{"id":201658,"date":"2020-01-30T07:33:51","date_gmt":"2020-01-30T07:33:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=201658"},"modified":"2020-02-02T08:58:02","modified_gmt":"2020-02-02T08:58:02","slug":"u-s-in-the-middle-east-preparing-for-disaster","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=201658","title":{"rendered":"U.S in the Middle-East: Preparing for Disaster"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Saker \u2013 The Unz Review Jan 30, 2020<\/strong><\/h1>\n
\"\"<\/a>

US soldiers clear rubble at the Ain al-Asad military airbase in Anbar province after an Iranian missile strike. Click to enlarge<\/p><\/div>\n

Lies, damn lies and statistics<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Turns out that Trump and the Pentagon were lying. Again. This time about the true impact of the Iranian counter-strike on US forces in Syria. First they claimed that there were no injured U.S. personnel, only to eventually have to fess up that 34 soldiers had suffered traumatic brain injury<\/strong><\/span><\/a> (which Trump \u201cre-classified\u201d as a \u201cheadache\u201d). Then they had to admit that it was not really 34, but actually 50<\/strong><\/span><\/a>!<\/span><\/p>\n

According to some sources, not all U.S. personnel were hiding in bunkers and some were deployed to defend the base perimeter. Whatever may be the case, this adds yet another indication that the Iranian counter-strike was much more robust than originally reported by the Empire. In fact, Iranian sources indicate that following the strike, a number of wounded casualties were flown to Israel, Kuwait and Germany. Again, we will probably never find out the full truth about what happened that night, but two things are now certain:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The Iranian attack was extremely effective and it is undeniable that all the US\/NATO\/Israeli forces in the region are now exposed like sitting ducks waiting for the next Iranian strike.<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Uncle Shmuel has had to dramatically under-report the real extent and nature of the Iranian counter-strike.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Now, let\u2019s be clear about the quality of the warning the U.S. personnel had. We now know at the very least the following warnings were received:<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Warning through the Iraqi government (whom the Iranians did brief about their intentions).<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. Warning through the Swiss authorities (who represent U.S. interests in Iran and whom the Iranian did brief about their intentions).<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. Warning through the US reconnaissance\/intelligence capabilities<\/strong><\/a> on the ground, air and space.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      And yet, in spite of these almost ideal conditions (from the point of view of defense), we now see that not a single Iranian missile was intercepted, that the missiles all landed with very high accuracy, that the U.S. base itself suffered extensive damage (including destroyed helicopters and drones) and that there were scores of injured personnel (see this article<\/strong><\/span><\/a> for a detailed discussion of the post-attack imagery).<\/span><\/p>\n

      If we look at this strike as primarily a \u201cproof of concept\u201d operation, then it becomes pretty clear that on the Iranian side what was proven was a superb degree of accuracy and robust ballistic missile capability, whereas on the U.S. side the only thing this strike did was to prove that the U.S. forces in the region are all extremely vulnerable to Iranian missile attack. Just imagine if the Iranians had wanted to maximize U.S. casualties and if they had given no warning of any kind \u2013 what would the tally be then?! What if the Iranians had targeted, say, fuel and ammo dumps, buildings where U.S. personnel lived, industrial facilities (including CENTCOM\u2019s key logistic nodes), ports or even airfields? Can you imagine the kind of hell the Iranians would have unleashed against basically unprotected facilities?!<\/span><\/p>\n

      Still dubious?<\/span><\/p>\n

      Then ask yourself why Trump & Co. had to lie and minimize the real scope of the Iranian attack. It is pretty obvious that the White House decided to lie and to present the strike as almost without impact because if it had admitted the magnitude of the strike, then it would also have had to admit to the total powerlessness to stop or even to meaningfully degrade it. Not only that, but an outraged U.S. public (most Americans still believe the traditional propaganda line about \u201cThe Greatest Military Force in the History of the Galaxy\u201d!) would have demanded a retaliatory counter-counter-strike against Iran, which would have triggered an immediate Iranian attack on Israel<\/a><\/strong><\/span> which, in turn, would have plunged the entire region into a massive war which the U.S. had no stomach for.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Contrast that with the Iranian claims which, if anything, possibly exaggerated the impact of the strike and claimed that 80 servicemen were injured (I would add here that, at least so far, the Iranian government has been far more candid and less inclined to resort to crude lies than the U.S. has). Clearly the Iranians were ready for exactly the kind of further escalation that the U.S. wanted to avoid at almost any cost.<\/span><\/p>\n

      So what really took place?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

      There are two basic ways to defend against an attack: denial and punishment. Denial is what the Syrians have been doing against the U.S. and Israel every time they shoot down incoming missiles. Denial is ideal because it minimizes your own casualties while not necessarily going up the \u201cescalation scale\u201d. In contrast, punishment is when you don\u2019t prevent an attack, but when you inflict retaliatory counter-strike on the attacking side, but only after being attacked yourself. That is what the US could do against Iran, at pretty much at any time (yes, contrary to some wholly unrealistic claims, Iranian air defenses cannot prevent the US armed forces from inflicting immense damage upon Iran, its population and infrastructure).<\/span><\/p>\n

      The problem with punishing Iran is you are dealing with an enemy who is actually willing to absorb immense losses as long as these losses eventually lead to victory. How do you deter somebody who is willing to die for his country, people or faith?<\/span><\/p>\n

      There is no doubt in my mind that the Iranians, who are superb analysts, are fully aware of the damage that the U.S. can inflict. The key factor here is that they also realize that once the U.S. unleashes its missiles and bombers and once they destroy many (if not all) of their targets, they will have nothing else left to try to contain Iran with.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Here is how you can think of the Iranian strategy:<\/span><\/p>\n