they presenting it shows people who are generals in theory. only the batteries of S300 iran has and the radars they have does their air defense very formidable and even if one in two of is missiles hit target think if the ones attacking it will also think no air defense here.

          I hear many as them mixing what many say into one article and present themselves as they know and not parroting each other. So awful as you characterize it or brilliant it is not.

      • frankly

        “The biggest loser in such a scenario would, of course, be the people of Iran. But the US military will not fare well either. For one thing, a plan to just “lay waste” to Iran has no viable exit strategy, especially not a short-term one, while the US military has no stomach for long conflicts (Afghanistan and Iraq are bad enough). Furthermore, once the USA destroys most of what can be destroyed the initiative will be in the Iranians’ hands and time will be on their side. In 2006 the Israelis had to fold after 33 days only, how much time will the US need before having to declare victory and leave? If the war spreads to, say, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria, then will the US even have the option to just leave? What about the Israelis – what options will they have once missiles start hitting them (not only Iranian missiles but probably also Hezbollah missiles from Lebanon!)?”

        Just one quote from the above article to back up your dribble, just one. Nope

        • Promitheas Apollonious

          why you assume there be an israel or any nato base in the area that are not destroyed? an intelligent person with the ability to think before declaring victories, should consider at what cost, all you mention, must pay and iof they can afford the price, then maybe they attack, but still will break their face, they will not win.

          So how you figure, is up to usrael to declare victory and actually walk away? If you believe that, my advice stop watching holywood movies.

  • TiredOfBsToo

    “Former Mossad head Meir Dagan was fully correct when he stated that a military attack on Iran was “the stupidest thing I have ever heard”.”

    Good points from the Saker and I can understand why the former Mossad head stated the above. Iran knows that any attack on it is due to Israel’s Zionazi control of the US Deep State and, I believe, long ago stated that an attack on Iran would be responded to with a full out response on Israel. Iran is very much aware of who the responsible instigator for a war on Iran is. I for one, hope that if an attack is launched against Iran that the world will finally see the end of that terrorist state which calls itself Israel, protagonist for wars to destroy the states of the middle east and an anti-semitic state targeting the Semitic people of Palestine and the region.

    • zman

      I commented nearly the same thing. IF there is to be a ‘silver lining’, this would be it. KSA would not be far behind either.

  • Rob

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fY2suWVFKA4
    Iran’s Ballistic Missile Capabilities: 100,000 Missiles in 7 Minutes.

    Don’t be despair. Now Russia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and China are all one block.

  • zman

    Although there are some good points in this article, there are some glaring omissions..or poorly covered subjects. As many have pointed out, the first real casualty will be Israel. The west cannot issue such a dramatic and devastating attack that will neutralize this action. Israel is the catalyst and WILL be the first complete casualty. There are not enough interceptor missile systems in the world to stop an Iranian missile swarm directed at Israel. KSA would be another first salvo target. Another topic I feel the Saker has glossed over is Iran’s EW capability. Just as the US continued to deny that Iran could have brought down a RQ170 high-tech drone…that is until they showcased it on TV..they continued with ‘it must be a copy’ non-sense. It was not just the fact that Iran now had access to US tech, they had the tech in the first place to bring down this drone intact. That speaks volumes, does it not? Although the US downplayed the incident, you can be sure it sent ripples through the military, just as Russian jamming in Syria has. Just as a majority of western cruise missiles (including their nice new ones) didn’t make their target area, many landing in the Mediterranean, what makes the Saker so sure that this is not going to be a major component to any attack upon Iran? In fact, this will be the first line of defense. He also speaks of their subs and mini-subs. Well and good, but their high speed attack boats will be very difficult to target and hit, while they will most likely be successful against large relatively slow targets. Indeed, the gulf would be a target rich environment…the sinking of one ship could close the strait by itself. The non moving targets, bases (Diego Garcia, et al?) will be targets of missile swarms as well sitting duck AC carriers. Iran figured out long ago that aircraft would not be an effective weapon in an all out attack, thusly they have developed new variants of missiles and produced them in the thousands in underground factories. Then there is a subject which is NEVER touched. It is the reason the US turned on the Shah in the end. He was bent on acquiring nukes from France. There are accounts that he, in fact, did. Whether this is true or not is not known, but it would explain a few things. Such as Iran not being interested in producing such weapons and why the US and Israel are so adamant that they not develop ICBMs. In the long run, the west may be able to subdue Iran, that is totally possible, due to sheer numbers. But the cost will be so high as to forever in history, the winner will be a point of argument. What would such an attack reap? The complete devastation of western military assets in the region and western economies. This is the reason Dagan made such a statement. None of this takes into account of the actions of other parties. What would China, Russia, Syria, Indonesia, etc do? Would Europe join in (which would encourage an Iranian response towards them as well) or stand and watch? The only real weapon of the west is the one they are employing right now…sanctions and domestic uprising instigation. One would hope that the Iranian general public would see what other ‘uprisings’ ended like.

