Why
is the MH17 supposed controversy rearing it ugly head again? Why are
the two Russian media giants – RT and Sputnik, both carrying versions of
the long discredited Buk missile theory of the attack? RT put that to
bed in the article in Appendix A, featuring VT’s Gordon Duff, over a
year ago.
Now, the current senseless and even idiotic versions being portrayed in the Russian press evidence two things:
1.
That the news agencies are penetrated, not just Abby Martin penetration
but that wonderful ability that planted Zionist agents have to direct
and misdirect from embedded staff positions.
2. Israel and Victoria Nuland (Nudelmann) shot down MH17 – you already know why, now we are going to tell you how.
Back
in 2009, Israel began shuttling planes into an old Soviet fighter base
in Azerbaijan, (see Appendix C) through 2014 Turkey was aiding Israel,
Georgia and Azerbaijan in planning and training for a sneak attack on
Iran and it’s nuclear program. In 2014, two Azerbaijani officers
defecting to Iran, including in 2010, the mission of the USS Grapple,
leased by the US to Germany and crewed by Israelis, protected by Israeli
patrol boats which delivered specialised runway denial and
bunker-busting munitions for the proposed Iran attacks.
The
governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan were fully complicit in this. When
VT warned Iran, Azerbaijan was forced to dismantle the Israeli base,
leaving only a drone facility and two aircraft in Azerbaijan. Those
aircraft were F-15s that had been configured, using their powerful, long
range radar to vector an Israeli attack fleet down across Saudi Arabia
to key Iranian targets. Positioning in Azerbaijan with needed loiter
time much reduced was vital to make such a mission possible.
Those planes are still there and Netanyahu has discussed this mission to attack Iran with Donald Trump.
One
of these Israeli F-15s, spotted by Toronto, Canada based radar-tracking
aviation buffs, flying with it’s transponder off was close enough to
MH17 to have managed AWACS vectoring duties for that mission.
The
F-15 is regularly used by Israel and the United States as an AWAC asset
and a pair of F-15s operating in tandem are capable of controlling the
skies over an area of upto 5,000 square miles.
We know this;
Israel supplied Ukraine with pilots, advanced air defence missiles,
ELBIT countermeasure/radar-spoofing systems (see Appendix B) and Rafael
Python-5 AAMs. We believe that Israelis were also in the tower in Kiev
guiding MH17 to it’s doom. We are still looking for the Spanish Air
Controller who was aware of this and tried to introduce this story and
has since disappeared from the surface of this Earth.
For those
unfamiliar with radar spoofing, the size, speed, shape, type, range and
altitude of a plane carrying one of these ELBIT systems can be altered;
this is done by receiving incoming radar signals then altering
and re-broadcasting them to reflect the desired information. Thus, an
SU-25 at 8,000 feet at 300 knots may well be an Su-27 at 35,000 feet at
600 knots.
Let’s go back to that time, the BUK missile story never
had any legs, it was obviously prepared in advance and as Duff stated
on RT, you can’t fire a large air defense missile in the middle of the
Ukrainian steppe in the middle of the day without seeing photos of the
launch and the contrail, which could last for upto an hour, all over
social media.
Then there’s the issue of the Su-25; news reports
had two of these planes tracking MH17 when it was shot down, following
right behind it but when the Buk missile story came out it was necessary
to silence and debunk anything else. So the internet and the sea of
Israeli assets that people it was flooded with bizarre assessments of
SU-25 altitude limitations, “proving” the Su-25 didn’t shoot down MH17,
though German forensic teams later found this was exactly what happened.
Instead,
we were told the SU-25 couldn’t fly over 20,000 feet under any
circumstances and data”proving” this was edited into Wikipedia by a
helpful wiki editor in Haifa, Israel.
However, in 2015 Duff and a
number of russian pilots, on an RT broadcast debunked this. Russian
Su-25 pilots described taking their planes well over 40,000 feet in
Afghanistan, with once describing hitting 47,000 feet.
What
we have it seems, is a full-blown cover-up, one now two years old,
where a wild and idiotic narrative is being twisted and manipulated, not
just by Kiev but now by Russian media.
This
is the sad part, and this method, a classic Israeli method, is used
continually; like throwing rotting meat to a starving dog. RT and
Sputnik have accepted a poisoned narrative covering the involvement of
Israel, Viktoria Nuland and those we believe really responsible.
With
press organisations too often staffed with poorly-trained and
poorly-paid interns or, as we have found from time-to-time, fully
complicit Israeli/CIA/Booz-Allen Hamilton/Google Idea Groups agents; the
same dirty little tricks are successfully used over and over.
This
is what we can see: Russian and Iranian media pounding Hilary Clinton
and lauding Trump, even though the latter has promised war on Iran and
direct, US military intervention against Russia’s only ally in the
middle east: Syria.
Even more suspicious and we see this
with consistency, both Iranian and Russian press will publish wildly
conspiratorial accusations against America, genuinely irresponsible crap
while key negotiations with the US are at a critical stage.
Both
Russia and Iran are seemingly ignorant of the fact that crazy stories in
their government-sponsored media feed their enemies in America, and by
enemies we invariably mean the Zionist lobby, the ammunition they need
to keep sanctions going or to undercut relations in other ways.