  • Tommy Jensen

    With all respect, a load of bs.

    TheSaker claims “the real problem with Iran is very simple and have 3 complicated reasons”. No Saker. There is only 1 reason for the Anglo-Zio gasblue hostility: Iran´s $42 Trillion oil/gas reserves!

    When we all know this, the arguments fail and Meir Dagan´s words make sense, because an attack on Iran will mean the end of Israel.

    Thats why Kissinger claim Israel will no longer exist in 2025, because Kissinger knows the Rothschild Cartel´s vision of Energy World Supremacy, where the prime target is Iran´s $42 Trillion oil/gas reserves.

    And who cares about Israel in Rothschilds Oil Cabal??? Nobody! Absolutely nobody!!

    Israel have just been useful idiots up to days date and will end up as duly prepared scapegoats for the sheeple and the elite´s cabal who are united in crime……………………………………………………..LOL.

  • Claus Reheis

    always a pleasure to read the analyses of “The Saker”

    Thank you

  • Rex drabble

    Omissiles Iran has.
    Only the SAKER is stupid enough to produce this sort of garbage
    If it was that easy to beat Iran the Yanks would have tried already,,,,Have They?NO
    Thats because the US is scared of getting beaten by the TENS OF THOUSANDS of missiles
    Iran has.
    Saker,shut up IDIOT.

  • Manuel Flores Escobar

    We read the same apocalypsis when USA was ready to attack NK…and nothing hapened!…USA didnt want another Vietnam and another Ho chi min Route where China and Russia would supply weapons to NK!…this is the same scenario…Rusia and China dont want US or a puppet govern in Caspian sea…therefore another Ho Chi Min route from Caspian would supply weapons to IRAN!…days ago Russia did military drills in Caspian sea to protect from Volga-Don canal to Iran!…Iran can close easily Ormuz strait because USA cannot afford that antiship missile hit or sink US warships while without massive warships deployed there.. it is dificult to stop hundred of fast attack boat..we have seen it during Atalanta operation in Somalia!

    • frankly

      If you actually understood and read the article, the apocalyptic comment proves you didn’t. You put yourself on the same band wagon, automatically dismissing the Saker, as some pretty obvious empire trolls, good luck with that.

      • zman

        Yeah, empire trolls like Russell Texas Bentley, right?

  • Joseph Scott

    At least he has finally grasped Trump’s role.

  • RichardD

    I’m disappointed that the Saker didn’t address what effect the rise in the price of oil would have on those involved, and what the Russian response would be to an attack on Iran. If you answer those two questions, you’l see way an Iran war probably isn’t going to happen.

  • Icarus Tanović

    What do you think what would happen on American soil? 🤔

    • RichardD

      Civil war?

    • Ronald

      An Iranian sub would take out Boston or some such nice small city, no nukes but there are other powerful warheads. Asymmetrical warfare.

  • georgeking

    A very good read, great deal of information. I do think thst Iran has a stronger sword arm then even this article credits.

  • Ariel Cohen

    Excellent article by the Saker

  • Dr. Ronald Cutburth

    Find my OP-Ed I have published for several years about this eminent war. Its title is
    THIS APOCOLYPSE PLAN IS OWNED BY THE US DEEP STATE AND ISREAL. They have planned this war for decades. God will punish them. Unfortunately many thousands of Us military will needlesly be slaughtered. Wood Iran’s allies Russia and China sit back and allow the US zionists destroy another Mid East country for Zionist atheist Nazi Israel. ?