____________
Appendix A: The RT story from March 11th, 2015 that covers the MH17 tragedy honestly.
As
the investigation into the MH17 tragedy continues in eastern Ukraine,
the SU-25’s chief designer has told German media that the fighter jet
could not possibly have taken down the passenger plane. RT spoke to
former pilots about the jet’s capabilities.
Malaysia
Airlines flight MH17, en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, crashed
down over rebel-held eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. Everyone on board
– 283 passengers and 15 crew members – perished in the tragedy.
A
report on the official investigation published in September 2014 said
the crash was a result of structural damage caused by a large number of
high-energy objects that struck the Boeing from the outside. However, it
did not conclude what the objects were, where they came from, or who
was responsible.
Kiev
and some Western states have placed blame on eastern Ukraine militias
and Russia. The Russian Defense Ministry shared radar data pointing to
other possibilities in July – including an attack by a Ukrainian
Sukhoi-25 fighter jet, which was said to have been tracking the
passenger plane.
While an official international investigation
into the crash has been dragging on for nine months, the debate into the
cause of the tragedy has been once again reignited by recent comments
from the chief designer of the SU-25.
Kiev-born
Soviet and Russian aircraft designer Vladimir Babak said on Monday that
the SU-25 jet – which was spotted tracking the MH17 Boeing at the
moment it crashed down – did not have the capability to shoot down a
passenger plane. He said the fighter jet could have successfully
attacked the Boeing at an altitude of 3,000-4,000 meters, but not at the
plane’s altitude of 10,500 meters. He added that air-to-air missiles
would have only damaged the Boeing – not completely destroyed it while
still in the air.
“I believe all allegations that a SU-25 could be involved into this tragedy are a cover-up attempt,” Babak said in an interview to German channels NDR and WDR. “I cannot explain it otherwise. We cannot understand how an SU-25 could take down the Boeing.”
‘SU-25 capable of high altitude flights, can carry powerful missiles’
However, several former top officials and SU-25 pilots disagree with Babak.
Based
on the analysis of the plane debris and the nature of the damage, there
is a high probability the plane was stuck by an air-to-air missile and
an aircraft gun, Lieutenant General Aleksandr Maslov, former deputy
chief of the Russian Air Defense and Land Forces, told RT.
“The
published photos [from the MH17 crash site] enable to assume that the
Boeing was downed by a military jet. Besides that, the existing damage
indicates that the airplane was shot with air-to-air missiles together
with an aircraft gun with a 30mm caliber,” Maslov said.
Claims that the passenger plane was downed by a surface-to-air Buk missile “cannot be supported,” as the nature of the damage from the missiles is different, he added.
Commenting
on the jet’s ability to maneuver at higher altitudes, the former
commander of an aviation division, Major General Sergey Borysyuk, noted
that the jet would have had the capability to “maneuver comfortably,” even at such a high altitude.
“I personally flew, and not once, at an altitude of 12,000 meters…,” he said. “My
colleagues have risen to an altitude of 14,000 meters. The altitude of
10,500 was officially authorized during operations in Afghanistan.
Therefore the plane, even at an altitude of 12,000 meters, has the
capability to maneuver comfortably, its aerodynamic characteristics
enable it to do so.”
Borysyuk explained that the
R-60 missiles on the SU-25 have an infrared homing and a rod warhead.
Citing the nature of the plane’s debris and the “precisely sliced fuselage,” he said that R-60 missiles were possibly used.
“The firing range of the missile is 7.5km. And in those conditions, the probability of hitting the target increases,” he added.
The
former chief commander of Russia’s Air Force, Vladimir Mikhailov, also
said he flew the SU-25, reaching an altitude of 12,000 meters and even
14,000 meters. He also stated that the plane “comfortably maneuvers” at such heights.
“If
the plane was downed by Buk [missile defense system], it would have
almost immediately fallen to pieces in the air and we could not have
witnessed such large debris on the ground,” he said.
Along
with Russia’s Ministry of Defense, he also questioned why the MH17
flight stayed within the flying corridor until it reached Donetsk, but
then deviated from the route to the north.
In July 2014, Russia’s
Ministry of Defense presented military monitoring data which showed Kiev
military jets tracking MH17 shortly before the crash and posed a set of
questions to Ukraine over the circumstances of the tragedy, which have
still not been answered.
‘You can’t fire Buk missile in broad daylight with no witnesses’
Speculation
about the combat capabilities of the SU-25 jet stem from the Russian
definition of the aircraft’s service ceiling – which is not the same as
its absolute ceiling, as defined by the US military, Veterans Today
senior editor Gordon Duff told RT.
“The claimed
service ceiling is based on the oxygen supply in the aircraft. Now,
there is a claim that this plane [SU-25] will only work to 22,000 feet.
At the end of World War II, a German ME-262 would fly at 40,000 feet, a
P-51 Mustang propeller plane flew at 44,000 feet. The SU-25 was
developed as an analogue of the A-10 Thunderbolt, an American attack
plane. The planes have almost identical performance, except that the
SU-25 is faster and more powerful. The A-10 Thunderbolt has a service
ceiling of 45,000 feet. The US estimates the absolute ceiling, which is a
different term,” Duff explained.
The known estimate for the absolute ceiling of the SU-25 is 52,000 feet (15.8km), he added.