  • Sinbad2

    I started to read the story, but then came “silly rumor about the US soliciting Australia’s assistance in preparing an attack on Iran.”

    Perhaps if the Saker bothered to read the story he would have known about Pine Gap.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap

  • Sinbad2

    All the tactical stuff means nothing, the US goes to war(sometimes) for domestic political considerations.
    When the US attacked Libya, in response to the Lockerbie bombing, they knew Libya was innocent. They knew Iran had arranged the bombing, in retaliation for the US shooting down an Iranian passenger plane.
    But Iran was too hard a target, so to quench the calls for blood from the American people, Clinton killed some innocent Libyans.

    Trump will bomb Iran, to win votes in the November US elections, it’s not unusual for the US most American Presidents do it.
    Remember Grenada, a doomed Reagan won the election handsomely.

  • frankly

    If you do not posses the attention span or intelligence to read a well written and researched article then stick to cartoons. Save us your uninformed, pontificating, bullshit, critique of the headlines.

  • frankly

    Former Mossad head Meir Dagan was fully correct when he stated that a military attack on Iran was “the stupidest thing I have ever heard”. Alas, the Neocons have never been too bright, and stupid stuff is what they mostly do. All we can hope for is that somebody in the USA will find a way to stop them and avert another immoral, bloody, useless and potentially very dangerous war.

    Obviously most commenters here have never read this paragraph.

  • frankly

    This thing of dumping on the Saker irritates the hell out of me. A lot of commentators have jumped on and I don’t get it. I read his articles and they, for the most part, make a lot of sense. I read the comments and it’s like most haven’t read the piece at all.

    Tell you what, you want to get yourself a new asshole ripped? Try going on his websites comments and saying this shit. His supporters will tune you up in 40 different languages and eloquently at that!

    He is a deep thinking, intelligent person, with a broad fascinating background, and any one who can’t understand his writing, has no business commenting on it.

    • zman

      I went to his website and EDUCATED HIM on Trump. Who was singing the praises for Trump? Saker. Who thought he was going to make nice with Russia? Saker. Who thought Trump would back Russia in Syria? Saker. Who thought he would be a voice of reason in Ukraine? Saker. I told him for him to put any faith in Trump was a mistake. I assured him Trump was a conman and a liar and not to be trusted. It didn’t take long for the Saker to find out how wrong he was. What is his opinion of Trump now after new sanctions on Russia, 2 missile strikes on Syria, white helmet debacle, arming Ukies, moving NATO troops to Russian borders, new bases in Syria and on and on. The Saker is not god and does make mistakes. Only a fool fauns over a fallible human and refuses to admit when he (or his idol) are wrong. Your own reputation for critical thinking is what suffers in the end. Your name calling is atrocious and uncalled for. Just because you can’t take criticism, don’t blame others for having an intelligent discourse. BTW, just as an aside. When I posted that comment, I got several compliments and then guess what? My comment disappeared. So much for open and free discourse.

      • frankly

        Look I have made some points and not a single person has addressed it. Man I know the guy makes mistakes and is human. Who do you turn to for infallible information? My main point stands, lot’s of criticism, I read the article and can not find any reason to make that criticism. Intelligent discourse does not go that way. So often the internet turns into a place where no one has any value everyone gets trashed. You go on and on about a conversation that we can not read, I am not calling you a liar but it does not impress me. If Saker was here to give his side that would be interesting. He’s not thus my reaction. Make sense or I will call it out. As for my name calling being atrocious, chuckling here, if people use that method no matter how polite and politically correct I will up the ante. My point is why do it in the first place? Butt Licker calls a man who speaks 5 languages clueless, game on.

        • zman

          Right, and I suppose none of my posts actually answered or rebutted your posts? Now who is being disingenuous? I don’t turn to anyone for infallible information…that person does not exist. As for taking my word on my posts at the Sakers blog, tell me that Saker did not put the highest of hopes on Trump. To do this in the first place means that he did not have any idea who the man is.

          • frankly

            I asked for one quote from the above Saker article that establishes the Saker as Opposition with a sample of undesired content. It’s a fairly big article, you can’t find any suitable quotes because there aren’t any. I will say it again. Anytime the MSM dumps on an individual the way they do Trump he gets the benefit of the doubt from me. You are supporting the main thrust of MSM efforts since before the election, does that make you a Clintonite? I don’t trust either. Come to think of it, you do use MSM techniques. You repeat the same pointless info over and over without references and then start acting like it is fact since you repeated it endlessly.

            Until you provide some quotes I take your avoidance of this utterly reasonable request as a capitulation. How convenient you can’t provide links to your schooling the Saker because they got taken down. You should move on from that as the more you repeat it the less likely it seems, to me at least.

            For me the fact that Russia still builds non nuclear subs means they are a potent weapon. That Iran has 3 Kilos seems smart of Iran. That the US builds so many aircraft carriers means that someone profits greatly from them. I do not think it is inevitable that F.uk.us and friends will start a shooting war with Iran and according to the Saker’s article neither does he! I have known many different people from Iran and overwhelming think they are pretty decent smart folks as does the Saker if the series he’s running by Ramin Mazaheri is any indication. This paragraph is a search to find a body of information that we might agree on.

            To continue in that vein, I think Putin the same sort of behind the scenes influence as Trump.

          • S Melanson

            I have read through the comments and they seem a typical balance of thumbs down to thumbs up and many in between. This is what a good writer of opinion and analysis articles strives for because it means the author has attracted the atttention of a diverse group holding a wide range of viewpoints and they are intrigued enough to take the time to debate the articles thesis.

            A good article stimulates comments and debate and the Saker accomplished just that. If you have only complements, you are preaching to the choir and not attracting the interest of those,with differing opinions. Debate is how opinions change and having so many debating Saker should be viewed as validation of his writing abilities to tell a story to,provoke critical thinking.

            I like this article by Saker but I would like o think I and others can debate areas we disagree with Saker in a respectful way and clearly you have viewpoints you feel strongly about so state your case, we will listen, but please do not shut us down.

          • frankly

            There has been this ongoing trashing of the Saker ever since Putin did not send the s 400 to Syria. I too expect and appreciate debate. To have a debate on the content of an article one must read the article. Factually almost all the negatives here did not understand or did not read the article. It shows by the discrepancies.

            I approach these forums having read the articles, if not I say I didn’t. For someone to come on and go off on the Saker based on an article from 6 months ago is not playing fair. That is one of the things I admire about the Saker he changes and does not consider himself flawless, quite the opposite.

          • S Melanson

            I noticed this as well. I have at times pointed out to the poster they misunderstood the article and take the time to back this up by quoting from the article for example. In many cases the poster is appreciative and alters their opinion accordingly. Some of course will distort the meaning regardless and they deserve a thrashing. But bear in mind I have misunderstood as well, particularly if the article is long and complex. It is not intentional and would be appreciative if pointed out.

          • frankly

            3 times asked zman what in the article brought him to his conclusion, nothing, silence.

            It is relatively easy with English to be misunderstood. I strive to make pointed accurate remarks and try to avoid ambivalent obfuscation. Although sometimes I will purposely write something that has multiple meanings as a kind of test. I do not mind being wrong, to me it is the path to growth. A person can win an argument and still be wrong, I do not want to be that guy.

          • S Melanson

            I have to sign off but one last thing. You have a lot of respect for Saker and I would like to see your viewpoints on what Saker writes that earns your respect. This would interest me if you have the time. Thanks for taking the time to reply to me, cheers.

          • frankly

            As a Vet there are clues one gets about authentic sources. Saker gives that off. But he is very humble. His writing is very well researched. As an ex submariner the parts he wrote above, about the Iranian subs, were fascinating to me. The mini sub photo is over the top. It would be terrifying to be on a big nuke and go steaming into those brown waters, knowing those mini subs are sitting in the mud, just waiting for you to come along, with big fat fish sitting in their tubes.

            A lot of what people on this site go on about is fighting a war. They were mad when Putin does not take the bait and retaliate for all the Empire’s provocations. Actual people with experience don’t do that ego bragging, let’s kick some ass shit. Oh some, but they know the cost and are just as likely to be the voice of reason. Yet look at the results Putin has achieved by helping the Syrians and the Russian Ukrainians. Yeah, yeah nobody got their ass kicked but lot’s of people lived who otherwise would be dead. Saker talks about that stuff, making peace, being disciplined and not running around blowing up everything.