Moreover,
Duff said one cannot be entirely sure the detected fighter jet was an
SU-25 at all, as modern radar spoofing counter-measures – such as those
designed by BAE Systems and employed by NATO – are able to mask any
other aircraft, be it an SU-27 or F-15, as another plane.
Duff
said he also discussed the possibility of the MH17 flight having been
shot by a ground-to-air missile with experts from the FAA (Federal
Aviation Administration), the FBI, the Air Line Pilots Association, as
well as air traffic and air operational officers – and they all agreed
that no proof of anti-aircraft missile use has been provided to the
public.
It is highly unlikely that the launch of such a missile
would have gone unnoticed in the area, Duff stressed, adding that the
trail left by the rocket in the air would have been witnessed and filmed
by “thousands.”
“One of the things we
settled on early on is that in the middle of the day, if this were a Buk
missile, the contrail would have been seen for 50 miles [80km]. The
contrail itself would have been photographed by thousands of people; it
would have been on Instagram, on Twitter, it would have been all over
YouTube – and no one saw it. You can’t fire a missile on a flat area in
the middle of the day leaving a smoke trail into the air and having
everyone not see it,” Duff said.
“There is no reliable information supporting that it was a Buk missile fired by anyone,” he added.
Appendix B
RADAR SPOOFING – SPOOKY STUFF
“THE GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN RADAR IMAGINES ARE ALWAYS FAKED…”
BY GENE “CHIP” TATUM for Veterans Today
Editor’s
note: I asked Chip to do this piece based on his background with the
technologies and how vital it is for the public to know that all
information about plane locations, altitudes, speed or even plane type
have been faked though EW (Electronic Warfare) modules for years. Thus,
the radar tracking from 9/11…faked…the SU25s tracking MH17….faked as
well, wrong altitude, wrong planes, maybe not even Ukrainian or Russian
at all. An Israeli F15 taking off from Azerbaijan was “there.” Did it
magically turn into two SU 25′s? We can prove it could have. What Chip
proves is that efforts to sell government conspiracy theories based on
faked radar is going to have to come to an end. We are busting them
now.g
In 2010, Israeli fighters bombed a suspected
nuclear materials site in Syria. Here’s the million dollar question: How
did they do it without tipping off Syria’s Russian-bought air defense
radar? Israel hacked the network.
So lets consider what means could have been used and even more, how technology has advanced in the last four years.
DARPA
and the U.S. Air Force are prime users and developers of radar systems,
using them for early warning during the Cold War, when the Air Force
had both airborne and ground based radar systems deployed around the
world to guard against and detect Soviet aircraft. Radars were and
continue to be one of the most important pieces of equipment on modern
aircraft. The faster and farther away an adversary can be identified and
accurately tracked helps to give the pilot an edge that can be vital
during combat. Electronic warfare techniques (EW and ECM) and technology
have been in use since World War II and go hand in glove with radar
systems. These technologies are often used to jam, counter jam, spoof, or confuse enemy radar operators and weapon systems, allowing the aircraft to accomplish their mission.
But what exactly is Radar? And how does it work? And better yet, how can you Spoof or Fool it?
The basic idea behind radar is very simple: a signal is transmitted, it
bounces off an object and it is later received by some type of
receiver. This is like the type of thing that happens when sound echo’s
off a wall. (Check out the image on the left) However radars don’t use
sound as a signal. Instead they use certain kinds of electromagnetic
waves called radio waves and microwaves. This is where the name RADAR
comes from (RAdio Detection And Ranging). Sound is used as a signal to
detect objects in devices called SONAR (SOund NAvigation Ranging).
Another type of signal used that is relatively new is laser light that is used in devices called LIDAR (you guessed it…LIght Detection And Ranging).
Radio
waves and microwaves are two types of electromagnetic waves.
Electromagnetic waves, which I will call EM waves, like all waves,
transport energy but can do so through a vacuum. Sound waves and ocean
waves require matter to transport energy, but EM waves can do so without
the presence of matter. Because of this, satellites can use radars to
work on projects outside of the Earth’s atmosphere and on other
planets. Another useful thing about EM waves is that they travel at a
constant speed through a vacuum called the speed of light abbreviated by
the letter “c” (299,792,458 meters per second). This is very useful to
know to when doing ranging calculations.Once the
radar receives the returned signal, it calculates useful information
from it such as the time taken for it to be received, the strength of
the returned signal, or the change in frequency of the signal. This
information is then translated to reveal useful data: an image, a
position or the velocity of your target. When an EM wave hits a
surface, it gets partly reflected away from the surface and refracted
into the surface. The amount of reflection and refraction depends on the
properties of the surface and the properties of the matter which the
wave was originally traveling through. This is what happens to radar
signals when they hit objects. If a radar signal hits a surface that is
perfectly flat, then the signal gets reflected in a single direction
(the same is true for refraction). If the signal hits a surface that is
not perfectly flat (like all surfaces on Earth) then it gets reflected
in all directions. Only a very small fraction of the original signal is
transmitted back in the direction of the receiver. This small fraction
is what is known as backscatter. The typical power of a transmitted
signal is around 1 kilo-watt and the typical power of the backscatter
can be around 10 watts.