            But finally he is also a bit of a theologian. it makes for a remarkable combination, serious technical intelligence analysis experience with a serious deep religious belief. So honestly that will probably be funny to a lot of the crew that post here. But I would rather take my chances being dead then spend anytime at all in a survival situation with a bunch of lying dogs. Guys that act smart, but when faced with sophisticated reading just trash the author as dumb.

          • S Melanson

            Thanks, good points. If you review my past posts you will find we are on the same page.

          • frankly

            This internet phenomenon of jumping on works to the Empire game. We fight amongst ourselves when in fact we agree on many substantive issues. I went and reviewed some of your posts. The Errordoggone call routing thing was pricelessly funny. It’s sad posts like that get buried! Never saw it before and tempted to bookmark it for a good laugh when feeling low. Press 4 indeed!

            That has occurred a lot these days, feeling lo. Too much work, no play and not much uplifting news. These preparations to further expand Empire by stepping on Iran, Yemen and in the Ukraine in the face of obvious setbacks and limitations is distressing.

            Also a dear Aunt got removed from life support and died. A week ago she was her chipper dear self and then the miracles of US surgery, coma, brain dead, now gone. Do they submit billing even when they kill the patient? Bigger question does it even phase them?

            I must say the disorganized presentation of the comments does add to some confusion around these discussions.

            I appreciate your attention to the Yemen topic. I would not surprise me in the least to find the casualties listed for that travesty are off by a factor of a hundred or even more. I also appreciate your reaching out to me. I am used to standing alone in the face of great opposition and get lost in the battle. I apologize to any who did not fit the shoe I provided and those who could wear it comfortably, smarten up!

  • S Melanson

    I have been critical of articles by Saker but also complemented many of Saker articles. This article is good and worth reading. I liked the discussion of Margolis propaganda hack peice, exposing it for what it is. Saker covered a lot of territory in this peice but all of it is important. I was particularly impressed with the final observations regarding what next after declaring ‘victory’. Saker hits the nail on the head that there is no victory as the consequences take their toll for years to come.

    • zman

      Most here did not dispute what the outcome would be vis-a-vis the Saker. I also applaud his condemnation of Margolis suppositions. My issues were with his understanding of strategies and capabilities. He touched on some and gave more import to some rather than others. That said, I do not believe that the outcome is written in stone. That is the main gist of my comments. I have and do read the Saker( I have him bookmarked), as I do many others, even ones I believe to be liars at the very least. But all input is good and can be used to drawn conclusions. I would never say that I would not ever read him again. The poster here who has become combative (not necessarily all his fault) seems to refuse any criticism. My worst criticism of the Saker is removing unfavorable posts. Whether or not he is responsible is unknown to me. On AMN I have been blocked as spam, thank you Daeshbag. That sort of thing is expected at places like Breitbart. There are many that feel he is a Zionist stooge. That is their opinion, not mine, and they have to prove that. Unfortunately that is where the name calling comes in. My stance is that he is not always right, as no one is, and that it’s right to call that out.

      • S Melanson

        I am on the same page as you. I was positive about this article by Saker relative to some prior pieces that I was quite critical of – after criticizing one article by Saker, I was banned from Southfront but only for a day. I did not even do anything, the ban was simply lifted.

        As for my post here, it was directed at the combative poster as I was trying to convey that we give credit where due and critique as deemed warranted and so it cannot be expected only positive comments.

  • frankly

    Just a personal thanks extended to all those posting critical of the Saker. I have a new computer and had not added his site to my favorites. Your criticism inspired me to revisit and I found another amazing article of his to read. Your criticism is so opposed to my long time impressions of the Saker that I think I will spend my rather limited internet time at his site and less time here.

    Just discovered Saker speaks like 6 languages, a lot of the posters around here don’t really understand one. I won’t miss you and thank god that will be mutual.

  • frankly

    I know long article with so many big words. Here is a juicy snippet that you can maul over while trashing the Saker over your feeble understanding of the Headline of the article.

    ‘This entire canard about some Iranian nuclear a program is just a pretext for a hate campaign and a possible attack on Iran. But in reality, the goals of the AngloZionists is not to disarm Iran, but exactly as Margolis says: to bomb this “disobedient” country and people “back to the pre-revolutionary era”.