To determine the range of a distant object
that reflected a radar signal, the receiver must record the time when
the signal was received and compare it to when that signal was
transmitted. This time is the time taken for the radio wave to propagate
to the object and back to the antenna. Since all EM waves travel at the
speed of light in a vacuum, 299,792,458 meters per second (Air is not
quite a vacuum but EM waves still travel through it at approximately
this speed) it is very easy to determine how far away the object is
(just multiply the speed of light by the time for the signal to get
received). Another thing the radar does when it receives a signal is
determine how strong it is. For ground penetrating radars the strength
of the signal can tell how much the beds under the surface have
different properties. A higher received power indicates a larger
difference between neighboring beds.
Radars are being used to measure different parameters 1. Range Using Pulse Delay 2. Velocity From Doppler Frequency Shift 3. Angular Direction Using Antenna Pointing 4. Target Size From magnitude of reflected energy 5. Target Shape Analyzing reflected signal as a function of direction 6. Moving Parts Analyzing modulation of the reflected signal
Cost
and complexity of radar is dependent upon the number of functions it
performs. Radars are used for various applications like surveillance,
imaging, remote sensing, altitude measurement, etc.
Blip
enhancement is an electronic warfare technique used to fool radar. When
the radar transmits a burst of energy, some of that energy is reflected
off a target and is received back at the radar and processed to
determine range and angle. The reflected target energy is called skin
return, and the amount of energy returning to the originating radar
is directly proportional to the cross-sectional area of the target.
Basic
radars present the target information on a display and displayed
targets are referred to as blips. Based on the relative size of the
blips on the display, a radar operator could determine large targets
from small targets. When a blip enhancing technique is used, small
targets returns are augmented to look like large targets.
Electronic
Counter Measures (ECM) is practiced by nearly all modern military
units—land, sea or air. Aircraft, however, are the primary weapons in
the ECM battle because they can “see” a larger patch of earth than a sea
or land-based unit. When employed effectively, ECM can keep aircraft
from being tracked by search radars, or targeted by surface-to-air
missiles or air-to-air missiles. An aircraft ECM can take the form of an
attachable underwing pod or could be embedded in the airframe. Fighter
planes using a conventional electronically scanned antenna mount
dedicated jamming pods instead or, in the case of the US, German, and
Italian air forces, may rely on electronic warfare aircraft to carry
them.
Today, Satellites may play a major role in ECM.
But lets get back to the 2010 Raid on Syria by Israel. The system used for the raid is called Suter.
U.S.
aerospace industry and retired military officials indicated today that a
technology like the U.S.-developed “Suter” airborne network attack
system developed by BAE Systems and integrated into U.S. unmanned
aircraft by L-3 Communications was used by the Israelis. The system has
been used operationally in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The
technology allows users to invade communications networks, see what
enemy sensors see, and even take over as systems administrator so
sensors can be manipulated into positions so that approaching aircraft
can’t be seen or seen in false positions ans false sizes. The process
involves locating enemy emitters with great precision and then directing
data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading
messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control.
BAE
and the Suter system developed and used in 2010 have made major
advances in abilities. Not only can the system Spoof location, bearing,
heading, and target size, but it can also project misleading information
on aircraft in the vicinity.
For example, let’s say for sake of
discussion that a fighter jet was flying missions in the Ukraine against
Russian Separatists. Separatists missile defense systems would readily
detect such flights, identify it as a foe via the ground radar systems,
and lock on in preparation for launch. The Sutor software, however,
could forward project data showing their aircraft in another
location.The launched missile would then seek a hard target after launch
seeking any hard target in the area. If that happened to be a
commercial airliner, the missile would automatically lock on and destroy
that target. If it could not acquire a target, it would search until
fuel supply runs out and fall to earth.
Today’s electronic
battlefield is more complex and deadly than ever-particularly when it
comes to electronic surveillance and electronic warfare.
Press TV just announced
that Azerbaijan has assured Iran no Israeli attack would occur from
their territory. This is their announcement, from Tehran, moments ago:
Press
TV – Azerbaijan’s ambassador to Pakistan says Baku will not allow
Israel to use its airspace or land to carry out a military attack on
Iran or any other country.
“Azerbaijan has been following a policy of non-interference in the [internal] affairs of other countries,”Baku’s Ambassador to Pakistan Dashgin Shikrov said in an exclusive interview with the Pakistani daily The Newson Monday.
The
ambassador strongly rejected rumors in Western media outlets about his
country’s readiness for providing Israel ground facilities for attacking
Iran’s nuclear sites. “Azerbaijan is
member of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and nobody
should have any doubt that it will not permit the use of its territory
for committing acts of aggression against another OIC member,”the ambassador added.
Israel
has recently stepped up threats of carrying out a strike against Iran’s
nuclear energy facilities. The threats are based on the unfounded
claims that the peaceful nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic
include a military component.
Iranian officials have refuted the
allegation and have promised a crushing response to any military strike
against the country, warning that any such measure could result in a war
that would spread beyond the Middle East
______________________________
Earlier this week,
Reuters confirmed through two Azeri officers that Israeli forces were
in place in Azerbaijan and that the president was weighing options of
supporting their attack. That text is now below from Reuters. Their
unedited full text is at Addendum I:
Reuters – Yet
despite official denials by Azerbaijan and Israel, two Azeri former
military officers with links to serving personnel and two Russian
intelligence sources all told Reuters that Azerbaijan and Israel have
been looking at how Azeri bases and intelligence could serve in a
possible strike on Iran.