    Here is the key thing: the Iranians perfectly understand that. The obvious conclusion is this: if the purpose of an AngloZionist attack will be to bomb Iran back into the pre-revolutionary era, then why would the Iranians hold back and not offer the maximal resistance possible?’

  • Jesus

    “””The Pentagon has planned a high-intensity air war against Iran that Israel and the Saudis might very well join. The plan calls for over 2,300 air strikes against Iranian strategic targets: airfields and naval bases, arms and petroleum, oil and lubricant depots, telecommunication nodes, radar, factories, military headquarters, ports, waterworks, airports, missile bases and units of the Revolutionary Guards.””””

    How is the Pentagon going to implement 2300 airstrikes against Iran?
    Considering the US air power in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, they might unleash a surprise attack involving 200 aircraft, however, such an attack can be blunted using a combination of EW, surface to air defenses and interceptors, F5 and F14. Immediately the airfields these aircraft used to stage the attack will come under significant ballistic missile attacks, damaging them and rendering them useless, while Shia militias all over Iraq will attack US installations.

    No US carrier will dare position itself in the Persian Gulf, most likely they will stay a 200-300 miles away in the Arabian Sea. Stand off cruise missiles fired by Iranian jets would harass the carrier task force, two carriers could deploy 100 F18’s whose range will be limited given the carrier’s defensive mode of operation.
    I do not see 100 F18’s overpowering Iranian defenses and bombing at will, Iranians will have BVR missiles that are a improved replication of the Phoenix missile, which will scare the American pilots.

    As far as cruise missile attacks, Iran learned the art of jamming them using EW, from their Russian allies, US military will not do very well against Iran. The B1 bombers are succeptible to BVR missiles fired from F14’s, while B2 using its stealth can be untouchable, however, their numbers are very limited. A couple of Russian MiG 31 squadrons armed with R37 missiles and ground radar support would defang the B2 permanently, and keep grounded at Diego Garcia.

    If the scenario of significant concentration of forces would play out as it did against Iraq, Iran has the option of preemptive attack against all viable targets they choose to attack, carriers included.

    Israel will not be able to play a role in this scenario since its air force does not have the refueling capability, and the massive Iranian ballistic missile counter strikes remains a very powerful deterrent.

    I think Sakers view on the matter is without substance and echoes wishful thinking of what other armchair warriors spout off.

    • Jonathan Cohen

      US has 12 carriers with about 1000 F-18s, plus can refuel Israeli and Saudi jets, plus their own from bases beyond missile range. Plus Russia isn’t going to send mig 31 squadrons to Iran. If the US is willing to leave Russia and N. Korea alone and transfer out it’s full force, they can beat Iran. However they might well lose Ukraine and South Korea while doing so, win win for ABORTION RIGHTS!

      • Jesus

        Quit dreaming, if they deploy 3 carrier task force against Iran they will be lucky. Chinese presence in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean will keep the US 5th fleet baffled.
        Today US is at a lower readiness level than during the first Gulf war.

        • Jonathan Cohen

          US needs to abandon the South China Sea if they want to clobber Iran, since we will need all 12 carriers in the Arabian Sea, thus none near China or Russia or Cuba or N Korea, which will of course take S Korea. Iran is worth trading S Korea.

      • Ivan Freely

        Ever heard of submarines? You don’t need to completely destroy a carrier; just enough to take it out of the fight.

        • Jonathan Cohen

          12 carriers can easily attack from blue water, where US submarines dominate. Iran can’t touch the air unless US stays in Korea and the Baltics, their only hope is inshore and on land. F18 can even buddy refuel, so 500 can attack with carriers way way out. Iranian missiles might attrit them, but N Korea and Russia will be the beneficiaries of US weariness, not Iran.

          • Ivan Freely

            Even if US subs are in the area, it wouldn’t stop Iranian subs from trying. As soon as one sub launches it’s torpedoes then it’s position is immediately known to all parties. It’ll be a blood bath which I believe the US Navy does not have the stomach for.