“Where
planes would fly from – from here, from there, to where? – that’s
what’s being planned now,” a security consultant with contacts at Azeri
defense headquarters in Baku said. “The Israelis … would like to gain
access to bases in Azerbaijan.”
It doesn’t take a
genius to see that Azerbaijan was “caught with their pants down” and is
now trying to lie their way out of this.
___________________________
In an explosive turn of events,
Press TV announces Azerbaijan has “turned chicken” after receiving a
chastising based on receiving an early distribution of this Veterans
Today document through Russian sources.
Additional VT staff were,
while at the Pentagon, responsible for drawing up the war plans, not
just for the initial invasion of Iran but the American invasion of
Azerbaijan, slated for 2008, as part of a Bush administration military
takeover of the entire Caspian Basin.
The map for that attack by US troops from Iran is below:
US
Army 2006 “exercise” plans predicated on a 2005 successful invasion of
Iran, confirmed by direct Pentagon sources. (the author)
The cover sheet
for the War Plans/Exercise Plans is below, a document that contained a
full outline for needed capabilities for the successful takeover of all
of the former Soviet Republics, beginning with Azerbaijan as seen on the
map above.
Today,
Azerbaijan announced it would allow Israeli planes to use their air
bases to attack Iran. Reuters published the press release from Baku,
one originally released in Veterans Today 27 months ago. From Reuters:
BAKU (Reuters)
– Israel’s “go-it-alone” option to attack Iran’s nuclear sites has set
the Middle East on edge and unsettled its main ally at the height of a
U.S. presidential election campaign.
Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu exudes impatience, saying Tehran is barely a year
from a “red line” for atomic capacity. Many fellow Israelis, however,
fear a unilateral strike, lacking U.S. forces, would fail against such a
large and distant enemy. But what if, even without Washington, Israel
were not alone?
Azerbaijan, the oil-rich ex-Soviet
republic on Iran’s far northern border, has, say local sources with
knowledge of its military policy, explored with Israel how Azeri air
bases and spy drones might help Israeli jets pull off a long-range
attack.
____________________________
This attack might have happened sooner without the break in the Turkish relations
An investigation done
by independent intelligence organizations made up of former CIA, Army
Intelligence and FBI personnel as published on June 18, 2010, discovered
a plot between Israel, Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan to attack Iran.
At
that time, Israeli planes were training in Turkey on terrain meant to
simulate Iran. Israel would send over 8 planes at a time and 6 would
return. Sources report that two would fly to Azerbaijan where Israel
now occupies two former Soviet fighter bases.
Israel was building a secret air force
in Azerbaijan. That “secret air force” is now no longer secret, it is
public knowledge but few know its history or the threat to world peace
this irresponsible act represents.
The bases were supplied
through the Georgian port of Poti with cluster and bunker-buster bombs
being delivered beginning June 10, 2010. Units of the Russian Navy
observed the deliveries and reported the incident to a world press that
suppressed the story. The ship delivering the illegal arms were flagged
American, the USS Grapple.
In consultation with intelligence operatives, it was found that the USS Grapple
had been leased to Germany who had then allowed Israel to use it to
deliver bombs to the Black Sea port under American naval identity.
USS Grapple – ARS-53
We have since learned
that Turkey, despite what they claim is a hostile relationship with
Israel, has allowed over flight by Israeli military planes who are using
Turkish air space to relocate to Azerbaijan after a two year period of
disagreement.
This relationship, negotiated between Israeli Prime
Minister Netanyahu and Turkish President Erdogan includes provision for
Turkey to assume partial territorial control of a border region inside
Syria.
Turkey is planning to seize this territory and call it a
“buffer zone” but the “buffer” may include up to 30% of Syrian
territory.
Israel and Turkey have agreed to “Balkanize” Syria. However, the roots of today’s announcement were known some time ago.
On June 18, 2010, over two years ago, this columnist released the following information:
Would Israel take the gamble, or make the U.S. do it?
“A week ago,
Israel leaked to the press that they had permission from Saudi Arabia
to use their air space to attack Iran. The Saudi’s quickly denied this.
The
effort on Israel’s part was a ruse to cover their real plans, to attack
from the Republic of Georgia, close to Iran’s northern border.
However,
the breakdown in relations with Turkey after miscalculating the
response to their Flotilla raid on a Turkish ship in international
waters may have ended this operation.
Israel, whose arms
agreements with Turkey mounted to nearly 5 billion dollars over a period
of years, had been training pilots in Turkey for bombing attacks on
Iran. During these training missions, Israel was smuggling aircraft
through Turkish airspace.
Sources indicate that Georgia
has become a major transshipment point for narcotics from Afghanistan
and other countries in the region. Both a land route through Turkey and
into Northern Cyprus and air and sea routes directly into Europe and
North America have been cited.
Turkey had allowed Israel
to use their air space for training because their terrain closely
resembled areas of Iran that Israel planned to attack. However, Turkey
was unaware that planes involved in this effort were being relocated to
forward staging areas in the Republic of Georgia, making Turkey,
technically, fully complicit in this planned illegal attack.
Israeli F-15
Helping coordinate
the attack are intelligence units forward stationed in Azerbaijan,
under the guise of technicians, trainers and advisors under the broad
armaments agreements with that small nation.
Supply
operations, moving necessary ordnance, much of it supplied by the United
States under ammunition storage agreements, is being moved through the
Black Sea to the Georgian Port of Poti, a major site for exporting coal
and manganese ore.
Cover for the supply operations is
being performed by the Georgian Coast Guard, set up by Israel and manned
with Israeli observers. Their job is to keep Russian surveillance craft
away from supply operations under the guise of a “Gaza type” naval
blockade of Abkhazia, a separatist province supported by Russia.”
Reuters, in its story published today indicated confirmed sources within the military intelligence community of Azerbaijan. Reuters goes further:
Israeli F-16
“Yet despite official denials
by Azerbaijan and Israel, two Azeri former military officers with links
to serving personnel and two Russian intelligence sources all told
Reuters that Azerbaijan and Israel have been looking at how Azeri bases
and intelligence could serve in a possible strike on Iran.
“Where
planes would fly from – from here, from there, to where? – that’s
what’s being planned now,” a security consultant with contacts at Azeri
defense headquarters in Baku said. “The Israelis … would like to gain
access to bases in Azerbaijan.”
“ICEBERG” RELATIONSHIP
That
Aliyev, an autocratic ally of Western governments and oil firms, has
become a rare Muslim friend of the Jewish state – and an object of scorn
in Tehran – is no secret; a $1.6-billion arms deal involving dozens of
Israeli drones, and Israel’s thirst for Azerbaijan’s Caspian Sea crude,
are well documented.
Israel’s foreign minister visited Baku in April this year.
But
a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable from 2009 quoted Aliyev, who succeeded
his father in 2003, describing relations with Israel as “like an
iceberg, nine tenths … below the surface”.
_____________________________
The unknown factor
is Azerbaijan’s ability to withstand a massive and immediate ground
assault from Iran. US Army experts on the region indicate that Iran has
a “superhighway direct to Baku,” the capitol of Azerbaijan and keystone
to the massive Baku/Ceyhan pipeline.
Azerbaijan’s military,
45,000 active duty, a few thousand reserves and an unarmed and untrained
inactive reserve of 300,000 veterans is extremely small in comparison
to Iran’s military.
A
reasonable estimate is that, under the best of cases with support from
both Turkey and Israel, that Baku could fall in 48 hours or less, should
they choose to participate in an unprovoked attack on Iran.
If you are not getting a piece of the oil biz, drugs are the only option
Azerbaijan is closely aligned
with Turkey. However, they fought and lost a war in the early 1990’s
against Armenia. Azerbaijan lost 16% of their territory at that time.
During
that war, Azerbaijan turned to Al Qaeda and Chechen forces for support,
an act that angered Russia. Azerbaijan is still a “safe haven” for
terrorists and is commonly used to transit narcotics from Afghanistan
and is a “way station” in human trafficking.
It is believed that
an Israeli attack launched from Azerbaijan would unleash an immediate
response from Armenia against Azerbaijan. The two nations have been at
the verge of hostilities for nearly two decades.
A recent estimate of regional forces paints a very dark picture for Azerbaijan:
Since the fall of the Soviet Union,
Armenia has followed a policy of developing its armed forces into a
professional, well trained, and mobile military. In 2000, Centre for
International Studies and Research reported that at that time the
Armenian Army had the strongest combat capability of the three Caucasus
countries’ armies (the other two being Georgia and Azerbaijan.
CSTO
Secretary, Nikolay Bordyuzha, came to a similar conclusion after
collective military drills in 2007 when he stated that, “the Armenian
Army is the most efficient one in the post-Soviet space”.
This
was echoed more recently by Igor Korotchenko, a member of the Public
Council, Russian Ministry of Defense, in a March 2011 interview with
Voice of Russia radio.
___________________________
CASPIAN OIL SUPPLIES AT RISK
Check
out the company names on these oil fields. All would be grabbed in an
attack on Iran as compensation for the pre-emptive strike.
The 1100 mile pipeline
is the only outlet for oil from the Caspian basin to outlets on the
Mediterranean. A branch of the pipeline services the massive Kirkuk oil
fields of Northern Iraq.
The pipeline is owned by a number of companies with BP having a 30 percent stake.
The
25% stake theoretically held by SOCAR, the state oil company of
Azerbaijan is under Israeli control, as collateral to underwrite Israeli
weapons sales.
Israel has an agreement to link to the pipeline
through Iraq, a deal negotiated between the Elat Ashkian Pipeline
Company of Israel and the US backed Chalabi government that assumed
control of Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
It is no longer clear as to whether the current government in Baghdad is still interested in this project.
Additional threats
to the pipeline are in Armenia, where it may also be intercepted and in
Turkey, where the PKK, a Kurdish separatist group, has put the pipeline
out of commission many times.
The significance of the pipeline is
great in that, even if Iran has no rationale to cut oil supplies
through the Straits of Hormuz, it could easily gain control of 5% of the
world’s oil output and put all Caspian Basin oil off the market without
in any way interfering with free transit of sea-lanes.