            In addition, you can bet the Chinese and Russian subs will be there. Unmanned armed / decoy drone subs will be there to complicate the situation. Regardless of what kind of IFR capabilities are available, F-18 are still vulnerable to air defenses as soon they fly near the border / overland. Sure B2 stealth bombers and F-22 fighters can begin with the SEAD/DEAD operations but the Iranians have been studying US tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan for a long time now. With the help of both China and Russia, I’m sure there are counter-measures in place.

            The most important question is, can these psychopaths in Washington get public and international support? Believe it or not, this is still important. IMHO, the answer is no.

    • zman

      Excellent comment. I agree with every bit of it. I think that the biggest flaw in the Sakers estimation is his downplaying of the EW weapon. The US and it’s allies were flabbergasted when even their ‘nice, new and pretty’ versions splashed into the Med. If their missile attacks are blunted, then the whole premise of conventional attack goes down the drain. Iran has already declared that any attack on them will incur the same on Israel and KSA, which they will not be able to defend against. To me, that is the best reason for the west to attack Iran. I do not wish for Iran to be attacked, but that would be an ‘up side’ for me (and the rest of the world, eventually).

  • Jonathan Cohen

    Good facts but wrong conclusion. I want the US military, Iran and Saudi Arabia to destroy each other, thus relieving military pressure on ABORTION RIGHTS defending Russia, Cuba, N. Korea and Serbia. The threat to Israel is a problem either way.

    • Bobby Twoshoes

      Why so sad Spammy McSpamalot :`( Do you want a post-natal abortion because of your OCD? You can still live a somewhat fulfilling life if you just get some help.

  • zman

    This was a fair article showing the ignorance (lies?) of Margolis. My only criticism of the Sakers summation is that IMO EW will be the major player in any altercation. Even if the US and it’s cabal attack Iran en masse, which they will, one only has to look at the 2 missile barrages from the west upon Syria and the ineffectiveness of them. Iran likely has much superior/numerous defensive systems than does Syria. While Iran’s missiles, subs, mini-subs and speedboats (an underestimated weapon IMO) are a deterrent, they will be ‘offensive’ defensive weapons. Meaning in use after the initial attack. The importance of EW was demonstrated in Syria with serious implications for the west. Without an effective missile first strike, their offense will be stunted and then must depend upon aircraft attacks…which will be problematic at best, because they will be using missiles also and will have to contend with S300s, etc. What would have become of western flotillas if the Syrians had decided to retaliate against the origins of the missiles? Any initial attack on Iran that is thwarted by EW to any significant degree will be capitalized upon by Iran’s use of anti-ship and ballistic missile swarms…of which they have thousands. The only way the west MIGHT be assured of success is in a war of attrition. Yes, they could and probably would win in a protracted conflict… but the cost will be unbelievably high. A destroyed fleet(s), bombed out bases, destruction of KSA, Israel (there are not enough anti-missiles systems in all the ME to stop the missile swarms Iran would unleash and these would be primary retaliation targets)…not to mention the entire western economy. Unless this is the intention of the criminal cabal (world economic collapse), the outcome of such folly is by no means assured. This is the point Dagan makes.

    • frankly

      Went through a period where got called spam. Not sure but seemed, in retrospect, a software problem and not the content.

  • Carol Davidek-Waller

    Trolls. Wordy, angry trolls. The highest form of complement.

  • S Melanson

    I thought I would post this separately to stand on its own. It is in response to a poster but I think what I say can apply more generally.

    —————————
    I have read through the comments and they seem a typical balance of thumbs down to thumbs up and many in between. This is what a good writer of opinion and analysis articles strives for because it means the author has attracted the atttention of a diverse group holding a wide range of viewpoints and they are intrigued enough to take the time to debate the articles thesis.

    A good article stimulates comments and debate and the Saker accomplished just that. If you have only complements, you are preaching to the choir and not attracting the interest of those,with differing opinions. Debate is how opinions change and having so many debating Saker should be viewed as validation of his writing abilities to tell a story to,provoke critical thinking.

    I like this article by Saker but I would like o think I and others can debate areas we disagree with Saker in a respectful way and clearly you have viewpoints you feel strongly about so state your case, we will listen, but please do not shut us down.

    ——————

  • Rodger

    I miss the fact that while the US, SA and Israel don’t want a ground war Iran could easily send over small highly mobile units to ‘liberate’ the Shias on top of SA major oil fields.