Additionally,
the transit fees charged for use of the pipeline are a major source of
revenue for both Georgia and Turkey, a source that would immediately
end.
Two “wild card” issues are Russia and Iraq. As
Iraq’s government is now under Shiite control and Azerbaijan’s relations
with, not just Armenia but Russia have been extremely poor, the chances
for this move by Israel turning into a regional conflict or world war
are very high.
Taking into account Turkey’s “ham handed” plotting
with Israel against Syria and their attempts to spread influence into
Central Asia, their short lived position as a potential leader in the
Islamic World has clearly taken a “back seat” to Iran, Egypt, Pakistan
and Indonesia.
Israel’s timetable to attack from Azerbaijan is entirely dependent on the risks their long time but highly secretive ally is willing to accept.
Minimally,
Azerbaijan might actually disappear. In a best case scenario, they
would lose additional territory to Armenia and suffer total devastation
of their oil production and processing facilities and destruction of
their armed forces.
For
the rest of the world, the result, as expected, higher gasoline prices,
higher food prices and more threats to currencies already nearing
collapse.
Editing: Jim W. Dean
______________________________
Addendum I
By Thomas Grove
BAKU | Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:46pm EDT
(Reuters)
– Israel’s “go-it-alone” option to attack Iran’s nuclear sites has set
the Middle East on edge and unsettled its main ally at the height of a
U.S. presidential election campaign.
Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu exudes impatience, saying Tehran is barely a year from a “red
line” for atomic capacity. Many fellow Israelis, however, fear a
unilateral strike, lacking U.S. forces, would fail against such a large
and distant enemy.
But what if, even without Washington, Israel were not alone?
Azerbaijan,
the oil-rich ex-Soviet republic on Iran’s far northern border, has, say
local sources with knowledge of its military policy, explored with
Israel how Azeri air bases and spy drones might help Israeli jets pull
off a long-range attack.
That is a far cry from the massive
firepower and diplomatic cover that Netanyahu wants from Washington.
But, by addressing key weaknesses in any Israeli war plan – notably on
refueling, reconnaissance and rescuing crews – such an alliance might
tilt Israeli thinking on the feasibility of acting without U.S. help.
It
could also have violent side-effects more widely and many doubt Azeri
President Ilham Aliyev would risk harming the energy industry on which
his wealth depends, or provoking Islamists who dream of toppling his
dynasty, in pursuit of favor from Israel.
Yet despite official
denials by Azerbaijan and Israel, two Azeri former military officers
with links to serving personnel and two Russian intelligence sources all
told Reuters that Azerbaijan and Israel have been looking at how Azeri
bases and intelligence could serve in a possible strike on Iran.
“Where
planes would fly from – from here, from there, to where? – that’s
what’s being planned now,” a security consultant with contacts at Azeri
defense headquarters in Baku said. “The Israelis … would like to gain
access to bases in Azerbaijan.”
“ICEBERG” RELATIONSHIP
That
Aliyev, an autocratic ally of Western governments and oil firms, has
become a rare Muslim friend of the Jewish state – and an object of scorn
in Tehran – is no secret; a $1.6-billion arms deal involving dozens of
Israeli drones, and Israel’s thirst for Azerbaijan’s Caspian Sea crude,
are well documented.
Israel’s foreign minister visited Baku in April this year.
But
a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable from 2009 quoted Aliyev, who succeeded
his father in 2003, describing relations with Israel as “like an
iceberg, nine tenths … below the surface”.
That he would risk the
wrath of his powerful neighbor by helping wage war on Iran is, however,
something his aides flatly deny; wider consequences would also be hard
to calculate from military action in a region where Azerbaijan’s
“frozen” conflict with Armenia is just one of many elements of
volatility and where major powers from Turkey, Iran and Russia to the
United States, western Europe and even China all jockey for influence.
Nonetheless,
Rasim Musabayov, an independent Azeri lawmaker and a member of
parliament’s foreign affairs committee, said that, while he had no
definitive information, he understood that Azerbaijan would probably
feature in any Israeli plans against Iran, at least as a contingency for
refueling its attack force:
“Israel has a problem in that if it is going to bomb Iran, its nuclear sites, it lacks refueling,” Musabayov told Reuters.
“I think their plan includes some use of Azerbaijan access.
“We
have (bases) fully equipped with modern navigation, anti-aircraft
defenses and personnel trained by Americans and if necessary they can be
used without any preparations,” he added.
U.S. CONCERNS
The
administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has made clear it does
not welcome Israel’s occasional talk of war and that it prefers
diplomacy and economic sanctions to deflect an Iranian nuclear program
that Tehran denies has military uses.
Having also invested in Azerbaijan’s defenses and facilities used by U.S. forces in transit to Afghanistan, Washington also seems unlikely to cheer Aliyev joining any action against Iran.
The Azeri president’s team insist that that will not happen.
“No
third country can use Azerbaijan to perpetrate an attack on Iran. All
this talk is just speculation,” said Reshad Karimov from Aliyev’s staff.
He was echoing similar denials issued in Baku and from Israel when the
journal Foreign Policy quoted U.S. officials in March voicing alarm that
Azeri-Israeli action could thwart U.S. diplomacy toward Iran and across
the Caucasus.
Israeli officials dismiss talk of Azeri collaboration in any attack on Iran but decline public comment on specific details.
Even
speaking privately, few Israeli officials will discuss the issue. Those
who do are skeptical, saying overt use of Azeri bases by Israel would
provoke too many hostile reactions. One political source did, however,
say flying unmarked tanker aircraft out of Azerbaijan to extend the
range and payloads of an Israeli bombing force might play a part in
Israeli planning.
Though denying direct knowledge of current
military thinking on Iran, the Israeli said one possibility might be
“landing a refueling plane there, made to look like a civilian airliner,
so it could later take off to rendezvous mid-air with IAF jets”.
A
thousand miles separates Tehran and Tel Aviv, putting much of Iran
beyond the normal ranges of Israel’s U.S.-made F-16 bombers and their
F-15 escorts. So refueling could be critical.
INTELLIGENCE COOPERATION
There
is far from unanimity among Israeli leaders about the likelihood of any
strike on Iran’s nuclear plants, whether in a wider, U.S.-led operation
or not. Netanyahu’s “red line” speech to the United Nations last week
was seen by many in Israel as making any strike on Iran unlikely – for
at least a few months.
Many, however, also assume Israel has long
spied on and even sabotaged what the Western powers say are plans for
atomic weapons which Israel says would threaten its very existence.
A
second Israeli political source called the idea of Azerbaijan being
either launch pad or landing ground for Israeli aircraft “ludicrous” –
but agreed with the first source that it was fair to assume joint
Israeli-Azeri intelligence operations.
The Azeri sources said such cooperation was established.
As
part of last year’s arms deal, Azerbaijan is building up to 60
Israeli-designed drones, giving it reconnaissance means far greater than
many analysts believe would be needed just to guard oil installations
or even to mount any operations against the breakaway, ethnic Armenian
enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.
“With these drones, (Israel) can
indirectly watch what’s happening in Iran, while we protect our
borders,” legislator Musabayov said – a view shared by Azeri former
military sources.
Less reserved than Israeli officials, the
sources in Azerbaijan and in Russian intelligence, which keeps a close
eye on its former Soviet backyard, said Baku could offer Israel much
more, however – though none believed any deal was yet settled.
The
country, home to nine million people whose language is close to Turkish
and who mostly share the Shi’ite Muslim faith of Iran, has four
ex-Soviet air bases that could be suitable for Israeli jets, the Azeri
sources said. They named central Kyurdamir, Gyanja in the west and
Nasosny and Gala in the east.
The Pentagon says it helped upgrade
Nasosny airfield for NATO use. It also uses Azeri commercial facilities
in transit to Afghanistan. But U.S. military aid to Azerbaijan is
limited by Washington’s role as a mediator in its dispute with Armenia.
One
of the sources with links to the Azeri military said: “There is not a
single official base of the United States and even less so of Israel on
the territory of Azerbaijan. But that is ‘officially’. Unofficially they
exist, and they may be used.”
The source said Iran had been a main topic of talks in April with Israel’s Soviet-born foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman.
RECONNAISSANCE, RESCUE
Azeri
tarmac, a shorter flight from key sites in northern Iran including the
Fordow underground uranium enrichment plant and missile batteries at
Tabriz, might feature in Israeli war planning in less direct ways, the
former Azeri officers said.
With Israel wary of its vulnerability
to pressure over air crew taken prisoner, plans for extracting downed
pilots may be a key feature of any attack plan. Search and rescue
helicopters might operate from Azerbaijan, the sources said – or planes
that were hit or low on fuel could land at Azeri bases in extremis.
Such engagement carries risks for Azerbaijan and its oil platforms and pipelines operated with international companies.
Defending
against Iran is part of public debate in Baku. The United States has
provided Azerbaijan with three Coast Guard cutters and has funded seven
coastal radar sites as well as giving Baku other help in protecting its
oil installations.
Relations have long been strained between the
former Soviet state and Iran, which is home to twice as many ethnic
Azeris as Azerbaijan itself. Tehran beams an Azeri-language television
channel over the border which portrays Aliyev as a puppet of Israel and
the West, as well as highlighting corruption in Baku.
Azerbaijan sees Iranian hands behind its Islamist opposition and both countries have arrested alleged spies and agitators.
Faced
with an uneven balance of force, Aliyev’s government makes no bones
about Israel being an ally. As one presidential aide, speaking on
condition of anonymity, explained: “We live in a dangerous neighborhood;
that is what is the most powerful driving force for our relationship
with Israel.”
However, Israel’s confrontation with Iran may turn
out, the arms build-up in Azerbaijan, including recent Israeli upgrades
for its Soviet T-72 tanks, may have consequences for the wider region
and for the stand-off with Armenia – consequences that would trouble all
the powers with stakes in the Caspian region.
“We keep buying
arms. On the one hand, it’s a good strategy to frighten Armenia,” one of
the former Azeri officers said of the shaky, 18-year-old ceasefire over
Nagorno-Karabakh. “But you don’t collect weapons to hang on the wall
and gather dust.
“One day, all these could be used.”
(Additional reporting by Dan Williams in Jerusalem and Phil Stewart in Washington; Editing by Alastair Macdonald)
No comments:
Post a Comment